Judge Throws Out Rapper Drake's Lawsuit Over Kendrick Lamar's Diss Track

A judge has rejected Drake's defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar's song the diss record.

Judge the court’s judge determined that the rapper’s song lyrics, which claimed Drake and his associates of being "certified paedophiles", were "nonactionable opinion" and could not be considered defamatory.

Drake submitted the lawsuit in early this year, accusing Universal Music Group, the record label representing both artists, of defamation by allowing the track to be released and promoted, saying it disseminated a "false and malicious narrative".

Drake's representative stated he planned to appeal the ruling. Universal Music Group expressed it was satisfied with the outcome and was looking forward to continuing its work with the musician.

Background of the Rap Battle

The diss song, which was first dropped in May 2024, was widely seen as the final strike in an ongoing battle between the rival rappers.

It has become the biggest hit of Lamar's musical journey, having won multiple Grammy awards and being one of the most-discussed moments of his Super Bowl half-time show in February.

In a detailed ruling, the judge called the dispute between the rappers "the most infamous rap battle in the genre's history".

"Both rappers’ series of diss tracks was a 'war of words' that was the subject of substantial media scrutiny and digital debate," the court noted.

"Although the accusation that plaintiff is a child predator is certainly a grave allegation, the wider backdrop of a heated rap battle, with incendiary language and insulting claims exchanged by both participants, would not incline the average audience to believe that 'Not Like Us' conveys truthful statements about plaintiff."

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

On the track his own release, the rapper used the AI-generated voice of the late rapper 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.

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

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

'A Slap in the Face to Creatives'

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

His legal team alleged UMG of initiating "a campaign to generate a viral hit" out of a track that made the "untrue claim that Drake is a criminal paedophile, and to suggest that the public should resort to vigilante justice in retaliation".

Deciding against Drake, the judge said listeners would not expect "accurate factual reporting" from a diss track "replete with vulgar language, insults, violent implications, and exaggerated statements."

She highlighted that the rapper himself had used similar language, quoting a line in which the artist "heavily" implied that "Lamar is a domestic abuser", and another where Drake "raps that he 'was told' that one of his rival’s sons may not be biologically his."

Regarding the track in question, Judge Vargas said: "Although apparent statements of fact may take on the nature of subjective views... when made in public debate, intense arguments, or other circumstances in which an audience may expect the use of slurs, fiery rhetoric or exaggeration."

Responding to the dismissal, a UMG spokesperson said: "From the beginning, this case was an affront to every creative and their artistic freedom and never should have been filed."

"We're pleased with the court's dismissal and are eager to resuming our work effectively promoting Drake's music and investing in his artistic path," the representative continued.

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

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