The court’s decision hinged on the nature of the lyrics within the context of a heated rap feud, a cultural phenomenon where exaggerated and provocative language is commonplace. Judge Vargas emphasized that the accusations in “Not Like Us,” while serious, were expressions of opinion rather than statements of verifiable fact. In her ruling, she noted that a “reasonable listener” would not interpret the song’s lyrics as conveying factual information about Drake. “The average listener is not under the impression that a diss track is the product of a thoughtful or disinterested investigation, conveying to the public fact-checked verifiable content,” Vargas wrote. She further explained that the broader context of the rap battle, characterized by “incendiary language and offensive accusations” exchanged by both artists, would lead listeners to view the song as part of a performative rivalry rather than a source of factual claims.
The ruling included a meticulous line-by-line analysis of the diss tracks released by both Drake and Lamar during their public feud, which captivated the music industry and fans alike in 2024. The feud, marked by a series of escalating musical exchanges, saw both artists trading personal and professional insults through their songs. Lamar’s “Not Like Us,” released in May 2024, became a cultural juggernaut, earning critical acclaim, multiple Grammy Awards, and a prominent feature in Lamar’s Super Bowl halftime show performance in February 2025. The song’s success amplified the stakes of Drake’s lawsuit, as its widespread popularity and commercial achievements underscored the impact of its controversial lyrics.
Drake, who has vehemently denied the allegations made in the song, filed the lawsuit against UMG in January 2025, arguing that the label’s promotion of “Not Like Us” caused him reputational harm. The legal action was unusual, as it targeted UMG, the parent company of Republic Records (Drake’s label) and Interscope Records (Lamar’s label), rather than the artist who wrote and performed the track. This created a complex dynamic, as Drake’s professional relationship with UMG made the lawsuit appear counterintuitive to some observers. UMG, in response, consistently labeled the lawsuit as “frivolous” and “illogical,” arguing that it undermined artistic freedom and creative expression. A UMG spokesperson issued a statement following the dismissal, saying, “From the outset, this suit was an affront to all artists and their creative expression and never should have seen the light of day. We’re pleased with the court’s dismissal and look forward to continuing our work successfully promoting Drake’s music and investing in his career.”
The dismissal represents a significant victory for UMG, reinforcing the legal protections afforded to artistic expression, particularly within the context of rap music’s competitive and provocative traditions. However, Drake’s legal team has signaled that the matter is far from resolved. A spokesperson for the rapper told CNN, “We intend to appeal today’s ruling, and we look forward to the Court of Appeals reviewing it.” This announcement indicates that Drake is prepared to escalate the case to a higher court, potentially prolonging the legal battle and keeping the feud in the public eye.
The broader implications of the ruling extend beyond the immediate parties involved, touching on the intersection of free speech, artistic expression, and defamation law. Rap feuds, a longstanding tradition in hip-hop culture, often involve hyperbolic and personal attacks designed to provoke and entertain. Courts have historically been reluctant to treat such lyrics as factual statements, recognizing their role as performative art rather than journalistic reporting. Judge Vargas’s ruling aligns with this precedent, affirming that the context of a rap battle shapes how listeners interpret the content. By dismissing the case, the court has upheld the principle that artists can engage in such exchanges without fear of legal repercussions, provided their statements remain within the realm of opinion rather than provable fact.
The Drake-Lamar feud, which began as a musical rivalry, has evolved into a multifaceted saga involving legal, cultural, and commercial dimensions. “Not Like Us” not only dominated charts but also became a cultural touchstone, with its Grammy wins and Super Bowl performance cementing its place in hip-hop history. For Drake, the song’s success and the allegations it contains have posed a significant challenge to his public image, prompting his legal action against UMG. However, the court’s ruling underscores the difficulty of pursuing defamation claims in the context of artistic expression, particularly when the statements in question are embedded in a genre known for its confrontational style.
As the appeal process looms, the case continues to spark debate about the boundaries of free speech in music and the responsibilities of record labels in promoting controversial content. For now, UMG can celebrate a legal victory, while Drake prepares for the next stage of his fight to clear his name. The outcome of the appeal could set further precedent for how courts handle similar disputes in the future, potentially shaping the landscape for artists and labels navigating the fine line between creative freedom and legal accountability.
