In a landmark decision that will reverberate throughout the entertainment industry, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York dismissed Drake’s defamation lawsuit against UMG Recordings over Kendrick Lamar’s explosive diss track “Not Like Us.” The October 9, 2025 ruling provides critical guidance for artists, entertainers, and public figures navigating the intersection of artistic expression and defamation law.
The Background: Hip-Hop’s Most Infamous Rap Battle
The case arose from what the court called “perhaps the most infamous rap battle in the genre’s history.” Over 16 days in spring 2024, Drake and Kendrick Lamar released eight diss tracks with increasingly heated rhetoric. The dispute culminated in Lamar’s “Not Like Us,” which contained explicit lyrics accusing Drake of pedophilia, including lines like “Say, Drake, I hear you like ’em young” and “Certified Lover Boy? Certified pedophiles.”
The song became a massive commercial success, garnering over 1.4 billion Spotify streams, winning Record of the Year at the Grammys, and being performed at Super Bowl LIX’s halftime show. Drake sued UMG (the label for both artists) alleging defamation, harassment, and violations of New York’s consumer protection law.
The Court’s Holding: Opinion, Not Fact
Judge Vargas granted UMG’s motion to dismiss, holding that the allegedly defamatory statements constitute non-actionable opinion rather than statements of fact. This ruling hinged on a careful analysis of context using the three-factor test established by New York courts:
1. The Forum (Here, A Music Recording) Matters
The court emphasized that diss tracks are fundamentally different from journalistic reporting or factual statements. Rap diss tracks encourage “a freewheeling, anything-goes writing style” and don’t suggest to listeners that they contain “fact-checked verifiable content.” The average listener understands that a diss track is not “the product of a thoughtful or disinterested investigation.”
2. Surrounding Circumstances Are Critical
The court refused to view “Not Like Us” in isolation. Instead, it examined the entire 16-day rap battle, noting the escalating exchange of insults and accusations. Both artists made increasingly inflammatory claims:
- Lamar accused Drake of domestic abuse and questioned his paternity.
- Drake challenged Lamar to make the pedophilia accusations, rapping through an AI-generated 2Pac voice: “Talk about him likin’ young girls, that’s a gift from me.”
- Both artists engaged in “epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole.”
This context signaled to reasonable listeners that statements were opinion, not fact. The court cited precedent holding that “even accusations of criminal behavior are not actionable if, understood in context, they are opinion rather than fact.”
3. Tone and Language Reinforce Opinion Status
The profanity-laden, hyperbolic language throughout “Not Like Us” further signaled opinion. As the court noted, no reasonable listener would equate lyrics like “Ain’t no law, boy, you ball boy, fetch Gatorade or somethin'” with “accurate factual reporting.”
Drake’s Failed Arguments
Drake made several unsuccessful arguments that public figures should note:
“Cultural Ubiquity” Doesn’t Change the Analysis: Drake argued that because “Not Like Us” became far more popular than other diss tracks, it should be evaluated in isolation. The court rejected this, holding that constitutional protections “cannot vary based upon the popularity they achieve.” Whether a statement is opinion or fact must be determined at the time of publication, not retroactively based on commercial success.
Social Media Reactions Are Irrelevant: Drake cited YouTube and Instagram comments suggesting listeners believed the accusations were true. The court dismissed this argument, noting that “support for almost any proposition, no matter how farfetched, fantastical or unreasonable, can be found” online. The standard is whether a reasonable listener would perceive the statements as fact, not whether some listeners actually did.
“Mixed Opinion” Doctrine Doesn’t Apply: Drake argued the lyrics implied undisclosed facts supporting Lamar’s opinion. The court found no reasonable person would assume Lamar “uniquely had access to credible, provable facts” in the context of a heated rap battle.
Additional Claims Dismissed
The court also dismissed Drake’s harassment and consumer protection claims:
- No Private Right of Action for Criminal Harassment: New York’s criminal harassment statute doesn’t create a civil cause of action. The legislature intended criminal enforcement mechanisms, not private lawsuits.
- Section 349 Requires Consumer Harm: Drake’s allegations that UMG used bots and payola to inflate streaming numbers failed because he didn’t adequately allege consumer-oriented harm. The claim rested on speculation based on social media comments rather than plausible facts.
Critical Lessons for Entertainers and Public Figures
1. Public Feuds Create Protective Context
When public figures engage in heated, public disputes with back-and-forth accusations, courts will view statements made during those feuds through a lens favorable to free speech. The more inflammatory the overall exchange, the more likely statements will be deemed opinion.
2. Artistic Forums Receive Greater Protection
Statements made in inherently subjective forums (rap lyrics, comedy routines, opinion columns, social media) receive more protection than statements in traditionally factual contexts like news reporting.
3. Hyperbolic Language Signals Opinion
Profanity, exaggeration, figurative language, and inflammatory rhetoric all signal to audiences that statements are opinion rather than fact. Artists should be aware that the more extreme their language, the more likely courts will view it as protected opinion.
4. You Can’t Cherry-Pick Statements
Courts will examine the full context of a dispute, including prior statements by both parties. Public figures can’t successfully sue over isolated statements while ignoring the broader exchange that prompted those statements.
5. Popularity Doesn’t Determine Legal Status
A statement’s legal characterization as fact or opinion is determined when it’s made, not based on how successful or viral it becomes afterward. Commercial success and cultural impact don’t change First Amendment protections.
6. Social Media Reactions Don’t Establish Defamation
The fact that some people on social media believe allegations doesn’t make statements actionable. Courts apply an objective “reasonable listener” standard, not a subjective test based on actual audience reactions.
7. Visual Imagery and Album Art Follow the Same Rules
The court extended its analysis to the music video and album artwork, finding the caged owl imagery and doctored album cover with sex offender markers were obviously figurative and exaggerated, constituting protected opinion.
Practical Implications
This decision has significant implications for the entertainment industry:
For Artists: Diss tracks and similar artistic feuds enjoy robust First Amendment protection. Even serious accusations like criminal conduct may be protected opinion when made in the context of an ongoing public battle between artists.
For Labels and Distributors: Publishing inflammatory content as part of an ongoing artistic feud doesn’t create liability for defamation, provided the context signals opinion rather than fact.
For Public Figures Considering Litigation: Before suing over statements made during public feuds, carefully consider whether the context (forum, surrounding circumstances, tone, and language) will lead courts to view the statements as protected opinion. Litigation may extend the controversy without providing a remedy.
For Attorneys: Motion to dismiss is an appropriate stage to resolve fact versus opinion questions. Courts favor early resolution of defamation claims to avoid chilling free speech through protracted discovery.
The Bigger Picture
Judge Vargas’s decision reinforces the principle that “there is no such thing as a false idea” under the First Amendment. While the court acknowledged that accusations of pedophilia are “certainly a serious” matter, it held that constitutional protections for opinion don’t disappear simply because statements are offensive or damaging.
The ruling illustrates the tension between protecting reputation and preserving robust free expression, particularly in artistic contexts. In the world of rap battles and public feuds between entertainers, the First Amendment tips the scales decisively toward protecting heated, hyperbolic, and even outrageous speech.
Conclusion
Drake v. UMG Recordings, Inc. serves as a crucial reminder that context determines whether statements constitute actionable defamation. For entertainers and public figures, the lesson is clear: engaging in public feuds creates a protective shield for increasingly inflammatory rhetoric. Once you enter the arena of public dispute—particularly in inherently subjective artistic forums—you invite responses that courts will view as protected opinion, no matter how damaging or commercially successful those responses become.
Public figures would be wise to consider these principles before initiating or escalating public disputes, and before filing defamation lawsuits over statements made in response to their own provocations. As this case demonstrates, the courthouse door may be open, but constitutional protections for opinion remain formidable barriers to recovery.
The Heitner Legal team closely monitors developments in entertainment law, sports law, and defamation litigation. For questions about how this decision may impact your situation, contact our office.