🔗 Share this article

A judge has rejected the rapper Drake’s legal claim targeting the music corporation over Kendrick Lamar’s track the diss record.

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

Drake submitted the lawsuit in early this year, claiming UMG, the music company behind both artists, of defamatory conduct by allowing the song to be published and promoted, saying it disseminated a "untrue and harmful story".

The artist’s spokesperson stated he intended to appeal the ruling. Universal Music Group expressed it was pleased with the outcome and was looking forward to resuming its work with the rapper.

Background of the Rap Battle

Not Like Us, which was initially released in May 2024, was widely seen as the decisive blow in an ongoing battle between the rival rappers.

It has emerged as the most successful track of the rapper’s musical journey, having received multiple Grammy awards and being one of the most-talked about moments of his Super Bowl performance in February.

In a detailed ruling, Judge Vargas called the dispute between the rappers "the most notorious hip-hop feud in the genre's history".

"The artists' series of diss tracks was a 'war of words' that was the subject of extensive press coverage and digital debate," the judge noted.

"Although the claim that Drake is a child predator is certainly a serious one, the wider backdrop of a intense musical rivalry, with incendiary language and insulting claims exchanged by each artist, would not incline the reasonable listener to believe that 'the track' imparts verifiable facts about the claimant."

She additionally observed that, in an previous track, Drake had "challenged his rival to make the paedophilia accusations" that appeared in Not Like Us.

On the track Taylor Made Freestyle, 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 suggested.

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

"The parallel 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 legal name is Aubrey Drake Graham, did not sue Lamar in the legal filing.

His legal team accused the label of launching "an effort to generate a popular song" out of a track that made the "false factual allegation that Drake is a criminal paedophile, and to suggest that the audience should turn to vigilante justice in retaliation".

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

She pointed out that Drake himself had used comparable rhetoric, quoting a lyric in which the star "strongly" implied that "his opponent is a domestic abuser", and a separate instance where he "claims that he 'heard' that one of his rival’s children may not be his biological offspring."

Concerning Lamar's song, Judge Vargas said: "Although seemingly factual claims may assume the character of subjective views... when made in public debate, heated labour dispute, or other circumstances in which an audience may anticipate the use of epithets, passionate language or hyperbole."

Reacting to the rejection, a label representative said: "From the beginning, this lawsuit was an affront to every creative and their creative expression and never should have seen the light of day."

"We're pleased with the judge’s ruling and are eager to continuing our work effectively marketing the artist’s work and supporting his career," the representative continued.

A representative for Drake said the artist planned to contest the decision, "and we look forward to the Court of Appeals examining it".

Lamar has yet to comment on the legal matter.