🔗 Share this article

A judge has dismissed the rapper Drake’s defamation lawsuit targeting Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar's track the diss record.

Presiding Judge the court’s judge determined that Lamar's lyrics, which claimed Drake and his crew of being "certified paedophiles", were "nonactionable opinion" and cannot be considered defamatory.

The Canadian rapper submitted the legal action in January, accusing Universal Music Group, the record label representing both artists, of defamatory conduct by allowing the song to be published and promoted, saying it disseminated a "false and malicious narrative".

The artist’s spokesperson said he intended to appeal the ruling. Universal Music Group said it was pleased with the result and was looking forward to resuming its collaboration 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 emerged as the most successful track 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, Judge Vargas called the row between the rappers "the most notorious hip-hop feud in the genre's history".

"Both rappers’ series of diss tracks was a 'war of words' that was the focus of extensive press coverage and digital debate," the court wrote.

"While the claim that Drake is a child predator is certainly a grave allegation, the wider backdrop of a intense musical rivalry, with incendiary language and offensive accusations exchanged by each artist, would not lead the average audience to believe that 'Not Like Us' imparts truthful statements about plaintiff."

She also noted that, in an earlier song, Drake had "dared his rival to make the paedophilia accusations" that appeared in the diss record.

On the song Taylor Made Freestyle, Drake 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 song proposed.

"Against this backdrop in which such lines as 'Hey Drake, I’ve heard you prefer them young' must be evaluated," wrote Judge Vargas.

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

'A Slap in the Face to Creatives'

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

His lawyers accused the label of initiating "an effort to create a popular song" out of a track that made the "false factual allegation that the artist is a criminal paedophile, and to suggest that the public should resort to vigilante justice in response".

Ruling against the plaintiff, the judge said fans would not expect "truthful accounts" from a musical attack "replete with profanity, trash-talking, threats of violence, and exaggerated statements."

She highlighted that Drake himself had used comparable rhetoric, referencing a line in which the artist "heavily" suggested that "his opponent is a domestic abuser", and a separate instance where he "raps that he 'heard' that one of Lamar's children may not be biologically his."

Concerning Lamar's song, Judge Vargas said: "Although seemingly factual claims may take on the nature of subjective views... when made in public debate, intense arguments, or other circumstances in which an listener may anticipate the use of epithets, fiery rhetoric or exaggeration."

Responding to the dismissal, a label spokesperson said: "From the outset, this case was an insult to all artists and their creative expression and should not have seen the light of day."

"We are satisfied with the judge’s ruling and look forward to continuing our partnership successfully marketing the artist’s work and supporting his career," the representative continued.

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

Lamar has not yet comment on the legal matter.