Drake’s UMG defamation lawsuit involving Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” single gets dismissed

Drake Loses Defamation Lawsuit Over “Not Like Us” Diss Track

Drake just took one of his biggest losses of 2025 — and this time, it didn’t happen in the studio or on the charts, but in court. The Toronto superstar’s federal defamation lawsuit against his own record label, Universal Music Group (UMG), has officially been dismissed. The ruling marks a major legal setback in the fallout from his ongoing lyrical war with Kendrick Lamar, which has dominated hip-hop conversations throughout the past year.

According to newly obtained court documents published by TMZ, the presiding judge concluded that the statements made about Drake in Kendrick’s hit diss track “Not Like Us” are considered “nonactionable opinion.” In plain terms, this means that Kendrick’s lyrics — no matter how harsh or provocative — are protected as free artistic expression, not treated as factual claims that could legally be considered defamation.

Drake’s Lawsuit Against His Own Label

The lawsuit stemmed from Drake’s allegation that Universal Music Group — the parent company of both his own imprint and Kendrick Lamar’s Top Dawg Entertainment — knowingly distributed and promoted a song that portrayed him as a pedophile. In his legal filing, Drake accused UMG of negligence and complicity, arguing that the label should have recognized the danger in allowing such lyrics and imagery to circulate globally.

Drake’s complaint specifically pointed to scenes in the “Not Like Us” music video and certain lines in Kendrick’s verses that allegedly painted him as a sexual predator. The rapper claimed that UMG, with its deep understanding of both artists’ global reach, had an obligation to prevent the track’s release or to at least distance itself from the accusations.

However, the court found Drake’s argument legally unsustainable. In the eyes of the judge, the context of a diss track is central — and no reasonable listener would interpret its insults or accusations as literal truth.

Judge: ‘Not Like Us’ Is Clearly Opinion, Not Fact

The judge’s written opinion made the reasoning crystal clear:

“The allegedly defamatory statements in ‘Not Like Us’ are nonactionable opinion.”

That phrase — “nonactionable opinion” — carries major weight. It means that the statements cannot be the basis of a defamation claim because they are subjective, expressive, and clearly part of an artistic dispute, not statements of verified fact. The court reinforced this point with an even stronger assertion:

“Even accusations of criminal behavior are not actionable if, understood in context, they are opinion rather than fact.”

In other words, context is everything. And in this case, the context is a heated hip-hop rivalry that has spilled into a battle of bars, not a journalistic report intended to inform the public about actual crimes.

The judge further emphasized that diss tracks are not expected to be products of factual investigation. Instead, they are artistic performances that rely on hyperbole, metaphor, and provocation — tools that have been fundamental to the genre for decades. The ruling even included a cultural observation:

“The average listener is not under the impression a diss track is the product of a thoughtful or disinterested investigation.”

A Callback, Not a Claim: How Drake’s Own Lyrics Played a Role

One of the more ironic aspects of the court’s decision is that it highlighted Drake’s own lyrics as part of the context that undermined his argument. According to the ruling, the “pedophile” reference in Kendrick’s “Not Like Us” was a direct callback to Drake’s own words in his earlier diss track “Taylor Made Freestyle.”

That detail mattered because it established that the line wasn’t an isolated attack — it was a lyrical response within an ongoing back-and-forth exchange. The judge acknowledged that this intertextual reference made the lyric even more clearly part of a musical dialogue, not a statement intended as literal accusation.

By doing so, the court effectively ruled that Drake had invited that response through his own participation in the diss war, further weakening his defamation claim.

The Broader Battle: Drake vs. Kendrick Lamar

This legal decision comes after what many consider the most explosive rap feud in years. The rivalry between Drake and Kendrick Lamar reached new heights in 2024, with both artists exchanging multiple diss records within a single month. Drake’s tracks — including “Push Ups,” “Taylor Made Freestyle,” and “Family Matters” — were followed by Kendrick’s devastating run of “Euphoria,” “Meet the Grahams,” and finally “Not Like Us.”

Of all the records, “Not Like Us” emerged as a cultural phenomenon. The song debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100, achieved 2x Platinum certification within weeks, and became a viral anthem across social media platforms. Fans celebrated it not just as a diss record but as a West Coast victory lap, with its Mustard-produced beat turning into a dance-floor staple.

When the official video dropped, Kendrick amplified the taunts — including imagery that fans interpreted as direct shots at Drake’s lifestyle and public persona. These visuals, combined with the sharp lyrical jabs, fueled the narrative that led to Drake’s lawsuit.

Why the Court’s Ruling Matters Beyond Hip-Hop

Beyond the drama of celebrity feuds, this case carries broader implications for artists, record labels, and the limits of free speech in music. The court’s decision reinforces a long-standing legal principle: artistic expression — even when provocative — is protected under the First Amendment.

Defamation claims hinge on the distinction between fact and opinion. For a statement to be defamatory, it must be both false and presented as factual. The judge’s ruling makes it clear that rap lyrics, especially in diss tracks, are not treated as factual assertions because the cultural context makes it obvious they are part of artistic performance and exaggeration.

Legal experts have noted that this outcome is consistent with prior rulings involving music, comedy, and satire — where courts have consistently sided with creative freedom over attempts to litigate perceived insults.

The End of a Legal Chapter, But Not the Feud

While Drake’s defamation suit has officially been dismissed, the public and cultural tension between him and Kendrick Lamar is unlikely to fade anytime soon. Their battle reshaped the sound and conversation of modern rap, generating think pieces, reaction videos, and fan theories about who “won” the war.

For Kendrick, this legal victory — though indirectly his — further cements “Not Like Us” as a defining moment in his career, both musically and culturally. For Drake, it represents another setback in a year where public opinion has shifted dramatically against him.

Still, Drake remains one of the most commercially dominant artists in the world, and this ruling doesn’t affect his music rights or label relationship. However, it does signal that the courtroom won’t be the place for revenge in rap beefs — only the booth will.

Rap Beef Isn’t Defamation, It’s Expression

In the end, the message from the judge was simple but profound: hip-hop rivalries are art, not accusations. The exaggerated insults, criminal references, and lyrical jabs that fuel diss tracks are part of a long-standing cultural tradition — one that thrives on hyperbole and performance.

Drake may have lost in court, but the ruling itself sets an important precedent: rappers can continue to battle it out without fear that their lyrical shots will be treated as actionable defamation.

For fans, it’s another reminder that in rap, the microphone — not the legal system — remains the ultimate arena for truth, art, and reputation.