Court Dismisses Drake's Legal Case Regarding Kendrick Lamar’s Hit Diss Track

A court official has thrown out Drake's defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar’s track Not Like Us.

Judge Jeannette Vargas ruled that the rapper’s lyrics, which claimed Drake and his associates of being "certified paedophiles", were "protected opinion" and cannot be considered defamatory.

The Canadian rapper submitted the legal action in January, claiming Universal Music Group, the music company representing both artists, of defamatory conduct by permitting the song to be published and promoted, saying it disseminated a "false and malicious narrative".

Drake's representative stated he intended to challenge the decision. Universal Music Group said it was pleased with the result and was eager to continuing its collaboration with the rapper.

Context of the Rap Battle

The diss song, which was first dropped in spring 2024, was broadly viewed as the decisive blow in an continuing feud between the rival rappers.

It has emerged as the biggest hit of the rapper’s career, having received five Grammys and being one of the most-talked about moments of his Super Bowl performance in early 2025.

In a 38-page order, the judge called the row between the rappers "the most notorious hip-hop feud in the genre's history".

"Both rappers’ seven-track rap battle was a 'war of words' that was the subject of extensive press coverage and online discourse," the court wrote.

"While the claim that Drake is a pedophile is undoubtedly a serious one, the wider backdrop of a intense musical rivalry, with provocative remarks and insulting claims exchanged by both participants, would not incline the average audience to believe that 'Not Like Us' conveys truthful statements about plaintiff."

She additionally observed that, in an earlier song, the artist had "dared his rival to make the paedophilia accusations" that featured in Not Like Us.

On the track his own release, Drake used the synthetic vocals 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 song proposed.

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

"The similarity in the wording strongly indicates that this line is a clear reference to the artist’s own words in the prior song."

'An Affront to Artists'

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

His legal team accused the label of launching "an effort to generate a viral hit" out of a track that made the "untrue claim that Drake is a criminal paedophile, and to suggest that the audience should turn to extra-legal action in retaliation".

Deciding against Drake, the judge said fans would not expect "accurate factual reporting" from a diss track "replete with profanity, trash-talking, violent implications, and exaggerated statements."

She highlighted that the rapper himself had used comparable rhetoric, quoting a lyric in which the star "strongly" 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 his biological offspring."

Regarding the track in question, the court said: "Although seemingly factual claims may take on the nature of subjective views... when made in open discourse, intense arguments, or similar situations in which an audience may anticipate the use of slurs, passionate language or exaggeration."

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

"We're pleased with the judge’s ruling and are eager to resuming our partnership effectively marketing Drake's music and investing in his career," the representative continued.

A spokesperson for Drake said the artist intended to appeal the ruling, "and we look forward to the appellate court examining it".

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