Drake’s “Not Like Us” lawsuit has officially been dismissed, marking another dramatic chapter in his ongoing feud with Kendrick Lamar. The case, filed against Universal Music Group (UMG) rather than Lamar himself, was the rapper’s attempt to challenge the viral diss track that painted him in an unflattering light. But in the eyes of the court, the “Drake lawsuit” had little legal ground to stand on — and everything to do with artistic expression.
The Legal Battle: How It Started
The Drake lawsuit stemmed from Lamar’s blistering diss track “Not Like Us”, which accused the Toronto rapper of inappropriate behavior and labeled him with damaging terms. Drake’s legal team claimed the lyrics were defamatory and sought damages, arguing that UMG, as Lamar’s label, had “knowingly distributed false and harmful content.”
But Judge Jeannette Vargas saw it differently. In her written ruling, she dismissed the complaint, stating that the lyrics were “non-actionable opinion” — meaning, in simple terms, the court viewed Lamar’s words as artistic expression, not factual statements.
According to legal documents, the judge also noted that Drake himself has built a career on provocative lyrics and public feuds, adding context to why Lamar’s song was part of a cultural back-and-forth, not a statement of truth.
Why the Judge Threw Out the Case
Judge Vargas emphasized one key point: context matters. The Drake lawsuit unfolded within the world of hip-hop battles, where exaggeration and insult are woven into the genre’s DNA. In her ruling, she highlighted that no “reasonable listener” would take the lyrics literally — particularly given the long tradition of diss tracks in rap culture.
Experts agree that the First Amendment played a crucial role here. U.S. law protects artistic and expressive speech, even when it’s controversial or offensive. Lamar’s track, though laced with sharp accusations, was deemed a form of musical storytelling, not defamation.
Even more telling, the lawsuit targeted UMG instead of Lamar himself — a strategy the judge found unconvincing. Distributing a song that contains hyperbolic or aggressive lyrics doesn’t make a label liable for its content.
Also, read: First Look Trailer: Marvel’s Wonder Man Series Starring Yahya Abdul-Mateen II
Inside the Courtroom: A Case Built on Culture
Legal analysts have pointed out that the Drake lawsuit tested the boundaries between personal reputation and free expression. Yet, the court sided firmly with the latter.
From Tupac vs. Biggie to Pusha T vs. Drake, rap beefs have always thrived on layered metaphor and creative rivalry. Lamar’s “Not Like Us” continued that lineage, and the judge recognized it as a performance — not a proclamation of fact.
Drake’s legal team, meanwhile, argued that the accusations in the song had caused measurable harm to his image and business partnerships. But in the absence of verifiable falsehoods, the court found no grounds for defamation. As one media law professor told Billboard, “You can’t sue someone for hurting your feelings with art.”
A Free Speech Victory for Hip-Hop
The dismissal of the Drake lawsuit sets a notable precedent for the music industry. It reinforces that rap lyrics, however provocative, are artistic works protected under free speech laws. Unless an artist makes explicit factual claims, courts are likely to side with expression over censorship.
For artists, this means their creative freedom remains intact — even when that creativity courts controversy. For Drake, it’s a humbling loss in a feud that’s spilled far beyond the studio.
While he has hinted through sources that an appeal may be underway, experts believe it would be difficult to overturn such a clear-cut First Amendment ruling. UMG, for its part, celebrated the verdict as “a win for artistic freedom and creative integrity.”
The Bigger Picture
Ultimately, the Drake lawsuit was about more than just a song. It was about the tension between reputation and expression — between what’s said in art and how it’s perceived in reality.
Lamar’s “Not Like Us” may have landed a lyrical knockout, but the court’s decision has given artists everywhere a powerful reminder: creative speech, even when it stings, is still protected speech.
And as for Drake? This legal defeat might sting almost as much as that hit single did.
