In the appeal brief, he and his lawyers argued some additional points in comparison to their previous brief, which some scholars pushed back on. The key pursuit of this appeal is to reverse the dismissal and hold the record company accountable for their alleged defamation and manipulation.

In Other News..."Yeehaw or Yikes? Emily Elizabeth's Fringe Bikini Melts Hearts—But Is Her Cowgirl Flair Ready for Stardom?"

For those unaware, the lawsuit’s dismissal by a federal judge rests on the track’s lyrics being “non-actionable opinion” in a rap beef context that “reasonable listeners” would understand to be exaggeratory. But Drizzy and his team believe this is a misleading and damaging interpretation.

Most notably, they argued “Not Like Us” is so much more popular than the other disses, diminishing the worth of the rap beef’s context. More specifically, they cited his own “Taylor Made Freestyle” diss (which the judge’s dismissal also referenced as precedent for “Not Like Us”) and defended its limited availability on the Internet. They argued that “Taylor Made” and “Not Like Us” may both be diss tracks, but to equate them like this is misrepresentative.

Elsewhere, the appeal brief fired back at UMG’s arguments against Drake’s “Not Like Us” lawsuit. His team believes the track’s lyrics cross the line from exaggeration to defamation, were presented in a commercial package including cover art that continues to reference the pedophilia allegations, and were aggressively pushed and promoted by his label to damage his reputation.

Drake’s attorneys believe this lawsuit’s dismissal could set a dangerous precedent for all lyrics automatically getting protection in diss contexts, no matter how serious they may be. For the next part of this appeal, both sides will make their oral arguments to a panel of appellate judges asking questions. The court has yet to set a date for that.