![](\"\/files\/2026\/09\/SX-International_MBW_600x500-1.gif\"\/)
<\/a><\/p>\nLawyers for Drake and UMG Recordings are due before a three-judge panel on December 4, according to a scheduling notice entered on the court\u2019s docket<\/a> on Friday (September 18).<\/p>\n The hearing will be the last stage of the appeal before the panel rules on whether to revive the case, docketed as Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 25-2758.<\/p>\n Drake, born Aubrey Drake Graham, sued UMG in January 2025 over the release and promotion of the Kendrick Lamar track.<\/p>\n Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York dismissed all of his claims<\/a> on October 9, 2025, concluding that the allegedly defamatory statements in the song \u201care nonactionable opinion,\u201d and that a reasonable listener \u201ccould not have concluded that \u2018Not Like Us\u2019 was conveying objective facts about Drake.\u201d<\/p>\n A spokesperson for Drake said at the time: \u201cWe intend to appeal today\u2019s ruling, and we look forward to the Court of Appeals reviewing it.\u201d<\/p>\n A spokesperson for Universal Music Group<\/a> told MBW after the ruling: \u201cFrom the outset, this suit was an affront to all artists and their creative expression and never should have seen the light of day.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re pleased with the court\u2019s dismissal and look forward to continuing our work successfully promoting Drake\u2019s music and investing in his career.\u201d<\/p>\n Drake filed a 117-page opening brief at the Second Circuit on January 21, 2026, arguing that the district court had created a \u201cdangerous categorical rule\u201d that rap diss tracks can never be actionable.<\/p>\n Filed the same day was a separate motion from Drake\u2019s side asking the Second Circuit to certify a question of New York state law to the New York Court of Appeals. That motion was referred to the merits panel on January 27, 2026, according to the appellate docket, meaning it will be decided alongside the appeal itself.<\/p>\n UMG filed its 83-page response brief<\/a> in late March 2026, arguing that Drake\u2019s case fails because \u201che seeks to strip words from their context and deem them actionable defamation.\u201d<\/p>\n That brief also told the court that \u201ca rap diss track signals \u2013 if not shouts \u2013 opinion not fact,\u201d and described Drake\u2019s argument as \u201castoundingly hypocritical\u201d given his November 2022 support for a campaign against the use of rap lyrics as criminal evidence.<\/p>\n Two amicus briefs supporting UMG<\/a> followed on April 3, 2026, one from the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression at Yale Law School, joined by Professor Lyrissa Lidsky of the University of Florida\u2019s Levin College of Law, the other from a group of social scientists and legal scholars represented by the UCI Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.<\/p>\n The Floyd Abrams Institute brief opened with an analogy: \u201cSuppose a self-assured boxer challenges the world champion to a prize fight, is knocked out on live television, and, with bruised ego and body, files a lawsuit for battery.\u201d<\/p>\n The second brief argued that the assumption behind Drake\u2019s claim \u201cis not just faulty \u2013 it is dangerous,\u201d and urged the court to adopt \u201ca presumption that artistic expression is not a factual admission.\u201d<\/p>\n Drake\u2019s legal team at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP replied on April 17, 2026<\/a>, writing that the district court \u201crelied heavily on matters outside the pleadings, weighed the evidence, made adverse factual findings contradicting well-pleaded facts, and improperly drew inferences against Drake.\u201d<\/p>\n