--- title: UMG needed Drake to prove someone knew. Now it says DistroKid's ignorance 'wouldn't be a defense' publisher: RapCanon canonical: https://rapcanon.com/news/umg-drake-distrokid-two-standards-2026/ license: CC-BY-4.0 retrieved: 2026-09-21 --- > In 2025 UMG told a court Drake had to name specific people at the label who knew Not Like Us was false, and mocked his claims for resting 'on information and belief'. In its 2026 lawsuit against DistroKid, UMG says ignorance 'wouldn't be a defense anyway' and pleads on information and belief six times. The filings, side by side. Home / News / Umg Drake Distrokid Two Standards 2026 Ledger Read · Same label, two filings # UMG needed Drake to prove someone knew. Now it says ignorance wouldn't be a defense. When Drake sued over Not Like Us, UMG told the court he had to name specific people at the label who knew the song was false, and mocked his claims for resting on "information and belief". Two days ago UMG sued DistroKid, and wrote the opposite sentences. We read both filings. Here they are, side by side. By CLERK · the desk that reads the paperwork · 17 Sep 2026 2025 S.D.N.Y. · No. 1:25‑cv‑399 ## Graham v. UMG Recordings Drake says UMG published and pushed a record it knew was defamatory. Dismissed 9 October 2025. On appeal. UMG is defending vs 2026 D. Del. · filed 15 Sep 2026 ## UMG and Capitol v. DistroKid UMG says a distributor knowingly kept shipping infringing recordings and AI content farms. UMG is suing The quote duel ## Three questions. UMG answered each one twice. Left: UMG's motion to dismiss Drake's case. Right: UMG's complaint against DistroKid. Every line is quoted from the filing itself, linked under each quote. Round 1 Does the company have to know? UMG as defendant Because UMG is a corporation, Drake must also plead "specific allegations that individuals at [UMG] acted with actual malice" ... Drake does not‑‑and cannot‑‑plead that any specific person acted with actual malice. UMG motion to dismiss, 2025 vs UMG as plaintiff DistroKid cannot claim ignorance (which wouldn't be a defense anyway). UMG and Capitol complaint, ¶17, 2026 Round 2 Is "on information and belief" good enough? UMG as defendant All of his allegations are "on information and belief." UMG, attacking Drake's bot and payola claims, 2025 vs UMG as plaintiff 6x in 52 pages On information and belief, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, and possibly more of the recordings distributed by DistroKid are purely AI content UMG and Capitol complaint, ¶108, 2026 Round 3 What did the company actually do? UMG as defendant UMG released a rap diss track, conveying rhetoric and insults UMG motion to dismiss, footnote 16, 2025 vs UMG as plaintiff DistroKid has recording-by-recording knowledge and has made a business decision to keep infringing everywhere DistroKid has not yet been caught. UMG and Capitol complaint, ¶17, 2026 What UMG says it found ## The "artists" at the centre of the DistroKid case UMG's complaint names three account holders to show what it calls an AI-slop pipeline. Bars at true scale. The red share is the portion the complaint says is raw output from the AI generator Suno. Lofi Chill 4,562 tracks in 12 months DistroKid's highest-volume account holder, per the complaint. No Suno share given. Chill Flow Radio 1,901 tracks in 12 months over 97% raw Suno output, per the complaint Mellow Vibes Radio 1,615 tracks in 12 months over 98% raw Suno output, per the complaint tracks in 12 months raw Suno output, per the complaint $150K maximum statutory damages per work UMG asks for, under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) ~12M tracks DistroKid sent one streaming service in six months, "over half of all tracks delivered", per the complaint 30-40% of newly distributed music: DistroKid's own claim, as quoted in the complaint Footnote 5 of the complaint: "This lawsuit is not about the distribution of AI-generated music when clearly disclosed as such." Figures from the stamped complaint, via MBW. How we got here ## Twenty months, two courtrooms - Jan 2025Drake sues UMGS.D.N.Y. No. 1:25‑cv‑399. Defamation, harassment, and a deceptive-practices claim over bots and payola. - 2025UMG moves to dismissOpinion, no actual malice, and allegations made "on information and belief". - 9 Oct 2025Case dismissedJudge Vargas: a heated rap battle would not make listeners think Not Like Us states facts (NBC). - Jan 2026Drake's opening briefThe appeal reaches the Second Circuit (MBW). - Mar-Apr 2026Briefing closesUMG responds, asks for oral argument on 10 April; Drake replies 17 April (MBW). - 15 Sep 2026UMG sues DistroKidD. Del. Deceptive trade practices plus direct and vicarious infringement. - NextSecond CircuitNo argument date or ruling found as of 17 September 2026. The fair objection ### UMG's lawyers would say these are different laws. They are right. That is the point. - Defamation and copyright use different standards. A public figure suing for defamation has to show actual malice, a First Amendment rule. Copyright infringement does not require knowledge at all; knowledge mostly moves the damages. So "ignorance wouldn't be a defense" is a correct statement of copyright law. - "On information and belief" is routine pleading. UMG's 2025 attack was that Drake's bot and payola scheme was implausible, not that the phrase itself is forbidden. - UMG never claimed to be a mere pipe for Not Like Us. It owned the release and won on opinion: the judge found a heated rap battle would not make listeners think the song states facts (NBC). The law gives a label a high bar when it is the one that published, and a low bar when it is the one suing. UMG used both in the same two years, and an artist is the one who found out which is which. 01 The Second Circuit Drake argues the dismissal created a categorical rule that diss tracks can never be defamatory (MBW). No argument date found yet. 02 DistroKid's answer Whether DistroKid attacks the "on information and belief" allegations the way UMG attacked Drake's. 03 Knowledge, in writing If DistroKid argues it could not know what millions of uploads contained, UMG's 2025 brief will be the most quoted document in the case. Primary documents. We read both filings in full and quote them exactly. Double hyphens are as written in the filings. - UMG Recordings' memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss, Graham v. UMG Recordings, S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25‑cv‑399 - Complaint, UMG Recordings, Capitol Records and Capitol CMG v. DistroKid, D. Del., filed 15 September 2026 - Music Business Worldwide on the DistroKid suit · MBW on Drake's appeal · NBC on the dismissal Published 2026-09-17. Corrections are dated and public. Related: Drake's FOMO tracklist · The 35-year clock · Ownership --- ## How to cite this page **APA** RapCanon. (2026). UMG needed Drake to prove someone knew. Now it says DistroKid's ignorance 'wouldn't be a defense'. Retrieved from https://rapcanon.com/news/umg-drake-distrokid-two-standards-2026/ **BibTeX** ```bibtex @misc{rapcanon-news-umg-drake-distrokid-two-standards-2, title = {UMG needed Drake to prove someone knew. Now it says DistroKid's ignorance 'wouldn't be a defense'}, author = {{RapCanon}}, year = {2026}, url = {https://rapcanon.com/news/umg-drake-distrokid-two-standards-2026/}, note = {Accessed: 2026-09-21} } ``` **Wikipedia** ``` {{cite web |title=UMG needed Drake to prove someone knew. Now it says DistroKid's ignorance 'wouldn't be a defense' |url=https://rapcanon.com/news/umg-drake-distrokid-two-standards-2026/ |publisher=RapCanon |access-date=2026-09-21}} ``` Licensed CC-BY 4.0. Reuse it, including commercially, with attribution and a link back. Canonical HTML: https://rapcanon.com/news/umg-drake-distrokid-two-standards-2026/