🔗 Share this article

A court official has rejected Drake's legal claim targeting Universal Music Group concerning Kendrick Lamar’s track the diss record.

Judge the court’s judge determined that the rapper’s lyrics, which accused Drake and his crew of being "pedophiles", were "protected opinion" and cannot be considered defamatory.

The Canadian rapper filed the lawsuit in January, claiming UMG, the music company representing both artists, of defamation by allowing the song to be published and marketed, saying it spread a "false and malicious narrative".

The artist’s spokesperson stated he planned to challenge the ruling. Universal Music Group said it was pleased with the result and was looking forward to continuing its collaboration with the rapper.

Background of the Hip-Hop Feud

The diss song, which was initially released in spring 2024, was widely seen as the decisive blow in an continuing feud between the competing artists.

It has emerged as the most successful track of Lamar's career, having received multiple Grammy awards and being one of the most-talked about highlights of his Super Bowl half-time show in early 2025.

In a detailed ruling, the judge called the dispute between the rappers "the most infamous rap battle in the history of rap music".

"The artists' seven-track rap battle was a 'verbal conflict' that was the focus of extensive press coverage and digital debate," the court noted.

"Although the claim that Drake is a child predator is undoubtedly a grave allegation, the wider backdrop of a intense musical rivalry, with incendiary language and insulting claims hurled by each artist, would not incline the reasonable listener to believe that 'the track' conveys verifiable facts about plaintiff."

She additionally observed that, in an previous track, the artist had "dared Lamar to make the pedophile claims" that featured in Not Like Us.

On the song his own release, the rapper 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 song proposed.

"Against this backdrop in which such lines as 'Hey Drake, I’ve heard you prefer them young' must be evaluated," wrote the court.

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

'An Affront to Artists'

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

His legal team alleged UMG of launching "an effort to generate a viral hit" out of a track that made the "false factual allegation that the artist is a criminal paedophile, and to suggest that the audience should resort to vigilante justice in response".

Deciding against the plaintiff, Judge Vargas said listeners would not expect "truthful accounts" from a musical attack "replete with profanity, insults, threats of violence, and exaggerated statements."

She pointed out that Drake himself had engaged in similar language, referencing a line in which the star "strongly" implied that "Lamar is a spouse beater", and another where Drake "raps that he 'heard' that one of his rival’s children may not be his biological offspring."

Regarding Lamar's song, Judge Vargas said: "Even seemingly factual claims may take on the nature of subjective views... when made in open discourse, heated labour dispute, or similar situations in which an audience may expect the use of epithets, fiery rhetoric or exaggeration."

Reacting to the rejection, a label spokesperson said: "From the beginning, this case was an affront to every creative and their creative expression and should not have been filed."

"We're pleased with the court's dismissal and look forward to resuming our work effectively marketing the artist’s work and investing in his artistic path," the representative continued.

A spokesperson for Drake said the rapper planned to contest the decision, "and we await the Court of Appeals examining it".

Kendrick Lamar has yet to issue a statement on the case.