🔗 Share this article

A court official has dismissed Drake's legal claim against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar’s song the diss record.

Presiding Judge Jeannette Vargas decided that Lamar's lyrics, which accused Drake and his crew of being "pedophiles", were "protected opinion" and cannot be considered libelous.

Drake submitted the lawsuit in early this year, accusing Universal Music Group, the record label representing both artists, of defamation by permitting the song to be published and promoted, saying it disseminated a "false and malicious narrative".

The artist’s spokesperson stated he intended to challenge the ruling. Universal Music Group expressed it was pleased with the result and was eager to continuing its work with the musician.

Background of the Rap Battle

The diss song, which was initially released in spring 2024, was widely seen as the final strike in an continuing feud between the competing artists.

It has emerged as the biggest hit of Lamar's career, having received multiple Grammy awards and being one of the most-discussed moments of his Super Bowl half-time show in February.

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

"The artists' series of diss tracks was a 'war of words' that was the focus of extensive press coverage and digital debate," the judge noted.

"Although the accusation that Drake is a pedophile is certainly a serious one, the wider backdrop of a heated rap battle, with incendiary language and offensive accusations exchanged by both participants, would not lead the reasonable listener to believe that 'the track' imparts verifiable facts about plaintiff."

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 track Taylor Made Freestyle, the rapper used the AI-generated voice of the late rapper to suggest strategies on how to prevail in the feud.

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

"Against this backdrop in which such lyrics as 'Say, Drake, I hear you like 'em young' must be assessed," stated the court.

"The parallel in the wording strongly indicates that this line is a direct callback to the artist’s own words in the earlier release."

'An Affront to Artists'

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

His lawyers accused the label of initiating "an effort to generate a viral hit" out of a track that made the "untrue claim that the artist is a convicted predator, and to imply that the public should turn to vigilante justice in retaliation".

Ruling against Drake, Judge Vargas said listeners would not expect "accurate factual reporting" from a diss track "filled with vulgar language, insults, violent implications, and figurative and hyperbolic language."

She pointed out that Drake himself had engaged in comparable rhetoric, quoting a lyric in which the artist "heavily" suggested that "his opponent is a domestic abuser", and a separate instance where he "raps that he 'heard' that one of his rival’s children may not be his biological offspring."

Concerning Lamar's song, the court said: "Even apparent statements of fact may assume the character of subjective views... when made in open discourse, heated labour dispute, or similar situations in which an listener may expect the use of slurs, fiery rhetoric or exaggeration."

Reacting to the rejection, a UMG spokesperson said: "From the outset, this case was an affront to every creative and their artistic freedom and never should have been filed."

"We're pleased with the judge’s ruling and are eager to resuming our work effectively promoting the artist’s work and investing in his career," the representative added.

A representative for the musician said the rapper planned to appeal the ruling, "and we await the Court of Appeals reviewing it".

Lamar has yet to issue a statement on the case.