The legal saga stemming from the explosive rap feud between Drake and Kendrick Lamar has taken a major turn. A U.S District Judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Canadian rapper Drake against his own record label, Universal Music Group (UMG).
The lawsuit centred on Lamar’s highly successful diss track, “Not Like Us,” which was released through a UMG subsidiary.
The long-standing rivalry between the two hip-hop heavyweights escalated dramatically in the spring of 2024.
The escalation began when Lamar featured on the Future and Metro Boomin track “Like That,” in which he challenged the notion of a ‘Big Three’ in rap, setting his sights on Drake.
The subsequent “vitriolic war of words” saw the rappers trade a flurry of increasingly caustic diss tracks.
Drake’s track, “Family Matters,” was quickly followed by Lamar’s viral hit “Not Like Us,” which delivered a ‘metaphorical killing blow,’ according to the judge’s written opinion.
Drake’s lawsuit, filed in January, did not target Kendrick Lamar directly but rather his own parent label, UMG. He alleged that the label intentionally published and promoted “Not Like Us” despite knowing it contained “false and malicious” accusations.
The key lyrics cited by Drake’s legal team included: “Say Drake, I hear you like ’em young” and “Certified Lover Boy? Certified pedophile”
Drake argued that the song damaged his reputation, decreased his brand value, and suggested listeners should resort to vigilante justice. He also claimed the track was responsible for real-world security incidents at his Toronto home.
US District Judge Jeannette Vargas granted UMG’s motion to dismiss the case. The central pillar of her ruling was that the lyrics were “non-actionable opinion” within the context of a rap battle.
“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 noted that a “reasonable listener” would not assume a diss track is “the product of a thoughtful or disinterested investigation, conveying to the public factchecked verifiable content.”
The court also rejected Drake’s claim that UMG had covertly manipulated streaming services to boost the song’s popularity, finding that his evidence failed to meet the required legal standard for plausibility.
UMG, which represents both artists, vehemently denied Drake’s allegations from the outset.
“From the outset, this suit was an affront to all artists and their creative expression and never should have seen the light of day.”
The label further dismissed Drake’s conspiracy claim as “groundless and ridiculous,” highlighting the “hundreds of millions” it has invested in his career since 2009. UMG suggested Drake was merely attempting to “salve his wounds” after losing the rap battle.
A spokesperson for the Canadian rapper has confirmed that the legal fight is not over.
“We intend to appeal today’s ruling, and we look forward to the Court of Appeals reviewing it.”
