Unsurprisingly, Drake's label Universal Music Group launched a motion to dismiss the rapper's revised litigation filed in April.

Drake filed an initial lawsuit against UMG in January against Kendrick Lamar’s “Don’t Like Us,” claiming the tag was intentionally slandered by promoting the song. In March, UMG filed a motion for firing. Last month, Drake's legal counsel revised the focus of the events that have occurred since the initial submission and claimed that UMG had intentionally negotiated and promoted "Don't Like Us" through Lamar's Super Bowl show and agreed to the track broadcast on the 2025 Grammy Awards.

On Wednesday, UMG applied for dismissal again, this time a complaint against the revised one, largely maintaining the arguments of the original motion while resolving the latest claims in the latest complaint. The company's attorney first noted that Drake filed an amended complaint, "he removed allegations of obvious false facts" and described the new allegations as "surprising."

Regarding the Super Bowl performance, UMG's lawyer wrote: "As Drake admits, Lamar's Super Bowl show does not include the lyrics that Drake or his colleagues are "a certified pedophile" (i.e., the so-called "slanderous material" is at the heart of the case. Pedophilia - The case is: Drake's attack on the commercial and creative success of defeating his rap artist, not the content of Lamar's lyrics."

In a statement typeA UMG spokesperson shared: "In more than a hundred pages 'legitimate' blather written by Drake's lawyers, it's hard for them to admit that Drake himself has written and performed a large number of successful songs that contain the same provocative ridicule of other artists. They are not that they were both propaganda and Drake's performance when Drake started this particular exchange, his lawyers could both promote and Drake's performance, even if he was involved in "defamation" in the exact same creative expression."

Drake's representative did not respond typeMake a request for comment.

Throughout the 33-page document, typeUMG made some arguments in its initial firing motion. The company's attorneys claimed that Drake justified his defamation claim, and he "chosen" anonymous online comments to prove that listeners took "not like us" as fact rather than art or exaggeration. They argue that “the subjective opinions of a few are not taken into account in this, especially as found here (as here) in anonymous online comments, which are well known to be unreliable.”

In addition, UMG's lawyers noted that Drake withdrew his previous "false allegation" that UMG paid to use the robot "don't like us," as stated in the podcast. They claimed Drake is now citing another podcast host who said Lamar used a robot and that he relied on anonymous X comments since then, accusing Lamar of accusing Lamar of “buying promotions” of bringing “Clown (Drake’s Laws Law)suit” and another article claiming that Umg and Lamar used Bot Streamer. "The court rejects such complaints based on online comments, because online comments are simply unable to justify a reasonable factual claim," they wrote.

In their statement typeUMG continues: “Drake’s lawyers can also continue to seek evidence of “discovering” wild conspiracies about why a frustrating Drake’s song has a huge global appeal, but nothing to “discover”. Beyond that: By working with our artists, we are a role model for their music and their ongoing partnerships and their enduring success.

Despite UMG's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the findings in the lawsuit are still underway. In early April, the judge denied UMG's requirement to keep the discovery process required and allowed Drake to require access to files, including Lamar's contract with the tag.