US Judge Dismisses Drake’s Lawsuit Over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us”
Kendrick Lamar (left) and Drake
A federal judge in New York has dismissed Drake’s defamation lawsuit against his record label, Universal Music Group (UMG), over the release and promotion of Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us.”
As reported by Billboard and others, the ruling, delivered on Thursday, marks a decisive legal setback for the Canadian rapper in one of the most widely publicized music disputes in recent years.
Drake filed the lawsuit earlier in 2025, accusing UMG of defamation, harassment, and deceptive marketing, alleging the label knowingly distributed a song that branded him a “certified pedophile.”
He claimed the accusations in Lamar’s lyrics caused significant harm to his public image and professional brand.
However, U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas ruled that the lyrics in “Not Like Us” are protected speech, describing them as “hyperbolic” and “non-actionable opinion” within the context of a rap battle.
Judge Vargas wrote, “A reasonable listener could not have concluded that ‘Not Like Us’ was conveying objective facts about Drake.
“While the claim that the plaintiff is a pedophile is undeniably serious, the overall context of an intense rap battle, featuring inflammatory language and offensive allegations from both sides, would not lead a listener to believe ‘Not Like Us’ conveys factual information about the plaintiff.”
Notably, Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” went on to dominate the 67th Annual Grammy Awards in 2025, winning five major categories — Record of the Year, Song of the Year, Best Rap Performance, Best Rap Song, and Best Music Video.
The judge further noted that the track was part of “perhaps the most infamous rap battle in the genre’s history,” referring to the 2024 lyrical feud between Drake and Lamar, during which the two released eight diss tracks over 16 days.
Vargas stated, “Not Like Us” is replete with profanity, trash-talking, threats of violence, and figurative and hyperbolic language, all of which are indicia of opinion.
“A rap diss track would not create more of an expectation in the average listener that the lyrics state sober facts instead of opinion.”
Drake’s lawsuit also accused UMG of intentionally promoting and profiting from the track despite knowing the implications were false.
But the court dismissed all claims, including those of harassment and deceptive marketing, ruling that the record label could not be held liable for distributing artistic expression that falls under First Amendment protection.
Drake’s legal team has not commented publicly, though reports suggest an appeal may be considered.
The decision ends one of the most closely watched legal battles in recent music history. Drake has not publicly commented on the ruling, though his legal team has indicated it may consider an appeal.
Comments
Post a Comment