🔗 Share this article

A judge has thrown out the rapper Drake’s legal claim targeting the music corporation over Kendrick Lamar's track Not Like Us.

Judge the court’s judge decided that the rapper’s song lyrics, which claimed Drake and his associates of being "pedophiles", were "protected opinion" and cannot be considered libelous.

The Canadian rapper filed the lawsuit in January, accusing Universal Music Group, the music company representing the two rappers, of defamation by allowing the track to be published and promoted, saying it spread a "false and malicious narrative".

The artist’s representative said he planned to challenge the decision. UMG expressed it was satisfied with the result and was looking forward to continuing its collaboration with the musician.

Context of the Hip-Hop Feud

Not Like Us, which was initially released in spring 2024, was widely seen as the final strike in an continuing feud between the rival rappers.

It has emerged as the biggest hit of Lamar's career, having received five Grammys and being one of the most-discussed moments of his Super Bowl performance in early 2025.

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

"The artists' seven-track rap battle was a 'war of words' that was the focus of substantial media scrutiny and digital debate," the court wrote.

"While the accusation that plaintiff 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 both participants, would not incline the reasonable listener to believe that 'the track' conveys truthful statements about the claimant."

She additionally observed that, in an earlier song, Drake had "challenged his rival to make the pedophile claims" that featured in the diss record.

On the song Taylor Made Freestyle, Drake used the AI-generated voice of Tupac Shakur to give Lamar advice on how to prevail in the feud.

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

"Against this backdrop in which such lines as 'Say, Drake, I hear you like 'em young' must be evaluated," wrote Judge Vargas.

"The parallel in the phrasing strongly indicates that this lyric is a direct callback to Drake's lyrics in the prior song."

'An Affront to Artists'

Drake, whose legal name is Aubrey Drake Graham, did not sue Lamar in the legal filing.

His lawyers accused the label of initiating "an effort to create a popular song" out of a track that made the "untrue claim that Drake is a convicted predator, and to imply that the audience should turn to vigilante justice in retaliation".

Deciding against the plaintiff, Judge Vargas said listeners would not expect "accurate factual reporting" from a musical attack "filled with vulgar language, trash-talking, violent implications, and figurative and hyperbolic language."

She pointed out that Drake himself had engaged in comparable rhetoric, referencing a line in which the star "heavily" implied that "Lamar is a domestic abuser", and another where Drake "claims that he 'heard' that one of Lamar's children may not be biologically his."

Concerning Lamar's song, Judge Vargas said: "Even apparent statements of fact may assume the character of statements of opinion... when made in public debate, heated labour dispute, or other circumstances in which an listener may anticipate the use of epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole."

Reacting to the dismissal, a label spokesperson said: "From the outset, this case was an insult 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 continuing our work effectively marketing the artist’s work and investing in his career," the spokesperson added.

A representative for Drake said the rapper intended to contest the ruling, "and we await the Court of Appeals reviewing it".

Kendrick Lamar has yet to comment on the legal matter.