Judge Dismisses Drake’s Defamation Lawsuit Against Universal Music Over Kendrick Lamar Diss Track

The legal battle stemming from the intense rap feud between Drake and Kendrick Lamar has concluded with a significant ruling: a federal judge has dismissed Drake’s defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG). The lawsuit, filed in January 2025, alleged that UMG defamed the Grammy-winning artist by promoting Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” which contained accusations of pedophilia. However, on October 9, 2025, U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas ruled that the lyrics in question constituted “non-actionable opinion” within the context of a heated “rap battle” and were therefore not legally defamatory.

The “Vitriolic War of Words” and Legal Interpretation

Judge Vargas described the exchange between Drake and Lamar as “perhaps the most infamous rap battle in the genre’s history,” a “vitriolic war of words” that unfolded in the spring of 2024. The lawsuit was initiated by Drake following the release of “Not Like Us” in May 2024, a track that became a cultural sensation and a major hit, winning multiple Grammy Awards, including Record of the Year and Song of the Year. Drake claimed that UMG, which acts as the parent label for both artists, intentionally published and promoted the song despite knowing it contained false and damaging allegations, including accusations of pedophilia and suggestions of vigilante justice. He further alleged that the song tarnished his reputation and decreased his brand’s value, even contributing to attempted break-ins and a shooting at his Toronto home.

In her ruling, Judge Vargas emphasized the context of the “heated rap battle,” stating that a “reasonable listener” would not interpret the inflammatory language and offensive accusations as verifiable facts. She noted that Drake himself had used similarly aggressive lyrics in his own diss tracks, such as implying domestic abuse by Lamar and questioning his paternity. The judge reasoned that the artistic expression in diss tracks, characterized by “profanity, trash-talking, threats of violence, and figurative and hyperbolic language,” is not intended to convey factual content and thus falls under protected opinion. UMG had argued that Drake “lost a rap battle he provoked” and was attempting to “salve his wounds” by suing his own label, calling the suit an affront to artistic expression.

Broader Context and Future Implications

The dismissal of Drake’s lawsuit has implications for how creative expression, particularly within the music industry and the tradition of diss tracks, is legally protected. UMG celebrated the ruling, stating, “From the outset, this suit 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 look forward to continuing our work successfully promoting Drake’s music and investing in his career”.

Drake’s representatives have indicated an intention to appeal the ruling, stating, “We intend to appeal today’s ruling, and we look forward to the Court of Appeals reviewing it”. The rapper also filed separate, similar complaints against streaming platforms Spotify and iHeartMedia related to the song’s promotion, with iHeartMedia having reached a settlement with Drake in February 2025. This ongoing news highlights the complex interplay between artistic freedom, commercial interests, and the legal ramifications of lyrics in trending music. The legal precedent set by this case could influence future disputes involving artists and their labels within the music news cycle.