GloRilla is pushing back against a copyright lawsuit in Louisiana federal court that accuses her of lifting a viral phrase about body image for her track “Never Find.”
The Memphis rapper, along with UMG Recordings, Warner Chappell Music and BMG Rights Management, filed a motion to dismiss a complaint brought by Natalie Henderson, also known as Slimdabodylast.
Henderson claims GloRilla’s lyrics echo her own from a song titled “All Natural,” which includes the phrase “all naturale, no BBL”—a reference to Brazilian Butt Lifts.
Henderson alleges her line gained traction on social media after she posted videos highlighting her unaltered figure in early 2024.
She argues GloRilla’s line—”Natural, no BBL, but I’m still gon’ give them hell”—is too close for comfort and accuses the rapper and her collaborators of profiting from her original work.
However, GloRilla’s legal team argues that Henderson’s case doesn’t meet the legal standard for copyright infringement.
According to court documents obtained by AllHipHop, the defense argues that Henderson failed to prove GloRilla had any realistic chance of hearing her song. Simply uploading a track online, they say, isn’t enough to establish access.
Courts typically require evidence that a song was widely distributed or commercially successful—criteria Henderson’s track doesn’t meet.
The defense also disputes the idea that the two songs are substantially similar.
While Henderson’s track repeats the phrase as a hook, GloRilla’s version uses it once, with a different context and rhyme. Her lawyers argue that words like “give them hell” are common expressions that appear in countless songs and don’t amount to copying.
The legal team also challenges the copyrightability of the phrase itself.
They cite other 2023 and 2024 songs that use similar language about natural bodies, arguing that short, popular phrases aren’t protected under copyright law unless they show a high level of originality.
Additionally, GloRilla’s attorneys argue that Henderson is not entitled to both statutory and actual damages and hasn’t demonstrated any actual infringement that would justify an injunction.
The defense is urging the court to toss the lawsuit entirely, arguing that viral phrases—even catchy ones—don’t automatically qualify as protected intellectual property.