🔗 Share this article

A judge has rejected the rapper Drake’s legal claim targeting Universal Music Group concerning Kendrick Lamar's track the diss record.

Judge Jeannette Vargas ruled that Lamar's song lyrics, which claimed Drake and his associates of being "pedophiles", were "protected opinion" and cannot be deemed libelous.

The Canadian rapper submitted the lawsuit in January, accusing Universal Music Group, the music company representing both artists, of defamation by permitting the track to be published and marketed, saying it spread a "untrue and harmful story".

Drake's spokesperson said he intended to appeal the ruling. Universal Music Group said it was pleased with the outcome and was looking forward to continuing its work with the musician.

Background of the Rap Battle

The diss song, which was initially released in spring 2024, was broadly viewed as the decisive blow in an continuing feud between the competing artists.

It has emerged as the most successful track of the rapper’s musical journey, having received multiple Grammy awards and being one of the most-discussed moments of his Super Bowl half-time show in early 2025.

In a detailed ruling, the judge called the dispute between the rappers "the most notorious hip-hop feud in the genre's history".

"The artists' seven-track rap battle was a 'verbal conflict' that was the subject of substantial media scrutiny and online discourse," the court noted.

"While the accusation that plaintiff is a child predator is certainly a grave allegation, the broader context of a heated rap battle, with provocative remarks and insulting claims exchanged by both participants, would not lead the reasonable listener to believe that 'the track' imparts verifiable facts about the claimant."

She additionally observed that, in an previous track, the artist had "challenged his rival to make the paedophilia accusations" that appeared in the diss record.

On the song his own release, Drake used the synthetic vocals of Tupac Shakur to give Lamar advice on how to win the rap battle.

"Suggest he has a preference for minors, consider that a tip," the song suggested.

"Against this backdrop in which such lyrics as 'Hey Drake, I’ve heard you prefer them young' must be assessed," stated the court.

"The parallel in the wording strongly indicates that this lyric is a direct callback to the artist’s own words in the prior song."

'An Affront to Artists'

Drake, whose legal name is Aubrey Graham, did not sue Lamar in the lawsuit.

His legal team accused the label of launching "a campaign to create a viral hit" out of a track that made the "untrue claim that Drake is a criminal paedophile, and to imply that the audience should turn to extra-legal action in response".

Deciding against the plaintiff, the judge said listeners would not expect "truthful accounts" from a diss track "filled with profanity, trash-talking, threats of violence, and figurative and hyperbolic language."

She highlighted that the rapper himself had used similar language, referencing a lyric in which the artist "strongly" suggested that "Lamar is a spouse beater", and another where Drake "claims that he 'heard' that one of Lamar's sons may not be biologically his."

Concerning Lamar's song, Judge Vargas said: "Even seemingly factual claims may take on the nature of subjective views... when made in open discourse, heated labour dispute, or other circumstances in which an listener may expect the use of slurs, passionate language or exaggeration."

Responding to the dismissal, a UMG spokesperson said: "From the beginning, this lawsuit was an affront to every creative and their artistic freedom and never should have seen the light of day."

"We are satisfied with the court's dismissal and look forward to resuming our partnership effectively marketing Drake's music and supporting his career," the representative continued.

A spokesperson for the musician said the rapper planned to appeal the decision, "and we look forward to the appellate court examining it".

Kendrick Lamar has not yet comment on the legal matter.