🔗 Share this article

A court official has rejected the rapper Drake’s defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar’s track the diss record.

Presiding Judge the court’s judge determined that Lamar's lyrics, which accused the artist and his crew of being "pedophiles", were "nonactionable opinion" and could not be deemed libelous.

The Canadian rapper submitted the lawsuit in January, accusing Universal Music Group, the music company behind the two rappers, of defamation by allowing the track to be released and marketed, saying it spread a "untrue and harmful story".

The artist’s representative said he planned to appeal the ruling. UMG expressed it was pleased with the result and was eager to resuming its work with the musician.

Context of the Hip-Hop Feud

Not Like Us, which was initially released in spring 2024, was broadly viewed as the decisive blow in an continuing feud between the rival rappers.

It has become the most successful track of the rapper’s career, having won multiple Grammy awards and being one of the most-discussed highlights of his Super Bowl half-time show in early 2025.

In a 38-page order, Judge Vargas called the dispute between the artists "the most infamous rap battle in the history of rap music".

"The artists' series of diss tracks was a 'verbal conflict' that was the subject of substantial media scrutiny and online discourse," the court wrote.

"Although the accusation that Drake is a child predator is undoubtedly a serious one, the wider backdrop of a heated rap battle, with incendiary language and insulting claims exchanged by both participants, would not incline the reasonable listener to believe that 'Not Like Us' imparts verifiable facts about plaintiff."

She additionally observed that, in an previous track, the artist had "challenged his rival to make the pedophile claims" that appeared in Not Like Us.

On the song his own release, Drake used the synthetic vocals of Tupac Shakur to give Lamar advice on how to win the rap battle.

"Suggest he has a preference for minors, consider that a tip," the song suggested.

"Against this backdrop in which such lines as 'Hey Drake, I’ve heard you prefer them young' must be assessed," wrote Judge Vargas.

"The parallel in the phrasing suggests strongly that this line is a clear reference to Drake's lyrics in the earlier release."

'An Affront to Artists'

Drake, whose legal name is Aubrey Drake Graham, did not sue Lamar in the legal filing.

His lawyers accused UMG of initiating "an effort to create a viral hit" 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 retaliation".

Ruling against the plaintiff, Judge Vargas said fans would not expect "accurate factual reporting" from a diss track "replete with vulgar language, insults, violent implications, and exaggerated statements."

She pointed out that Drake himself had used similar language, quoting a lyric in which the star "heavily" implied that "Lamar is a domestic abuser", and a separate instance where Drake "raps that he 'heard' that one of Lamar's sons may not be his biological offspring."

Regarding Lamar's song, the court said: "Even seemingly factual claims may take on the nature of subjective views... when made in public debate, heated labour dispute, or other circumstances in which an listener may expect the use of slurs, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole."

Reacting to the rejection, a UMG representative said: "From the outset, this case was an affront to all artists and their artistic freedom and never should have seen the light of day."

"We are satisfied with the court's dismissal and look forward to resuming our work effectively marketing Drake's music and supporting his artistic path," the spokesperson continued.

A spokesperson for the musician said the artist intended to contest the decision, "and we look forward to the Court of Appeals examining it".

Kendrick Lamar has not yet issue a statement on the legal matter.