🔗 Share this article

A court official has rejected the rapper Drake’s legal claim targeting the music corporation concerning Kendrick Lamar’s song Not Like Us.

Presiding Judge the court’s judge determined that Lamar's lyrics, which accused the artist and his associates of being "certified paedophiles", were "protected opinion" and could not be considered defamatory.

The Canadian rapper filed the lawsuit in early this year, accusing UMG, the record label behind both artists, of defamation by allowing the track to be released and marketed, stating it disseminated a "false and malicious narrative".

Drake's spokesperson stated he intended to challenge the ruling. UMG said it was pleased with the result and was looking forward to resuming its collaboration with the musician.

Background of the Hip-Hop Feud

Not Like Us, which was first dropped in spring 2024, was broadly viewed as the decisive blow in an ongoing battle between the competing artists.

It has become the biggest hit of Lamar's musical journey, having won multiple Grammy awards and being one of the most-discussed highlights of his Super Bowl performance in February.

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

"Both rappers’ seven-track rap battle was a 'verbal conflict' that was the subject of extensive press coverage and digital debate," the judge wrote.

"While the accusation that Drake is a child predator is undoubtedly a grave allegation, the broader context of a intense musical rivalry, with provocative remarks and offensive accusations hurled by each artist, would not incline the reasonable listener to believe that 'the track' imparts verifiable facts about the claimant."

She also noted that, in an previous track, the artist had "dared his rival to make the paedophilia accusations" that featured in the diss record.

On the track his own release, the rapper used the AI-generated voice of the late rapper 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 evaluated," stated the court.

"The similarity in the phrasing suggests strongly that this line is a clear reference to Drake's lyrics in the prior song."

'A Slap in the Face to Creatives'

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

His legal team accused the label of initiating "a campaign to create a popular song" out of a track that made the "untrue claim that the artist is a criminal paedophile, and to imply that the audience should resort to extra-legal action in retaliation".

Ruling against Drake, the judge said fans would not expect "accurate factual reporting" from a musical attack "replete with vulgar language, trash-talking, violent implications, and figurative and hyperbolic language."

She pointed out that the rapper himself had engaged in similar language, referencing a lyric in which the artist "heavily" implied that "Lamar is a domestic abuser", and a separate instance where he "claims that he 'heard' that one of Lamar's children may not be his biological offspring."

Regarding the track in question, the court said: "Even seemingly factual claims may assume the character of subjective views... when made in open discourse, intense arguments, or other circumstances in which an listener may expect the use of epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole."

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

"We're pleased with the court's dismissal and look forward to continuing our partnership effectively marketing Drake's music and supporting his artistic path," the representative continued.

A representative for Drake said the rapper intended to appeal the ruling, "and we await the Court of Appeals reviewing it".

Kendrick Lamar has yet to comment on the legal matter.