Drake Loses Defamation Suit Against Universal Over 'Not Like Us,' Judge Says Rap Battle Was Hyperbole

A federal judge in New York dismissed Drake’s defamation suit over Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” ruling that the song’s lyrics were protected artistic expression — a decision that reaffirmed rap’s long tradition of rivalry as a form of free speech.

Drake’s bid to turn a diss record into a defamation case just hit a wall. A federal judge in Manhattan has thrown out his lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us,” ruling that the song’s explosive accusations— however cutting — are protected opinion, not factual claims.

The 38-page opinion, issued Thursday by U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas, brings one of hip-hop’s strangest courtroom dramas to an end. “Because the Court concludes that the allegedly defamatory statements in ‘Not Like Us’ are nonactionable opinion, the motion to dismiss is granted,” Vargas wrote. She called the song part of “perhaps the most infamous rap battle in the genre’s history — the vitriolic war of words that erupted between superstar recording artists Aubrey Drake Graham and Kendrick Lamar Duckworth in the spring of 2024.”

Drake, whose suit named Universal Music Group, argued that the label helped spread false claims that he preyed on underage girls, endangering his safety and reputation. But the court said no reasonable listener would take such statements literally. “A reasonable person,” Judge Vargas wrote, “is not under the impression that a diss track is the product of a thoughtful or disinterested investigation conveying fact-checked, verifiable content.”

That reasoning — rooted in decades of First Amendment case law — may sound clinical, but its impact is cultural. Vargas compared modern diss tracks to the “freewheeling, anything-goes” nature of YouTube and X, where hyperbole is part of the art. In that setting, she said, Kendrick’s most incendiary bar — “Say Drake, I hear you like ’em young” — cannot be read as an assertion of fact. “In the context of this rap diss battle,” she wrote, “no reasonable person would listen to ‘Not Like Us’ and assume that Lamar uniquely had access to credible, provable facts that revealed Drake to be a pedophile.”

The judge also cited Drake’s own provocations in earlier tracks, noting that “Not Like Us” was a lyrical counterpunch to his “Taylor Made Freestyle,” where he baited Lamar with insinuations and personal digs. The back-and-forth, she said, was the modern embodiment of battle rap’s “epithets, fiery rhetoric, and hyperbole” — a context that transforms insult into performance.

Vargas rejected Drake’s remaining claims under New York’s consumer-protection statute and harassment laws, calling them “meritless extensions” of the same defamation theory. The cover art and video, she found, operated within the same expressive sphere. “They are not literal; they are commentary.”

With that, a judge effectively codified what hip-hop fans have known for decades: the diss is a weapon of art, not evidence. For Kendrick Lamar, it’s another win in a year already marked by triumph — “Not Like Us” spent multiple weeks at No. 1 and became a cultural anthem of competitive purity. For Drake, it’s another loss in a rivalry that’s blurred the line between ego and legacy.

Beyond the headlines, though, the decision may stand as a landmark. By writing that a diss track “cannot reasonably be understood as stating actual facts,” a federal court has, perhaps for the first time, explicitly framed battle rap as protected speech.