Hip Hop/ Rap
Drake Moves to Revive ‘Not Like Us’ Defamation Lawsuit
At the center of the dispute are lyrics in “Not Like Us” that label Drake a “certified pedophile.” In his appellate brief, Drake’s legal team argues the line is not metaphorical trash talk but an “unambiguous matter of fact” with a precise meaning that can be proven true or false.
Drake is refusing to let his legal battle over Kendrick Lamar’s viral diss track “Not Like Us” fade quietly. Months after a federal judge dismissed his defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG), the Canadian superstar has filed new appellate paperwork in an effort to revive the case—arguing that the ruling sets a “dangerous categorical rule” for artists and record labels.
According to newly filed court documents, Drake and his legal team are seeking to overturn the October 2025 decision by U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas, who ruled that Kendrick Lamar’s lyrics were protected opinion rather than actionable statements of fact.
Why Drake Says the Dismissal Was Wrong
At the center of the dispute are lyrics in “Not Like Us” that label Drake a “certified pedophile.” In his appellate brief, Drake’s legal team argues the line is not metaphorical trash talk but an “unambiguous matter of fact” with a precise meaning that can be proven true or false.
Drake’s lawyers contend that when those lyrics are combined with the song’s viral popularity, widely circulated cover art, and a later music video, the track reasonably communicates a false factual allegation. They argue this should be decided by a jury at trial—not dismissed at the motion stage.
“The court effectively created an unprecedented and overbroad categorical rule,” the brief states, warning that such logic would shield rap diss tracks from defamation claims no matter how direct or damaging the accusations.
The Judge’s Original Ruling
Judge Vargas previously framed the lawsuit as emerging from “perhaps the most infamous rap battle in the genre’s history.” In her ruling, she emphasized the broader context of diss tracks, describing them as a space known for exaggeration, insults, and incendiary language.
“In light of the overall context,” she wrote, “the court holds that it cannot” reasonably be understood as conveying verifiable facts. As a result, Lamar’s lyrics were deemed non-actionable opinion under defamation law.
View this post on Instagram
Drake vs. His Own Label
Notably, Drake’s lawsuit targets Universal Music Group, the label he shares with Kendrick Lamar, rather than Lamar himself. Filed in January, the suit alleged that UMG actively promoted the track to inflate its reach, despite the seriousness of the accusations, causing reputational harm to one of its own artists.
UMG has strongly denied the claims, calling the lawsuit an attack on artistic expression. Following the initial dismissal, the company said it was “pleased with the court’s decision” and reaffirmed its commitment to promoting Drake’s music and investing in his career.
What Happens Next?
Drake’s appeal is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with UMG’s response due in late March. If the appellate court sides with Drake, the case could be sent back for trial—potentially setting a major precedent for how courts treat defamation claims arising from rap lyrics.
As hip-hop continues to blur the line between performance, persona, and personal accusation, Drake’s legal push raises a larger question: can a diss track ever cross from lyrical warfare into defamation? The answer could have lasting implications for music, free expression, and the business of rap itself.
