🔗 Share this article

A court official has dismissed the rapper Drake’s defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group concerning Kendrick Lamar's song the diss record.

Presiding Judge the court’s judge decided that the rapper’s song lyrics, which claimed Drake and his associates of being "certified paedophiles", were "nonactionable opinion" and cannot be considered defamatory.

The Canadian rapper filed the lawsuit in early this year, accusing UMG, the record label representing both artists, of defamation by allowing the song to be published and marketed, saying it spread a "false and malicious narrative".

Drake's representative said he intended to challenge the decision. Universal Music Group expressed it was pleased with the outcome and was eager to continuing its work with the rapper.

Background of the Rap Battle

The diss song, which was initially released in May 2024, was broadly viewed as the decisive blow in an continuing feud between the competing artists.

It has emerged as the biggest hit of Lamar's career, having received multiple Grammy awards and being one of the most-talked about moments of his Super Bowl half-time show in early 2025.

In a 38-page order, the judge called the dispute between the rappers "the most notorious hip-hop feud in the genre's history".

"Both rappers’ series of diss tracks was a 'verbal conflict' that was the focus of substantial media scrutiny and digital debate," the court noted.

"Although the claim that plaintiff is a pedophile is certainly a serious one, the wider backdrop of a intense musical rivalry, with provocative remarks and insulting claims exchanged by both participants, would not lead the reasonable listener to believe that 'the track' imparts verifiable facts about the claimant."

She additionally observed that, in an previous track, the artist had "challenged Lamar to make the paedophilia accusations" that appeared in Not Like Us.

On the song his own release, the rapper used the synthetic vocals of the late rapper to give Lamar advice on how to prevail in the feud.

"Talk about him likin' young girls, that's a gift from me," the song suggested.

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

"The parallel in the phrasing suggests strongly that this lyric is a clear reference to the artist’s own words in the prior song."

'An Affront to Artists'

The musician, whose legal name is Aubrey Graham, did not sue his rival in the lawsuit.

His lawyers alleged the label of initiating "an effort to generate a popular song" out of a release that made the "untrue claim that Drake is a convicted predator, and to suggest that the public should turn to vigilante justice in retaliation".

Ruling against Drake, Judge Vargas said listeners would not expect "accurate factual reporting" from a diss track "replete with profanity, insults, threats of violence, and figurative and hyperbolic language."

She highlighted that the rapper himself had used comparable rhetoric, quoting a line in which the artist "strongly" suggested that "his opponent is a spouse beater", and a separate instance where Drake "raps that he 'heard' that one of Lamar's children may not be his biological offspring."

Concerning the track in question, Judge Vargas said: "Although apparent statements of fact may take on the nature of subjective views... when made in public debate, intense arguments, or similar situations in which an listener may anticipate the use of epithets, passionate language or hyperbole."

Responding to the dismissal, a UMG representative said: "From the outset, this lawsuit was an affront to every creative and their creative expression and should not have seen the light of day."

"We're pleased with the court's dismissal and are eager to resuming our partnership successfully promoting Drake's music and investing in his career," the representative continued.

A spokesperson for Drake said the artist planned to appeal the decision, "and we look forward to the appellate court examining it".

Kendrick Lamar has not yet comment on the case.