In his awaited appeal of that ruling on Wednesday, Drake’s lawyers say that’s actually exactly what listeners thought: “Millions of people understood [Not Like Us] to convey factual information, causing countless individuals around the globe to believe that Drake was a pedophile.”
To dismiss Drake’s case despite that reality, his lawyers say, the judge created an “unprecedented” and “dangerous” precedent: that statements in a rap track can never be considered defamatory.
“It is hard to imagine a statement more damaging to one’s reputation and safety than being labeled a ‘certified pedophile,’ which elicits intense vitriol, and can spur violent retaliation,” Drake’s attorney Michael J. Gottlieb writes in the appeal, obtained by Billboard. “The court’s rule brushes aside the risk of concrete reputational harms that can and here, did spill over into violence.”
The appeal marks the next chapter in a legal battle that stunned the music industry. Few expected a rapper to respond to a diss track with a lawsuit — a move that drew ridicule in the hip-hop world. Fewer still expected him to file it against UMG, his longtime label and the biggest music company in the world.
Lamar released “Not Like Us” in May 2024 as the knock-out punch in a series of bruising diss tracks from the two stars. The song was not only seen as a final rhetorical victory for Lamar, but also went on to become a chart-topping hit in its own right. The track won five Grammy Awards, including record and song of the year, and formed the centerpiece of Lamar’s Super Bowl halftime show.
Last January, Drake responded with litigation – claiming UMG had defamed him by boosting the track’s popularity, including through the use of bots and other nefarious marketing tactics. The lawsuit, which didn’t name Lamar himself as a defendant, alleged that UMG “waged a campaign” against its own artist to spread a “malicious narrative” about him.
But in October, Judge Jeannette Vargas dismissed the case. She said Kendrick’s insulting lyrics were the kind of “hyperbolic” opinions that cannot be considered defamatory because listeners would not think they were “sober” statements of fact that could be proven true or false.
“Although the accusation that plaintiff is a pedophile is certainly a serious one, the broader context of a heated rap battle, with incendiary language and offensive accusations hurled by both participants, would not incline the reasonable listener to believe that ‘Not Like Us’ imparts verifiable facts about plaintiff.”
In Wednesday’s appeal, Drake’s lawyers call that ruling “indefensible” – warning that it had ignored evidence that fans understood the song as a “factual indictment of Drake” and instead had issued “dangerous” new rule that rappers can’t be sued.
“If rap diss tracks cannot contain statements of fact, then they are inoculated from any liability for defamation no matter how direct and damaging the defamatory statements they contain,” his lawyers say. “This case illustrates that.”
Lawyers for UMG will file a response in the coming weeks. A spokesman for the company did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday.
When it does respond, UMG is likely to argue that Judge Vargas was merely applying settled law on defamation and free speech — in which experts told Billboard that courts are willing to punish outright lies, but give wide leeway to forms of artistic expression like music. They’ll likely also cite legal scholars who have warned that the case could have a “chilling effect” on hip-hop and encourage prosecutors to use rap lyrics as evidence in criminal cases, a controversial practice in its own right.
In Wednesday’s appellate brief, Drake’s lawyers don’t shy away from that touchy subject; to the contrary, they cited the fact that “rap lyrics are regularly used as evidence in criminal case” as support for their position that fans could have taken Kendrick’s words seriously.
“If rap lyrics can be understood to contain statements of fact in the criminal context, then it must follow that reasonable listeners could understand them similarly for purposes of defamation,” Drake’s attorneys write.
Read Drake’s entire appeal here.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source ca.billboard.com ’
