Judge Throws Out Rapper Drake's Lawsuit Over Kendrick Lamar’s Hit Diss Track
A court official has rejected the rapper Drake’s defamation lawsuit targeting Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar’s song Not Like Us.
Presiding Judge Jeannette Vargas decided that Lamar's song lyrics, which accused the artist and his crew of being "certified paedophiles", were "protected opinion" and cannot be deemed defamatory.
The Canadian rapper submitted the lawsuit in early this year, claiming Universal Music Group, the record label representing both artists, of defamatory conduct by allowing the song to be published and marketed, stating it spread a "false and malicious narrative".
Drake's spokesperson said he intended to challenge the decision. UMG said it was satisfied with the result and was looking forward to resuming its work with the musician.
Context of the Hip-Hop Feud
Not Like Us, which was initially released in May 2024, was widely seen as the final strike in an ongoing battle between the competing artists.
It has become the biggest hit of the rapper’s musical journey, having won multiple Grammy awards and being one of the most-discussed moments of his Super Bowl half-time show in February.
In a detailed ruling, Judge Vargas called the row between the artists "the most notorious hip-hop feud in the history of rap music".
"Both rappers’ series of diss tracks was a 'war of words' that was the focus of substantial media scrutiny and digital debate," the judge noted.
"While the claim that plaintiff is a pedophile is undoubtedly a serious one, the broader context of a intense musical rivalry, with provocative remarks and insulting claims exchanged by both participants, would not lead the average audience to believe that 'Not Like Us' imparts truthful statements about plaintiff."
She also noted that, in an earlier song, Drake had "challenged his rival to make the paedophilia accusations" that featured in the diss record.
On the track Taylor Made Freestyle, Drake used the AI-generated voice of the late rapper to suggest strategies on how to prevail in the feud.
"Suggest he has a preference for minors, consider that a tip," the track suggested.
"It is in this context in which such lyrics as 'Hey Drake, I’ve heard you prefer them young' must be evaluated," wrote the court.
"The similarity in the phrasing strongly indicates that this lyric is a clear reference to the artist’s own words in the earlier release."
'An Affront to Artists'
Drake, whose legal name is Aubrey Graham, did not name his rival in the legal filing.
His legal team accused UMG of launching "a campaign to create a popular song" out of a track that made the "false factual allegation that Drake is a convicted predator, and to suggest that the audience should resort to vigilante justice in response".
Deciding against Drake, the judge said listeners would not expect "truthful accounts" from a diss track "replete with profanity, insults, violent implications, and figurative and hyperbolic language."
She pointed out that Drake himself had engaged in similar language, referencing a lyric in which the artist "heavily" implied that "Lamar is a spouse beater", and a separate instance where he "claims that he 'was told' that one of his rival’s children may not be biologically his."
Regarding Lamar's song, Judge Vargas said: "Although apparent statements of fact may take on the nature of subjective views... when made in open discourse, intense arguments, or similar situations in which an listener may expect the use of slurs, passionate language or hyperbole."
Responding to the rejection, a UMG representative said: "From the beginning, this case was an affront to every creative and their creative expression and should not have seen the light of day."
"We're pleased with the judge’s ruling and are eager to continuing our partnership effectively marketing Drake's music and investing in his artistic path," the representative continued.
A spokesperson for Drake said the rapper intended to appeal the ruling, "and we look forward to the Court of Appeals examining it".
Kendrick Lamar has not yet comment on the legal matter.