Judge Dismisses Drake's Legal Case Over Kendrick Lamar’s Hit Diss Track

A court official has thrown out the rapper Drake’s defamation lawsuit targeting the music corporation over Kendrick Lamar’s song Not Like Us.

Presiding Judge Jeannette Vargas ruled that the rapper’s lyrics, which accused Drake and his crew of being "certified paedophiles", were "protected opinion" and cannot be considered libelous.

The Canadian rapper submitted the legal action in January, accusing Universal Music Group, the record label representing both artists, of defamatory conduct by allowing the song to be released and marketed, saying it spread a "untrue and harmful story".

Drake's spokesperson stated he planned to appeal the decision. Universal Music Group said it was satisfied with the result and was eager to continuing its collaboration with the rapper.

Context of the Hip-Hop Feud

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

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

In a detailed ruling, 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 digital debate," the court noted.

"Although the claim that Drake is a child predator is undoubtedly a serious one, the wider backdrop of a intense musical rivalry, with incendiary language and offensive accusations exchanged by each artist, would not lead the reasonable listener to believe that 'Not Like Us' conveys verifiable facts about the claimant."

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

On the song his own release, Drake used the AI-generated voice of Tupac Shakur to give Lamar advice on how to win the rap battle.

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

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

"The parallel in the wording strongly indicates that this lyric is a clear reference to the artist’s own words in the earlier release."

'A Slap in the Face to Creatives'

Drake, whose legal name is Aubrey Drake Graham, did not sue his rival in the lawsuit.

His legal team alleged the label of initiating "a campaign to create a viral hit" out of a track that made the "untrue claim that Drake is a convicted predator, and to imply that the audience should resort to extra-legal action in retaliation".

Ruling against the plaintiff, Judge Vargas said listeners would not expect "truthful accounts" from a musical attack "replete with profanity, insults, violent implications, and figurative and hyperbolic language."

She pointed out that the rapper himself had engaged in comparable rhetoric, quoting a lyric in which the star "strongly" implied that "his opponent is a domestic abuser", and a separate instance where Drake "raps that he 'was told' that one of his rival’s children may not be biologically his."

Regarding Lamar's song, the court said: "Although apparent statements of fact may take on the nature of statements of opinion... when made in public debate, intense arguments, or similar situations in which an listener may expect the use of epithets, passionate language or hyperbole."

Responding to the rejection, a UMG representative said: "From the outset, this lawsuit was an affront to every creative and their artistic freedom and never should have been filed."

"We're pleased with the judge’s ruling and are eager to resuming our work successfully promoting Drake's music and investing in his artistic path," the spokesperson continued.

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

Lamar has yet to comment on the case.