A Lyrical Battle Turned Legal: Drake’s Odds of Success in his Defamation Suit over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us”

by Maria Tobergte, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. XX

I. Introduction

Few can say they have stared and smiled into a camera while performing a song about their archnemesis on one of the world’s biggest stages—the Super Bowl Halftime Show—but Kendrick Lamar Duckworth (“Lamar”) can. That is precisely what he did on February 9, 2025, when Lamar sang his viral sensation “Not Like Us” to over 133 million people watching.[1] The track marks the latest chapter in the ongoing “rap battle” between Lamar and Aubrey Drake Graham (“Drake”). Still, because of the insinuations some of its lyrics contain, Drake has sued the song’s publisher, Universal Music Group Recordings (“UMG”), for defamation.[2]

This article will assess whether Drake’s defamation lawsuit against UMG will succeed. Section II of this article will discuss the history between Lamar and Drake, the allegations contained in Drake’s lawsuit, and the legal standard for defamation. Section III of this article examines Drake’s odds of success, primarily considering whether the lyrics are offered for their truth or are merely a form of hyperbolic rhetoric. Lastly, Section IV concludes that Drake’s defamation claim is unlikely to prevail.[3]

II. Background

Lamar and Drake are two of the most well-known rappers in the world.[4] Lamar, a Southern California native, is best known for his songs such as “HUMBLE,” “All the Stars,” and “DNA.”[5] Lamar has won twenty-two Grammy awards and three Best Rap Album awards, in addition to winning a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for his album DAMN.[6]

Drake, born in Toronto, Canada, rose to fame in 2009 and has remained in the limelight ever since, producing popular tracks such as “God’s Plan,” “Best I Ever Had,” and “Nice for What.”[7] Drake has received five Grammy awards, numerous Billboard Music Awards, and has the most top ten hits of all time on the Billboard Hot 100 chart.[8]

A. Lamar and Drake’s Feuding History—An Abridged Version

The feud between Lamar and Drake began more than a decade ago in 2011, when Lamar was featured on Drake’s album, Take Care.[9] The following year, the rappers collaborated on the song “Poetic Justice” from Lamar’s album, good kid, m.A.A.d city.[10] Tensions started to rise in 2013 when Lamar called out Drake and eleven other rappers by name when he appeared on another artist’s (Big Sean) song, “Control.”[11] Lamar also dubbed himself the “King of New York” and the “King of the Coast” on the track.[12]

From 2014 to 2020, the two rappers continued to diss each other through releases of their music or by appearing as guest artists on other diss tracks.[13] These shots were subtle, with nothing groundbreaking.[14] However, things took a turn in 2023 when Drake collaborated with fellow rapper J. Cole on a track called “First Person Shooter,” where Drake boasted about his popularity, comparing himself to Michael Jackson.[15] Lamar mocked Drake for doing so.[16]

In 2024, Drake called Lamar a “pipsqueak” in his song “Push Ups.”[17] Lamar followed up with two more diss tracks of his own.[18] Drake subsequently responded with a third diss track, “Family Matters,” where Drake alleged abuse and infidelity in Lamar’s relationship with his fiancée.[19] Drake also opined that one of Lamar’s children is fathered by one of his business managers.[20] Lamar countered with “Meet the Grahams,” where he seemed to call out Drake for being a deadbeat father and suggested that Drake is hiding another child from the world.[21]

B. The Culmination of the Feud:“Not Like Us”

1. The Song Release

The seemingly endless diss tracks and jabs at each other culminated on May 4, 2024, when Lamar released “Not Like Us.”[22] The song’s overlaying message accuses Drake—and his inner circle—of being pedophiles.[23] Specifically, Lamar raps, “Say, Drake, I hear you like ‘em young. You better not ever go to cell block one.”[24] Later in the song, Lamar refers to Drake and his team as “certified pedophiles.”[25] He also incorporated a pun with these lyrics: “Tryna strike a chord and it’s probably A minor,” dually referencing the A minor chord, which potentially alludes to Drake’s frequent use of this key and also suggests that Drake engaged in inappropriate relationships with underage individuals.[26]

The track’s accompanying artwork depicts an image of Drake’s mansion in Toronto, Canada, with thirteen red markers displayed on top of the mansion.[27] The red markers resemble the same markers found on maps signifying the homes of registered sex offenders.[28]

Just nine days after its release, “Not Like Us” was a nationwide sensation, landing at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart.[29] Lamar later received five Grammy awards for the song, and beat out Drake at the BET Hip Hop Awards, taking home eight awards.[30]

2. The Feud Reaches Its Zenith: Lamar’s Super Bowl Performance

Eight months after the song’s release, Lamar performed at the Super Bowl LIX Halftime Show.[31] In the weeks leading up to the performance, fans speculated as to whether Lamar would perform the diss track, especially whether he would specifically call out Drake’s name.[32] After teasing the audience with references to the song throughout the beginning parts of his performance, Lamar did just that. With a cheeky grin on his face and staring directly into the camera, Lamar called Drake out by name and sang “Say, Drake, I hear you like ‘em young,” which later catapulted into a nationwide meme.[33]

C. The Lyrical Battle Turns Legal: Drake v. Universal Music Group Recordings

On January 15, 2025, Drake filed an eighty-one page lawsuit against UMG.[34] UMG is the world’s largest music company that, as Drake’s complaint suggests, engages in “the business of acquiring, administering, licensing, exploiting and otherwise monetizing a catalog of copyrights containing musical compositions and sound recordings.”[35] Both Lamar and Drake are signed to UMG, making the dispute messier and perhaps counterintuitive.[36] It should be emphasized, however, that Drake’s allegations are only directed at UMG, not Lamar.[37]

Drake’s lawsuit contains two primary allegations against UMG: defamation and harassment.[38] This article will solely focus on the defamation claim.

1. The Defamation Claim

Drake’s complaint argues that “Not Like Us” is defamatory because its lyrics, accompanying images, and music video all “advance the false and malicious narrative that Drake is a pedophile.”[39] Drake alleges that UMG knew (or should have known) the song’s lyrics were false, but UMG still engaged in an unrelenting campaign to publish and promote the song because it knew its inflammatory rhetoric would financially benefit UMG, even though such lyrics would result in substantial harm to Drake’s reputation.[40]

Drake’s lawyers state the pedophile allegations are patently false, as he has never been indicted for or convicted of any charges of sexual assault or violence, nor has he engaged in inappropriate sexual or romantic relations with a minor.[41] Drake himself denied such allegations in a song called “The Heart Pt. 6,” where he stated that he has “never been with no one underage” and that his name is absent from the “sex offender list.”[42] The complaint also notes that the false allegations against Drake ignored reliable contrary information and were unsupported by any evidence, yet UMG proceeded to publish and promote the song.[43]

Drake’s complaint also details the harm he has suffered as a result of UMG’s actions in promoting the song. For instance, armed assailants attacked Drake’s Toronto home on May 7, 2024 (days after “Not Like Us” was released), firing bullets, one of which hit Drake’s front door and another which struck Drake’s security guard.[44] The next day, an intruder dug a hole under the security fence surrounding his home, yelling racist threats against Drake before he was escorted off the property.[45] Another break-in attempt happened yet again on May 9, 2024.[46]

Drake also details other harm he has suffered. For example, many individuals on the Internet believe the pedophile allegations to be factual, others call for the police to lock Drake up, and  some compare Drake to the likes of Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein.[47] Drake’s reputation has also been supposedly damaged—two polls revealed that his favorability rating dropped by 11% and his unfavorability rating rose by 13%.[48]

D. The Legal Standard for Defamation

Although the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to speak freely, certain categories of speech are not afforded constitutional protection.[49] One such category is defamation. Defamation arises from the “making of a false statement which tends to expose the plaintiff to public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace.”[50] If a statement expresses an opinion, no matter how offensive it is, it cannot be the subject of a defamation action.[51] Crude and vulgar speech also merit protection.[52]

When attempting to distinguish between whether a statement is an assertion of fact or a nonactionable opinion, the key inquiry is what a reasonable person hearing or reading the statement would understand it to mean.[53] Ultimately, to succeed on a claim of defamation, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the defendant made a false statement purporting to be true; (2) the statement was published without authorization to a third party; (3) in a negligent or malicious manner; that (4) causes special harm or constitutes defamation per se.[54]

For the third element, whether negligence or actual malice is required depends on whether the defendant published alleged defamatory statements about a private citizen or an all-purpose public figure.[55] An all-purpose public figure is someone who achieves such “pervasive fame or notoriety” that they become a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts.[56] For private citizens, the defamatory statements need have been made only negligently.[57] However, if the defendant has made defamatory statements about an all-purpose public figure, the plaintiff must establish that such statements were made with actual malice.[58] Actual malice is defined as “knowledge that [the statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”[59]

III. Discussion

A. Artistic Expression or Statements of Fact?

Since the key inquiry in determining whether a statement is asserted as fact or is a nonactionable opinion is what a reasonable person hearing or reading the statement would understand it to mean, how these allegations were made is paramount. Songs are viewed as a mode of artistic expression, with lyrics often not taken literally and instead viewed as hyperbolic rhetoric.[60] As an illustration, in Rapaport v. Barstool Sports, an actor alleged that a diss track containing a “constant stream of insults and slurs about Rapaport against a backdrop of unflattering video clips and images” was defamatory.[61] The district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed, holding that the “statements at issue were made in the context of a hostile, vulgar, and hyperbolic feud” where utilizing insults and hyperbole “function as a strong indicator to the reasonable reader that the statement is not expressing or implying any facts.”[62] The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit similarly held in Boladian v. UMG Recordings, Inc. that lyrics in a song that called an individual a “disgrace to the species” merely represented the kind of “puerile taunt that, for better or worse, is typical of rap music.”[63]

Rapaport and Boladian compel a similar conclusion here. Drake’s lawsuit ignores the context in which “Not Like Us” was produced. The rappers’ history with one another and the nature of the rap genre make it unlikely that the insults in “Not Like Us” are meant to be taken as statements of fact. For over a decade now, the two have been involved in a lyrical battle, hurling various vitriolic remarks at one another in their songs. Had Lamar released this song out of the blue, without being preceded by several other diss tracks by both Drake and Lamar, it may seem more plausible that Lamar is seeking to assert factual statements in “Not Like Us.” But, given that the two have been engaging in this behavior for several years, it is more likely that Lamar just wanted to “up” Drake by leveling outrageous insults toward him. As such, listeners likely interpret the lyrics as hyperbolic rhetoric rather than factual statements. Although Drake suggests the opposite in his complaint and cites examples of Internet users who truly believe Drake to be a pedophile, those comments may not be representative of the entire public, nor do they shed light on whether the defendant, UMG—who did not even write the song—is offering the allegations for their truth.[64]

Further, Drake’s own hands are unclean. It is illogical for Drake to claim that Lamar’s allegations in “Not Like Us” are factual and defamatory when Drake has engaged in similar behavior. For instance, Drake once suggested that Lamar was abusing and cheating on his fiancée in his song “Family Matters.”[65] Drake insinuated in the same song that one of Lamar’s children was fathered by one of Lamar’s business managers.[66] Additionally, in a song released before “Not Like Us,” Drake even called on Lamar to make pedophile allegations about him—he used Tupac’s AI-generated voice to rap that Lamar should “talk about [Drake] likin’ young girls.”[67] In light of this history, it is counterintuitive for Drake to suggest that only the lyrics in “Not Like Us” are defamatory while the lyrics in other songs are nonactionable.

Lastly, as Drake mentions in his complaint, a cursory inspection of public records would reveal the absence of any criminal convictions.[68] Therefore, if the public (and UMG) can easily verify that Drake is not a sex offender, then why would Lamar or UMG attempt to assert such allegations as factual? This further suggests that Lamar’s diss is mere artistic expression rather than defamatory factual statements. While Lamar’s lyrics are certainly hateful, vulgar, and offensive, such speech is nonetheless protected under the First Amendment.[69]

B. Did UMG Publish the Lyrics with Actual Malice?

It would be difficult to suggest that Drake is anything less than an all-purpose public figure. He is a prominent, successful artist who is arguably a household name. Accordingly, for him to succeed on his defamation claim, he must demonstrate that UMG published the lyrics in “Not Like Us” with actual malice, which requires “knowledge that [the statement was false] or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”[70] In certain situations, courts assess the actual malice inquiry by determining what the speaker subjectively intended to convey.[71]

When assessing whether UMG acted with actual malice, the rappers’ history again speaks volumes. Because UMG had previously published some of Drake’s songs that spoke poorly of Lamar, it seems like UMG merely intended to participate in the long-winded rap battle between the artists, rather than publishing factual and false statements about Drake. If UMG had truly believed Drake was a pedophile, the company would likely have begun to distance itself from Drake. By refraining from doing so, it seems more likely that UMG just wanted to profit off both Drake and Lamar by publishing and promoting yet another diss track, regardless of whether Drake or Lamar was attacked in the song.

C. Did Drake Suffer Harm?

Although the attempted break-ins at Drake’s property and the shooting of one of Drake’s bodyguards are serious incidents, attributing responsibility to UMG is challenging. To hold UMG liable, it must have been reasonably foreseeable for people to attempt to burglarize and physically harm Drake because a diss track was published about him. However, such behavior is likely not reasonable nor foreseeable. To hold otherwise would set a precedent where it is expected that individuals will take song lyrics literally and act upon them in a serious and violent way. It would be a stretch of the law, and unfair to UMG, to hold it liable for the actions of a few vigilante-minded fans.

IV. Conclusion

Drake’s defamation claim against UMG faces significant legal hurdles. While “Not Like Us” undeniably contains inflammatory rhetoric that is vulgar and offensive, the history of Drake and Lamar’s feud and the artistic expression afforded to music lyrics weigh against a finding of defamation. Should Drake prevail, it could potentially chill speech and set a concerning precedent where artists (or the companies that produce artists’ songs) are liable for offensive lyrics contained therein.

---

[1] Heran Mamo, Kendrick Lamar’s 202 Super Bowl Halftime Show is Now the Most-Watched of All Time, Billboard (Feb. 11, 2025), https://www.billboard.com/music/rb-hip-hop/kendrick-lamar-2025-super-bowl-halftime-show-most-watched-all-time-1235899552/ [https://perma.cc/QZE6-UX2V].

[2] Complaint, Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00399 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2025). 

[3] At the time this article was written, there was no definitive outcome in this lawsuit. At the article’s time of publication, there may be a definitive ruling or the parties may have settled. With that in mind, this article simply seeks to predict how the suit will be resolved, understanding that a ruling may be issued between the completion of writing and the article’s release.

[4] Catherine Caruso, Kendrick Lamar, Biography (Feb. 10, 2025), https://www.biography.com/musicians/kendrick-lamar [https://perma.cc/6LBL-MNAX].

[5] Id.

[6] Id.  

[7] Drake Songs, Genius, https://genius.com/artists/Drake/songs (last visited Mar. 17, 2025) [https://perma.cc/6KBG-DHWH].

[8] Artists with the Most Billboard Hot 100 Top 10 Hits, Medium (Mar. 18, 2024), https://medium.com/@chartsafrica/artists-with-the-most-billboard-hot-100-top-10-hits-8f98843437c9# [https://perma.cc/9EUN-ZEWZ].

[9] Gina Vivinetto and Candice Williams, Kendrick Lamar and Drake’s rap beef: A complete guide, Today (May 5, 2024, 11:54 AM), https://www.today.com/popculture/music/drake-kendrick-lamar-feud-explained-rcna150621.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Carl Lamarre, Drake & Kendrick Lamar’s Rocky Relationship Explained, billboard (Mar. 18, 2025), https://www.billboard.com/lists/drake-kendrick-lamar-beef-timeline [https://perma.cc/9CHH-NTJD].

[15] Vivinetto, supra note 9.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] Id. Note that the full details of Drake and Lamar’s rap battle have been omitted for brevity purposes. This article seeks to highlight the most crucial parts of their history to create an appropriate context for the lawsuit regarding “Not Like Us.”

[22] Lamarre, supra note 14.

[23] Id.

[24] Kendrick Lamar, Not Like Us (Interscope Records 2024).

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Sam Hargrave, Kendrick’s Not Like Us Cover Explained: The Dark Meaning Behind the Mansion & Markers, The Direct (May 5, 2024), https://thedirect.com/article/not-like-us-cover-explained-kendrick-meaning [https://perma.cc/SR4X-BHZA].

[28] Id.

[29] Vivinetto, supra note 9.

[30] Lamar received Grammy awards for Best Music Video, Best Rap Song, Best Rap Performance, Song Of The Year, and Record Of The Year. Kendrick Lamar, Grammy Awards, https://www.grammy.com/artists/kendrick-lamar/17949 (last visited Mar. 18, 2025) [https://perma.cc/W26K-WSWQ]; Vivinetto, supra note 9.

[31] Jason Hellerman, Deciphering That Kendrick Lamar Halftime Show, No Film School (Feb. 10, 2025), https://nofilmschool.com/kendrick-lamar-halftime-show# [https://perma.cc/DC94-SDKQ].

[32] Id.

[33] Id.

[34] Complaint, supra note 2.

[35] Id. at ¶ 22, citing Complaint ¶ 1, UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Vital Pharms., Inc., No. 1:21-cv-60914 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2021).

[36] Id. at ¶ 9.

[37] Id. at ¶ 8.

[38] Id. at ¶¶ 204, 223.

[39] Id. at ¶ 7.

[40] Id. at ¶ 8.

[41] Id. at ¶ 68.

[42] Id. at ¶ 70.

[43] Drake’s complaint shares that a basic search of public records would reveal that Drake has never been convicted or charged with sexual violence or assault. Id. at ¶¶ 90, 91.

[44] Id. at ¶ 1.

[45] Id. at ¶ 3.

[46] Id. at ¶ 4.

[47] Id. at ¶ 180, 181.

[48] Id. at ¶ 193.

[49] U.S. Const. amend. I.

[50] Dillon v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 34, 37-38 (App. Div. 1st Dept. 1999).

[51] Mann v. Abel, 885 N.E.2d 884, 886 (N.Y. 2008).

[52] Boladian v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 123 F. App’x 165, 170 (6th Cir. 2005).

[53] Steinhilber v. Alphonse, 501 N.E2d 550, 553 (N.Y. 1986).

[54] See N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 267 (1964).

[55] Id. at 279-80.

[56] Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323, 351 (1974).

[57] Gottwald v. Sebert, 40 N.Y. 3d 240, 251 (2023).

[58] Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 280.

[59] Id.

[60] See generally Rapaport v. Barstool Sports Inc., 2021 WL 1178240, at *15. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2021).

[61] Id.

[62] Id. at *4; see also Motion to Dismiss, Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00399-JAV at *14 (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

[63] Boladian v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 123 F. App’x 165, 170 (6th Cir. 2005).

[64] Complaint, supra note 2, at ¶ 171.

[65] Vivinetto, supra note 9.

[66] Id.

[67] Taylor Made Freestyle, Genius (Apr. 19, 2024), https://genius.com/Drake-taylor-made-freestyle-lyrics [https://perma.cc/P66Y-PDTS].

[68] Complaint, supra note 2 at ¶ 91.  

[69] U.S. Const. amend. I.

[70] N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964).

[71] See Dworkin v. Hustler Mag. Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1194-95 (5th Cir. 1989); Motion to Dismiss, supra note 62, at 24.

---

Cover Photo by Marius Masalar on Unsplash.