Drake Loses UMG Lawsuit Over Kendrick’s “Not Like Us”: The Court Says Diss Tracks Are Art, Not Defamation

A federal judge has officially dismissed Drake’s defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group, closing one of the most talked-about legal battles in recent music history.

​​

Filed in January, the lawsuit accused Universal of defamation, negligence, and emotional distress. Drake claimed the label knowingly promoted Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us”, which he said falsely portrayed him as a pedophile and led to threats and reputational harm. He also alleged that Universal profited from and amplified the controversy to boost streams and engagement across its platforms.

​​

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas ruled in favor of Universal, finding that the lyrics were artistic expression and opinion rather than factual statements. She wrote that “Not Like Us” existed within the context of a rap battle, where exaggeration and provocation are common and culturally understood. The court also found that Drake failed to show actual malice or a direct connection between Universal’s promotion of the song and any real harm.​

 

The ruling reaffirms that rap lyrics and diss tracks are protected forms of speech under the First Amendment. For artists and songwriters, it highlights the legal power of context in creative work.​

 

The legal loss may close the case, but it opens a new chapter in Drake’s relationship with the label that just beat him in court. Universal Music Group still distributes his music through Republic Records, meaning Drake is still working under the same corporate roof he accused of exploiting him.

​​

Drake has long been one of UMG’s most profitable artists. How this plays out could shape both his career and UMG’s internal politics. Publicly, neither side has commented, but behind the scenes, the dynamic will be hard to ignore.

​​

The ruling raises broader questions about where a record label’s responsibility begins and ends. Is it the company’s role to protect an artist’s personal interests or to protect their right to create? This case suggests that, under the First Amendment, labels have no legal obligation to intervene when artistic expression sparks controversy.

​​

For the industry, it highlights how difficult it is to separate creativity from the bravado that defines hip-hop, a space that thrives on tension, power, and performance, often without clear lines between the personal and the performative. Whether this changes anything in how artists or labels navigate creative conflicts remains to be seen.