Drake Loses Defamation Case Against Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’

In a dramatic turn in the ongoing rap rivalry, a U.S. federal judge has dismissed Drake’s defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track Not Like Us. The ruling marks a legal victory for Lamar and underscores the challenges of proving defamation in the charged, hyperbolic world of rap battles.

Background of the Lawsuit

Drake initially lodged his lawsuit in January 2025, targeting his own label, Universal Music Group (UMG), rather than Lamar directly. In an article from The Guardian, he claimed that UMG “approved, published and launched a campaign to create a viral hit out of a rap track” that was “intended to convey the specific, unmistakable, and false factual allegation that Drake is a criminal paedophile, and to suggest that the public should resort to vigilante justice in response”.

His lawyers argued that Lamar’s lyrics and the promotional push had endangered Drake’s reputation and exposed him and his family to threats. The complaint also pointed to Lamar’s Super Bowl performance, saying it amplified the “false narrative” and accelerated harm to Drake’s public image.

UMG, for its part, pushed hard against the suit. The label sought dismissal early, claiming the case was without merit and that the lyrics amounted to rhetorical hyperbole and opinion, not actionable fact.

Court Decision: Hyperbole, Opinion, and the “Reasonable Listener” Standard

On October 9, 2025, Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York granted UMG’s motion to dismiss. In a statement on AP News, “‘ Although the accusation that Plaintiff is a pedophile is certainly a serious one, the broader context of a heated rap battle, with incendiary language and offensive accusations hurled by both participants, would not incline the reasonable listener to believe that ‘Not Like Us’ imparts verifiable facts about Plaintiff'”. The judge held that Lamar’s lyrics — despite their incendiary content — are better seen as non-actionable opinion and rhetorical exaggeration, rather than statements claiming provable facts.

Because the lyric is tangled in a broader framework of insults, threats, figurative language, and genre conventions, the court concluded that the statements are not subject to defamation claims. The judge also pointed out that Drake himself has previously written provocative lines in his own music, which weakens the argument that Lamar’s language was uniquely malicious.

Reaction from Parties & Broader Implications

UMG welcomed the dismissal, seeing it as a win for artistic freedom. The label had argued early on that allowing the case to proceed would chill expression in rap, where insults, exaggeration, and provocation are routine.

Drake’s legal team, meanwhile, signaled they may appeal, though the dismissal represents a major hurdle. Some observers see this outcome as reinforcing a high bar for defamation claims tied to lyrics, especially within genres that tacitly permit hyperbole.

The ruling also stirs debate about the line between protected artistic expression and potentially harmful false statements. In rap culture, diss tracks often thrive on exaggeration, metaphor, and bravado — but as litigants test those boundaries, courts will increasingly be asked to parse where creative license ends and real-world harm begins.

Final Thoughts

Drake’s defamation case has been dismissed, with the court finding that Lamar’s Not Like Us falls within the expressive protections of opinion and rhetoric. The legal loss underscores the challenge of treating rap lyrics as defamatory statements in a genre built on shock, claim, and counterclaim.

Beyond the courtroom, the decision reinforces the idea that rap remains a protected form of cultural commentary — one that thrives on provocation and metaphor rather than literal truth. As the dust settles, both Drake and Lamar are likely to keep shaping the boundaries of what artists can, and perhaps must, say in the name of artistic rivalry.