Drake vs. Kendrick Federal Judge Rules “Not Like Us” Was Opinion, Not Defamation

The war of words between Aubrey Drake Graham and Kendrick Lamar Duckworth began as music’s biggest lyrical feud in years. But by the fall of 2025, it had evolved into something much larger: a federal court battle testing how far artistic freedom can go before it collides with defamation law.

On October 9, 2025, U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York officially dismissed Drake’s defamation and business-law claims against Universal Music Group (UMG). In a 38-page opinion, Judge Vargas ruled that Kendrick Lamar’s song “Not Like Us”—with lyrics accusing Drake of predatory behavior—constituted protected opinion and rhetorical expression, not factual allegations that could support a defamation case.

The Lawsuit and the Context Behind It

The case, Aubrey Drake Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc., grew out of the infamous 2024 Drake-Kendrick feud. Over sixteen days, the two superstars released eight diss tracks aimed squarely at each other. The competition generated viral debates, endless think pieces, and one of the most engaged cultural moments hip-hop has seen in years.

Drake’s complaint centered on the final blow in that series: Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us.” The record accused Drake of inappropriate relationships with minors and turned those claims into a national talking point. The track dominated streaming platforms, reaching over 1.4 billion plays worldwide and earning both commercial success and Grammy buzz.

In his lawsuit, Drake alleged that UMG—label home to both artists—had intentionally promoted and monetized the song despite knowing the lyrics were false and damaging. He accused the company of defamation, harassment in the second degree, and violation of New York General Business Law § 349, which prohibits deceptive business practices.

Essentially, Drake claimed his own label sided with his rival for profit.

Judge Vargas’s Decision

Judge Vargas’s opinion begins with a blunt acknowledgment:

“This case arises from perhaps the most infamous rap battle in the genre’s history… Over the course of sixteen days, the two artists released eight so-called ‘diss tracks’ with increasingly heated rhetoric, loaded accusations, and violent imagery.”

The judge described “Not Like Us” as the “metaphorical killing blow” of the feud, then addressed the legal heart of the dispute. The lyrics, she wrote, are hyperbolic commentary, inseparable from the competitive tradition of rap battles.

Her analysis leaned on key defamation precedents such as Steinhilber v. Alphonse (1986), which distinguishes protected opinion from statements of fact. Under that framework, Judge Vargas concluded that no reasonable listener would interpret Kendrick Lamar’s words as literal assertions.

She also rejected Drake’s secondary claims. The business-law count failed because the lawsuit offered no evidence that consumers were deceived or harmed, and the harassment claim lacked a private right of action.

In short, the court determined that Lamar’s lyrics were artistic expression, not actionable speech, and that UMG had broken no law in releasing or promoting the track. The motion to dismiss was granted in full.

What the Ruling Means

The court’s reasoning goes beyond one celebrity dispute. It reinforces a long-standing legal principle: artistic speech, especially in music and performance, enjoys wide latitude under the First Amendment. Even when an artist’s words sting, they are protected if they fall within the realm of opinion, parody, or metaphor.

Judge Vargas effectively recognized hip-hop as a cultural space where exaggeration and personal attack are expected forms of expression. Diss tracks, she noted, are not sworn statements—they are rhetorical battles fought through art.

That distinction matters. It means that in the eyes of the law, Kendrick Lamar’s “certified pedophile” lyric is treated as artistic hyperbole rather than a literal claim of criminal conduct.

Why Drake’s Case Fell Apart

Four main points doomed Drake’s lawsuit:

1. Context defines interpretation.The court saw “Not Like Us” as part of a broader creative feud where exaggerated insults are normal.

2. No provable false statement.Because the lyrics express opinion rather than verifiable fact, they cannot meet the legal test for defamation.

3. No consumer harm.The deceptive-practices claim under state law required evidence that UMG misled the public or customers, which Drake did not allege.

4. No private cause of action for harassment.Civil courts cannot treat criminal harassment statutes as personal lawsuits.

These flaws left the court little choice but to dismiss.

Industry and Public Reaction

The response was immediate. Music lawyers called the opinion a reaffirmation of free expression in art. Artists and fans flooded social media, debating whether the decision protected creativity or excused slander.

Supporters of Kendrick Lamar hailed the ruling as a victory for artistic autonomy, arguing that hip-hop has always relied on confrontation as art form. Drake’s supporters saw the outcome as unfair, warning that it legitimized character attacks under the cover of entertainment.

UMG released only a short statement emphasizing its commitment to “supporting artistic voices while respecting the rule of law.” Drake’s representatives have not confirmed whether they plan to appeal or file a new action based on different theories of harm.

Beyond the Courtroom

The ruling highlights the tension between free expression and reputation in the age of viral media. A diss record released on streaming platforms can reach billions, influencing brand deals, public sentiment, and social narratives overnight.

For Drake, even a legal victory might not have repaired the cultural damage. Once a phrase like “certified pedophile” circulates globally, it becomes part of public memory, regardless of the court’s interpretation.

Still, the opinion sets a clear precedent: creative hyperbole in music remains protected speech, even when it targets individuals by name. Future artists, labels, and attorneys will cite this case whenever courts are asked to weigh artistic license against defamation claims.

At its core, Drake v. UMG is not only about a dismissed lawsuit. It is about what hip-hop represents—raw competition, storytelling, and emotional truth told through exaggeration. The court’s language acknowledged that heritage.

Yet, this decision also asks hard questions. When billions hear a lyric that brands someone with a damaging label, can the impact ever truly be “just art”? And how should the industry balance free expression with accountability when accusations become cultural shorthand?

The conversation does not end with this case. It continues wherever artists use art to wage war, and wherever fans decide whose truth they believe.

Sources

• Music Business Worldwide: “Drake’s Lawsuit Against UMG Over Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’ Dismissed by U.S. Court.”

• The Hollywood Reporter: “Judge Dismisses Drake’s Defamation Case.”

• Reuters: “Drake’s Label Says Lawsuit Over Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’ Should Be Dismissed.”

• Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz LLP: “Diss Tracks and Defamation, Part II: UMG Urges Dismissal of Drake’s Case.”