Judge Throws Out Rapper Drake's Legal Case Over Kendrick Lamar's Diss Track
A judge has thrown out the rapper Drake’s legal claim targeting Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar's track the diss record.
Presiding Judge Jeannette Vargas determined that Lamar's song lyrics, which claimed Drake and his associates of being "certified paedophiles", were "nonactionable opinion" and could not be considered libelous.
Drake filed the legal action in early this year, accusing Universal Music Group, the music company representing the two rappers, of defamation by permitting the song to be released and promoted, stating it disseminated a "untrue and harmful story".
Drake's representative said he intended to challenge the decision. Universal Music Group said it was pleased with the result and was looking forward to continuing its work with the rapper.
Context of the Hip-Hop Feud
The diss song, which was first dropped in May 2024, was broadly viewed as the decisive blow in an ongoing battle between the rival rappers.
It has emerged as the biggest hit of Lamar's career, having won multiple Grammy awards and being one of the most-discussed moments of his Super Bowl performance in February.
In a 38-page order, Judge Vargas called the dispute between the rappers "the most infamous rap battle in the genre's history".
"The artists' series of diss tracks was a 'war of words' that was the focus of extensive press coverage and online discourse," the court wrote.
"While the claim that Drake is a child predator is certainly a grave allegation, the broader context of a heated rap battle, with provocative remarks and offensive accusations hurled by each artist, would not lead the average audience to believe that 'Not Like Us' conveys truthful statements about plaintiff."
She also noted that, in an previous track, the artist had "dared his rival to make the paedophilia accusations" that featured in the diss record.
On the song Taylor Made Freestyle, Drake used the AI-generated voice of Tupac Shakur to suggest strategies on how to prevail in the feud.
"Suggest he has a preference for minors, consider that a tip," the track suggested.
"Against this backdrop in which such lines as 'Say, Drake, I hear you like 'em young' must be evaluated," stated the court.
"The similarity in the phrasing suggests strongly that this line is a clear reference to Drake's lyrics in the prior song."
'A Slap in the Face to Creatives'
The musician, whose legal name is Aubrey Graham, did not sue his rival in the lawsuit.
His legal team alleged the label of launching "a campaign to create a popular song" out of a track that made the "untrue claim that the artist is a criminal paedophile, and to suggest that the audience should resort to vigilante justice in response".
Deciding against Drake, Judge Vargas said fans would not expect "accurate factual reporting" from a diss track "replete with vulgar language, trash-talking, threats of violence, and figurative and hyperbolic language."
She pointed out that the rapper himself had engaged in comparable rhetoric, referencing a line in which the star "strongly" suggested that "Lamar is a domestic abuser", and a separate instance where he "raps that he 'was told' that one of Lamar's children may not be biologically his."
Concerning the track in question, Judge Vargas said: "Although seemingly factual claims may assume the character of subjective views... 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."
Responding to the rejection, a UMG spokesperson said: "From the outset, this case was an insult to every creative and their artistic freedom and never should have seen the light of day."
"We are satisfied with the court's dismissal and look forward to resuming our partnership successfully marketing the artist’s work and supporting his artistic path," the spokesperson added.
A spokesperson for Drake said the rapper planned to appeal the ruling, "and we look forward to the Court of Appeals reviewing it".
Kendrick Lamar has yet to comment on the legal matter.