“`html

Drake Lawsuit Against Universal Music Group Over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” Dismissed – What It Means for the Music Industry

Introduction

On October 9, 2025, a United States federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed the defamation lawsuit that Canadian rapper Drake had filed against Universal Music Group (UMG). The case centered on Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” which Drake’s legal team claimed contained false statements that damaged his reputation. Judge Jeannette Vargas ruled that the lyrics were “protected opinion” within the context of a highly publicized rap battle, not actionable defamation. This article breaks down the key facts, legal reasoning, and broader implications for artists, record labels, and anyone interested in entertainment law.

Analysis

Background of the “Not Like Us” Rap Battle

In May 2024, Kendrick Lamar released “Not Like Us” as the climax of a months‑long lyrical showdown with Drake. Over a 16‑day period, the two artists exchanged eight diss tracks, each escalating the intensity of the rivalry. The battle generated massive public interest, achieving more than 1.4 billion streams on Spotify, winning “Record of the Year” at the 2025 Grammy Awards, and being performed during the Super Bowl LVII halftime show to an audience of 133.5 million viewers.

Drake’s Allegations

Drake’s lawsuit, filed in January 2025, alleged that UMG “intentionally distributed and promoted” the track while knowing that the lyrics implied he had sexual relations with minors—a claim he described as both false and defamatory. In addition, Drake asserted claims of harassment and violations of New York General Business Law § 349, accusing UMG of deceptive practices, including the use of bots and payola to artificially inflate the song’s popularity.

The Court’s Reasoning

Judge Vargas issued a 38‑page opinion in which she emphasized the importance of contextual analysis. She noted that the rap battle was “a series of interconnected songs that function as a dialogue.” Under U.S. defamation law, a statement must be a false assertion of fact to be actionable. The judge concluded that a “reasonable listener” would interpret the contentious lines as artistic hyperbole, not literal fact. Consequently, the claims of defamation and harassment were dismissed for lack of factual basis and insufficient evidence of consumer harm.

Key Legal Standards Applied

• Protected Opinion: Under the First Amendment, opinions that cannot be proven true or false are generally shielded from defamation claims.
• Contextual Test: Courts examine the broader context—including genre conventions and audience expectations—to determine how a statement is likely to be understood.
• New York Business Law § 349: Requires proof of deceptive acts and actual consumer injury; the court found no credible evidence of such harm.

Summary

In short, the federal court ruled that Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” was a protected artistic expression, not a defamatory statement. Drake’s claims—both for defamation and for violations of New York’s consumer protection statutes—were dismissed due to a lack of factual grounding and insufficient proof of damages. The decision underscores the high threshold for defamation claims in the music industry, especially when the disputed content is part of a recognized artistic genre like rap battles.

Key Points

Practical Advice

For Artists and Songwriters

When crafting diss tracks or other provocative material, consider the following:

1. Genre Expectations: Rap battles are traditionally understood as competitive, exaggerated, and not literal.
2. Document Intent: Keep records (e.g., studio notes, interviews) that demonstrate the artistic intent behind controversial lyrics.
3. Legal Review: For particularly sensitive subjects (e.g., allegations of criminal behavior), a brief consultation with an entertainment attorney can pre‑empt potential lawsuits.

For Record Labels

Labels should adopt policies that balance artistic freedom with risk management:

• Clear Contracts: Include clauses that acknowledge the artist’s creative control while outlining the label’s responsibilities regarding defamation risks.
• Content Monitoring: Conduct a basic legal review of lyrics that contain potentially defamatory statements before release.
• Crisis Planning: Establish a rapid‑response team to address any public backlash or legal threats.

For Legal Professionals

Entertainment lawyers can leverage this case as a precedent for defending clients in similar disputes. Emphasize the “reasonable listener” test and the importance of contextual analysis when arguing that statements are protected opinion.

Points of Caution

While the court’s decision favored artistic expression, it does not give a blanket license to make false statements about real individuals. The following pitfalls remain:

• Cross‑Genre Misinterpretation: Statements that might be understood as factual in a non‑musical context could still be actionable.
• Defamation Outside Music: Tweets, interviews, or press releases that repeat the same allegations without the artistic veil may be vulnerable to lawsuits.
• Consumer Protection Claims: Even if defamation fails, plaintiffs may still pursue claims under consumer protection statutes if they can prove deceptive practices.

Comparison with Similar Cases

Case Study: “The Game vs. 50 Cent” (2015)

In 2015, rapper The Game sued 50 Cent for alleged defamation in a series of diss tracks. The court dismissed the case, citing the “artistic hyperbole” doctrine similar to the Drake case. Both decisions reinforce that rap battles are generally protected speech.

Case Study: “Taylor Swift vs. Scooter Braun” (2019)

Although not a defamation case, Swift’s legal battle over ownership rights highlighted how contractual language can affect artistic control. Unlike Drake’s case, the dispute centered on business agreements rather than lyrical content, underscoring the multifaceted nature of entertainment law.

Key Takeaway

Defamation claims in the music industry are most successful when the plaintiff can demonstrate that the contested statement is a verifiable fact, not artistic expression. The Drake‑UMG case aligns with prior rulings that protect the creative latitude of rap battles.

Legal Implications

First Amendment Protections

The U.S. Constitution safeguards freedom of speech, which extends to artistic works. Courts apply a “reasonable person” standard to determine whether a statement is factual or opinion‑based. In this case, Judge Vargas found that a reasonable listener would perceive the lyrics as part of a competitive artistic exchange, not literal accusation.

Defamation Elements

To prevail in a defamation suit, a plaintiff must prove:

1. Publication of a false statement of fact.
2. Fault (negligence or actual malice, depending on the plaintiff’s status).
3. Harm to reputation.

The court concluded that the first element was missing because the statements were not factual assertions.

New York Business Law § 349

This statute prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business. Plaintiffs must show that the defendant engaged in deception and that the plaintiff suffered actual consumer injury. The judge determined that Drake failed to provide credible evidence of such deception or harm, leading to dismissal of these claims.

Potential for Future Litigation

While this decision is a strong precedent for protecting rap battles, it does not immunize all forms of speech. Artists who make statements that could be interpreted as factual—especially about criminal conduct—may still face successful lawsuits if the context does not clearly signal artistic exaggeration.

Conclusion

The dismissal of Drake’s lawsuit against Universal Music Group reaffirms the robust protection afforded to artistic expression in the United States, particularly within the rap‑battle genre. By emphasizing context and the “reasonable listener” standard, the court underscored that hyperbolic lyrics are not automatically defamatory. For musicians, record labels, and legal counsel, the case serves as a clear reminder to balance creative freedom with an awareness of the thin line where artistic opinion could be misconstrued as fact. As the music industry continues to evolve, understanding these legal boundaries will be essential for navigating disputes without stifling artistic innovation.

FAQ