In a decision that blends pop culture, constitutional law, and the outer edges of defamation doctrine, United States District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York dismissed rapper Aubrey “Drake” Graham’s high-profile lawsuit against his distributor, UMG Recordings, Inc., holding that Kendrick Lamar’s incendiary diss track Not Like Us — which accused Drake of, among other things, being a “certified pedophile” — was protected opinion and not actionable defamation.
The ruling offers important lessons on how context, tone, and medium shape whether offensive or damaging statements can support a defamation claim. It also underscores the First Amendment’s strong protections for creative expression — even when that expression is deeply unflattering.
Background
For those who were either living under a rock or in a coma in 2024, Drake’s lawsuit arose from what the court described as “perhaps the most infamous rap battle in the genre’s history” that took place in and around the spring 2024. Across 8 diss tracks, the artists traded escalating personal insults and accusations. Lamar’s Not Like Us delivered the most explosive blow, accusing Drake and his associates of being pedophiles:
“Say, Drake, I hear you like ’em young…
Certified Lover Boy? Certified pedophiles…”
The track became a cultural phenomenon, streaming over 1.4 billion times and winning Record of the Year at the Grammys. Drake sued UMG — which distributes both artists’ music — alleging defamation, harassment, and deceptive business practices under New York law. The court dismissed all of the claims.
The Core Issue: Fact or Opinion?
Generally speaking, defamation law distinguishes between statements of fact — which can be proven true or false — and expressions of opinion, which are constitutionally protected. Even statements accusing someone of a crime are not actionable if, in context, they are understood as rhetorical opinion rather than factual assertions.
Applying the New York test from Brian v. Richardson, 87 N.Y.2d 46 (1995), the court considered:
- Whether the language has a precise meaning;
- Whether it can be proven true or false; and
- Whether the context and circumstances signal opinion rather than fact.
While calling someone a “pedophile” is both precise and verifiable, the third factor — context — proved decisive in the Drake v. Kendrick legal battle.
Why the Court Held “Not Like Us” Is Opinion
- The Forum: A Diss Track, Not a News Report
The court emphasized that diss tracks are closer to “freewheeling” social media posts than investigative journalism. A reasonable listener does not expect them to contain verified facts. The lyrics are part of a performative, competitive art form where hyperbole and insult are expected.
- The Circumstances: A Heated “War of Words”
The court analogized the Drake–Kendrick feud to prior cases where even serious accusations were deemed opinion due to the combative context. In Torain v. Liu, for example, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that calling a rival DJ a “pedophile” was opinion when made amid a public feud.
Similarly, Drake and Kendrick hurled numerous inflammatory accusations at each other — from claims of domestic abuse to drug use and infidelity. Drake himself invited the very allegations he later sued over. In Taylor Made Freestyle, he goaded Lamar to “talk about him likin’ young girls” — a challenge Lamar echoed in Not Like Us.
Drake’s attorneys argued that Not Like Us should be judged in isolation, since it reached a far broader audience than the other diss tracks. The court rejected that position, holding that context cannot be stripped away simply because a work became popular. Put simply, constitutional protection does not hinge on commercial success.
- Tone and Language: Hyperbole, Not Reporting
The court also held that the track’s “profane, trash-talking, and hyperbolic” tone signals that it is not meant as factual reporting. Courts routinely treat such language — especially in artistic or rhetorical contexts — as opinion. Even if some listeners online believed the accusations were true, that does not make their interpretation reasonable.
- Visual Imagery: Also Opinion
Drake’s legal team also cited the Not Like Us album art and music video, which showed Drake’s Toronto home marked with sex-offender icons and a caged owl symbolizing imprisonment. The court dismissed these claims, holding that obviously doctored or symbolic imagery is not reasonably interpreted as factual.
- No “Mixed Opinion” Either
Finally, the court rejected Drake’s argument that Lamar implied knowledge of undisclosed facts. In context, phrases like “I hear you like ’em young” were clearly rhetorical callbacks to existing rumors — not evidence of secret information. No reasonable listener, the court concluded, would think Lamar had private proof of Drake’s alleged misconduct.
The Other Claims: DOA
In addition to Drake’s defamation claims, the court also dismissed Drake’s two additional claims including harassment and deceptive practices.
As for harassment, the court held that New York does not recognize a civil cause of action for harassment under state penal law, but that such jurisdiction lies exclusively with criminal authorities.
As for deceptive practices, Drake alleged that UMG manipulated streaming numbers and covertly paid influencers to promote the song. The court found these allegations speculative and unsupported by facts sufficient to meet the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard.
Key Takeaways: Art, Insult, and the First Amendment
The Drake decision is more than just a headline-grabbing celebrity case — it’s a powerful reaffirmation of longstanding First Amendment and defamation principles:
- Context matters. Even the most serious accusations can be protected opinion when delivered in a context — like a rap battle — where hyperbole is expected.
- Artistic expression gets wide latitude. Courts are reluctant to chill creativity, even when the resulting work is offensive or damaging to someone’s reputation.
- Popularity doesn’t change legal character. A diss track that becomes a global hit remains protected opinion if it was opinion when released.
The ruling reinforces a core tenet of American defamation law: the First Amendment protects even vicious insults when they are clearly opinion, not fact. As Judge Vargas wrote, the accusations in Not Like Us, “though serious, occur in a context so steeped in exaggeration, hostility, and performance that a reasonable listener could not mistake them for objective fact”.
Drake’s lawsuit shows the steep uphill battle public figures face when trying to use defamation law to silence offensive artistic expression. So long as the insults stay in the realm of opinion — even ones as incendiary as “certified pedophile” — the First Amendment shields them.
________________________________________
The attorneys at Chilivis Grubman have represented clients as both plaintiffs and defendants in high-profile defamation cases. For assistance with such a matter, please contact us today.