🔗 Share this article

A court official has rejected Drake's legal claim targeting the music corporation over Kendrick Lamar's track Not Like Us.

Presiding Judge Jeannette Vargas decided that the rapper’s lyrics, which accused the artist and his crew of being "pedophiles", were "nonactionable opinion" and could not be considered defamatory.

The Canadian rapper filed the lawsuit in early this year, accusing Universal Music Group, the music company representing both artists, of defamatory conduct by allowing the track to be published and marketed, stating it spread a "untrue and harmful story".

Drake's representative stated he intended to challenge the decision. Universal Music Group expressed it was satisfied with the outcome and was looking forward to resuming its work with the musician.

Context of the Hip-Hop Feud

Not Like Us, which was initially released in spring 2024, was widely seen as the decisive blow in an ongoing battle between the rival rappers.

It has emerged as the most successful track of the rapper’s career, having won multiple Grammy awards and being one of the most-discussed highlights of his Super Bowl half-time show in early 2025.

In a 38-page order, Judge Vargas called the dispute between the artists "the most notorious hip-hop feud in the history of rap music".

"Both rappers’ seven-track rap battle was a 'verbal conflict' that was the focus of extensive press coverage and online discourse," the judge noted.

"While the accusation 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 exchanged by both participants, would not incline the reasonable listener to believe that 'the track' imparts truthful statements about plaintiff."

She additionally observed that, in an earlier song, the artist had "dared his rival to make the paedophilia accusations" that appeared in Not Like Us.

On the track his own release, Drake used the synthetic vocals of the late rapper to suggest strategies on how to prevail in the feud.

"Suggest he has a preference for minors, consider that a tip," the track proposed.

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

"The parallel in the wording strongly indicates that this line is a direct callback 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 name his rival in the legal filing.

His legal team accused UMG of initiating "a campaign to create a viral hit" out of a release that made the "untrue claim that Drake is a convicted predator, and to imply that the public should resort to extra-legal action in response".

Ruling against Drake, the judge 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 highlighted that Drake himself had engaged in similar language, referencing a line in which the artist "heavily" suggested that "his opponent is a domestic abuser", and a separate instance where Drake "claims that he 'was told' that one of Lamar's sons may not be his biological offspring."

Regarding the track in question, the court said: "Even seemingly factual claims may assume the character of statements of opinion... when made in open discourse, heated labour dispute, or similar situations in which an listener may expect the use of epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole."

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

"We are satisfied with the judge’s ruling and are eager to resuming our partnership successfully marketing the artist’s work and investing in his artistic path," the spokesperson added.

A spokesperson for the musician said the rapper intended to appeal the ruling, "and we await the appellate court examining it".

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