🔗 Share this article

A court official has thrown out the rapper Drake’s defamation lawsuit targeting Universal Music Group concerning Kendrick Lamar's song Not Like Us.

Presiding Judge the court’s judge decided that the rapper’s song lyrics, which accused Drake and his crew of being "certified paedophiles", were "nonactionable opinion" and could not be considered libelous.

The Canadian rapper submitted the lawsuit in early this year, accusing Universal Music Group, the music company behind both artists, of defamation by allowing the song to be published and marketed, stating it spread a "false and malicious narrative".

The artist’s spokesperson stated he planned to challenge the decision. Universal Music Group said it was satisfied with the result and was looking forward to continuing its collaboration with the musician.

Context of the Rap Battle

The diss song, which was first dropped in May 2024, was widely seen as the final strike in an continuing feud between the rival rappers.

It has emerged as the most successful track of Lamar's career, having received multiple Grammy awards and being one of the most-talked about moments of his Super Bowl performance in February.

In a 38-page order, Judge Vargas called the dispute between the rappers "the most notorious hip-hop feud in the history of rap music".

"The artists' series of diss tracks was a 'war of words' that was the subject of extensive press coverage and online discourse," the court noted.

"Although the accusation that Drake is a pedophile is undoubtedly a grave allegation, the broader context of a intense musical rivalry, with provocative remarks and offensive accusations exchanged by each artist, would not lead the reasonable listener to believe that 'the track' conveys verifiable facts about the claimant."

She also noted that, in an earlier song, the artist had "dared Lamar to make the pedophile claims" that featured in the diss record.

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

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

"It is in this context in which such lines as 'Hey Drake, I’ve heard you prefer them young' must be evaluated," wrote the court.

"The parallel in the phrasing suggests strongly that this line is a clear reference to the artist’s own words in the earlier release."

'An Affront to Artists'

The musician, whose real name is Aubrey Drake Graham, did not name his rival in the lawsuit.

His lawyers alleged the label of initiating "a campaign to generate a viral hit" out of a track that made the "false factual allegation that the artist is a convicted predator, and to suggest that the audience should turn to extra-legal action in retaliation".

Ruling against Drake, Judge Vargas said fans would not expect "accurate factual reporting" from a diss track "replete with profanity, trash-talking, violent implications, and figurative and hyperbolic language."

She highlighted that the rapper himself had engaged in similar language, referencing a lyric in which the artist "heavily" suggested that "his opponent is a spouse beater", and another where he "raps that he 'was told' that one of his rival’s children may not be biologically his."

Regarding Lamar's song, Judge Vargas said: "Although seemingly factual claims may assume the character of statements of opinion... when made in open discourse, heated labour dispute, or other circumstances in which an listener may expect the use of epithets, fiery rhetoric or exaggeration."

Responding to the rejection, a label representative said: "From the outset, this case was an affront to all artists and their creative expression and never should have seen the light of day."

"We're pleased with the court's dismissal and are eager to resuming our partnership successfully marketing Drake's music and supporting his career," the representative continued.

A spokesperson for the musician said the rapper planned to contest the decision, "and we await the appellate court reviewing it".

Lamar has yet to comment on the case.