A federal judge in New York dismissed Drake’s lawsuit against UMG over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us.” The court held that the lyrics at issue were nonactionable opinion in the context of a very public, highly charged rap battle. The court also dismissed Drake’s harassment claim and his New York consumer-protection claim.
UMG welcomed the ruling: “From the outset, this suit was an affront to all artists and their creative expression and never should have seen the light of day. We’re pleased with the court’s dismissal and look forward to continuing our work successfully promoting Drake’s music and investing in his career.”
Drake’s camp signalled it is not over: “We intend to appeal today’s ruling, and we look forward to the court of appeals reviewing it.”
What the case was about
Drake sued UMG over its role publishing and promoting “Not Like Us,” arguing the track defamed him by implying criminal sexual conduct, and that UMG’s promotion amounted to harassment and deceptive practices. UMG moved to dismiss.
The judge’s decision: Dismissed in full at the pleading stage.
Defamation: The court ruled the challenged lyrics were opinion, not fact, once viewed in context. In a rap “diss track” released amid a fast-moving, widely publicised feud, listeners reasonably expect hyperbole, taunts, and figurative language, not literal statements of verifiable fact. The opinion relied heavily on precedents treating artistic and rhetorical formats as inherently expressive rather than factual.
“Mixed opinion” theory rejected: The court found no plausible implication that Lamar was relying on undisclosed factual evidence.
Harassment: The state’s harassment statute provides no private civil right of action.
Deceptive practices: Drake failed to allege consumer-oriented deception or consumer harm and relied too heavily on speculation.
UMG’s motion to dismiss was therefore granted and the case closed. Drake has indicated he will appeal.
Why the opinion ruling matters
1. Context is king
Courts do not dissect isolated lyrics. They ask how a reasonable listener would understand the work as a whole and in its moment. In formats built on bravado and exaggeration (for example, diss tracks, stand-up, or parody) courts lean toward protecting opinion.
2. Forum and tone carry weight
A music recording released amid a public feud is not a news broadcast. The medium, tone, and purpose all signal to audiences that it’s performance, not reportage. For artists and labels, that means the creative frame can make all the legal difference.
3. Publisher exposure is narrower than many assume
Drake’s attempt to attach defamation liability to UMG as publisher failed because the content was found to be opinion. That reinforces how difficult it is to hold a label liable for distributing an artist’s rhetorical work; though the protection weakens when content steps outside artistic context into factual allegation.
Practical takeaways for artists, labels, and platforms
Artists:
Entering a public feud places your lyrics squarely in the realm of opinion. That shields you from liability—but also others from yours.
Artwork and visuals matter. Courts treat even provocative symbolism as expressive, not factual.
Labels:
Publisher liability for artist speech is limited when the broader setting signals performance rather than reportage.
Still maintain review procedures for tracks that include factual allegations, especially outside of battle contexts.
Platforms:
Contextual labelling and clear content categorisation reduce risk where tone and meaning are easily misconstrued.
What to expect on appeal
Drake’s team has already said it will appeal. Key issues could include:
Whether the lyrics, artwork, and video crossed from opinion into assertion of fact;
Whether the lyrics implied that Lamar’s accusations were based on secret factual evidence unknown to listeners – a key idea in defamation law known as “mixed opinion.”
And whether the court wrongly treated the track as part of a larger feud rather than a standalone publication.
Such appeals are difficult to win because New York’s opinion doctrine is well established. But the Second Circuit could be asked to consider how virality, platform promotion, and post-release amplification might alter the fact–opinion balance in modern digital music.
The bigger picture
The ruling reaffirms that context shapes meaning. Diss tracks are treated as rhetorical performance, not factual accusation. The judgment underscores the First Amendment’s reach in creative industries: performance art, even when brutal, is still art.
For the music business, it highlights the importance of internal review and proactive communications management when creative expression collides with controversy. The balance between artistic freedom and reputational risk has rarely been more visible.
Statements from the parties and what they suggest
UMG: “From the outset, this suit was an affront to all artists and their creative expression and never should have seen the light of day. We’re pleased with the court’s dismissal and look forward to continuing our work successfully promoting Drake’s music and investing in his career.”
Drake: “We intend to appeal today’s ruling, and we look forward to the court of appeals reviewing it.”
UMG’s tone suggests it wants to mend fences with its star client, projecting confidence while emphasising continued investment in his career. That may prove difficult. The lawsuit has publicly exposed fault lines between one of the label’s biggest global artists and its own corporate apparatus.
For Drake, the appeal is as much about reasserting personal and artistic integrity as legal remedy. For UMG, the path forward likely involves a delicate mix of diplomacy and damage control – because winning the case is only half the battle when the other half is keeping the artist.