🔗 Share this article

A judge has thrown out the rapper Drake’s legal claim against Universal Music Group concerning Kendrick Lamar’s track Not Like Us.

Presiding Judge the court’s judge decided that the rapper’s song lyrics, which accused Drake and his crew of being "certified paedophiles", were "protected opinion" and could not be considered defamatory.

Drake submitted the lawsuit in early this year, accusing Universal Music Group, the music company behind both artists, of defamation by permitting the track to be published and promoted, stating it spread a "untrue and harmful story".

The artist’s representative stated he intended to appeal the decision. Universal Music Group said it was satisfied with the outcome and was eager to resuming its work with the musician.

Background of the Rap Battle

Not Like Us, which was initially released in May 2024, was broadly viewed 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 won multiple Grammy awards and being one of the most-talked about highlights of his Super Bowl performance in February.

In a 38-page order, the judge called the row between the artists "the most infamous rap battle in the history of rap music".

"Both rappers’ series of diss tracks was a 'verbal conflict' that was the subject of substantial media scrutiny and online discourse," the judge wrote.

"Although the accusation that plaintiff is a pedophile is certainly a serious one, the wider backdrop of a intense musical rivalry, with provocative remarks and insulting claims hurled by both participants, would not incline the reasonable listener to believe that 'Not Like Us' conveys verifiable facts about plaintiff."

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

On the song his own release, the rapper used the synthetic vocals of Tupac Shakur to suggest strategies on how to win the rap battle.

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

"Against this backdrop in which such lines as 'Hey Drake, I’ve heard you prefer them young' must be assessed," 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 prior song."

'An Affront to Artists'

The musician, whose real name is Aubrey Graham, did not sue his rival in the lawsuit.

His lawyers accused UMG of launching "an effort to generate a viral hit" out of a release that made the "false factual allegation that the artist is a convicted predator, and to suggest that the audience should resort to vigilante justice in retaliation".

Ruling against Drake, Judge Vargas said fans would not expect "accurate factual reporting" from a musical attack "replete with vulgar language, trash-talking, threats of violence, and exaggerated statements."

She highlighted that the rapper himself had engaged in comparable rhetoric, referencing a lyric in which the star "heavily" implied that "his opponent is a domestic abuser", and a separate instance where he "claims that he 'was told' that one of his rival’s sons may not be biologically his."

Concerning the track in question, the court said: "Even seemingly factual claims may assume the character of statements of opinion... when made in public debate, heated labour dispute, or similar situations in which an audience may anticipate the use of epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole."

Reacting to the dismissal, a UMG representative said: "From the outset, this case was an insult to every creative and their artistic freedom and never should have seen the light of day."

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

A representative for Drake said the rapper planned to appeal the ruling, "and we await the appellate court examining it".

Kendrick Lamar has not yet issue a statement on the legal matter.