Drake’s defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us dismissed by judge | Ents & Arts News

Drake’s defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track Not Like Us has been dismissed by a federal judge.

Judge Jeannette A Vargas said Lamar’s lyrics accusing Drake of being a paedophile were not defamatory because they were “nonactionable opinion”.

The Canadian rapper had sued Universal Music Group (UMG) – which releases both artists’ music – and Lamar was not named in the lawsuit.

In a written opinion published on Thursday, the judge described “the vitriolic war of words” that erupted in spring 2024 as “perhaps the most infamous rap battle in the genre’s history”.

The feud led to nine tracks back and forth between the two hip-hop stars, with the insults escalating as the tracks progressed, becoming “vicious, personal”.

Other insults included shoe size, fashion sense and cuckolding.

The battle concluded with Lamar’s Not Like Us, which the judge described as “the metaphorical killing blow”.

One of 2024’s biggest songs, it won record of the year and song of the year at the Grammys, achieved most Apple Music streams worldwide, and helped make the 2025 Super Bowl half-time show the most-watched ever.

However, the judge said a reasonable listener could not have concluded that the track was conveying objective facts about Drake.

She wrote: “Although the accusation that Plaintiff is a paedophile 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 said she considered the forum in which the insults occurred and concluded that the average listener does not think a diss track “is the product of a thoughtful or disinterested investigation, conveying to the public fact-checked verifiable content”.

She wrote Not Like Us was “replete with profanity, trash-talking, threats of violence, and figurative and hyperbolic language, all of which are indicia of opinion”.

A reasonable listener, she added, “would conclude that Lamar is rapping hyperbolic vituperations”.

The lawsuit, which was filed in January, alleged that UMG intentionally published and promoted the track despite knowing that it contained false and defamatory paedophilia allegations against Drake and suggested listeners should resort to vigilante justice.

The song’s cover art included an aerial image of Drake’s Toronto mansion, which he said led to attempted break-ins and the shooting of a security guard.

The lawsuit also alleged the track tarnished Drake’s reputation and decreased the value of his brand.

UMG had denied the allegations, calling the lawsuit “an affront to all artists and their creative expression” and one which it said “never should have seen the light of day”.

It said it was “pleased with the court’s dismissal” and looked forward to continuing its work with Drake in the future.

Drake is yet to comment.