🔗 Share this article

A judge has dismissed the rapper Drake’s legal claim targeting Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar's song Not Like Us.

Judge the court’s judge determined that the rapper’s lyrics, which claimed Drake and his associates of being "certified paedophiles", were "protected opinion" and cannot be considered libelous.

Drake filed the legal action in early this year, accusing Universal Music Group, the record label representing both artists, of defamation by permitting the track to be published and promoted, stating it disseminated a "false and malicious narrative".

Drake's representative said he intended to appeal the ruling. Universal Music Group expressed it was pleased with the result and was looking forward to continuing its collaboration with the rapper.

Background of the Hip-Hop Feud

The diss song, which was initially released in spring 2024, was widely seen as the decisive blow in an continuing feud between the competing artists.

It has become the most successful track of the rapper’s career, having received five Grammys and being one of the most-talked about moments of his Super Bowl half-time show in February.

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

"Both rappers’ series of diss tracks was a 'verbal conflict' that was the focus of substantial media scrutiny and online discourse," the judge wrote.

"Although the accusation that Drake is a child predator is certainly a serious one, the broader context of a intense musical rivalry, with provocative remarks and insulting claims hurled by both participants, would not incline the average audience to believe that 'Not Like Us' imparts verifiable facts about the claimant."

She also noted that, in an previous track, Drake had "challenged Lamar to make the paedophilia accusations" that featured in Not Like Us.

On the track Taylor Made Freestyle, the rapper used the AI-generated voice of the late rapper to suggest strategies on how to win the rap battle.

"Talk about him likin' young girls, that's a gift from me," 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 Judge Vargas.

"The parallel in the phrasing strongly indicates that this lyric is a clear reference to the artist’s own words in the prior song."

'A Slap in the Face to Creatives'

The musician, whose legal name is Aubrey Drake Graham, did not name Lamar in the lawsuit.

His lawyers alleged the label of launching "an effort to generate a popular song" out of a release that made the "untrue claim that the artist is a criminal paedophile, and to suggest that the public should resort to vigilante justice in response".

Deciding against Drake, Judge Vargas said listeners would not expect "truthful accounts" from a musical attack "replete with vulgar language, insults, violent implications, and figurative and hyperbolic language."

She pointed out that Drake himself had engaged in similar language, quoting a lyric in which the star "heavily" implied that "Lamar is a spouse beater", and another where Drake "raps that he 'was told' that one of his rival’s children may not be his biological offspring."

Concerning the track in question, the court said: "Although seemingly factual claims may assume the character of statements of opinion... when made in public debate, intense arguments, or similar situations in which an listener may anticipate the use of slurs, passionate language or hyperbole."

Reacting to the dismissal, a label representative said: "From the outset, this case was an insult 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 are eager to resuming our partnership successfully promoting Drake's music and investing in his artistic path," the representative continued.

A spokesperson for the musician said the rapper intended to contest the decision, "and we look forward to the appellate court reviewing it".

Kendrick Lamar has yet to comment on the legal matter.