<\/p>\n
In his awaited appeal of that ruling on Wednesday, Drake\u2019s lawyers say that\u2019s actually exactly what listeners thought: \u201cMillions of people understood [Not Like Us] to convey factual information, causing countless individuals around the globe to believe that Drake was a pedophile.\u201d<\/p>\n
To dismiss Drake\u2019s case despite that reality, his lawyers say, the judge created an \u201cunprecedented\u201d and \u201cdangerous\u201d precedent: that statements in a rap track can never be considered defamatory.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is hard to imagine a statement more damaging to one\u2019s reputation and safety than being labeled a \u2018certified pedophile,\u2019 which elicits intense vitriol, and can spur violent retaliation,\u201d Drake\u2019s attorney Michael J. Gottlieb writes in the appeal, obtained by Billboard<\/em>. \u201cThe court\u2019s rule brushes aside the risk of concrete reputational harms that can and here, did spill over into violence.\u201d<\/p>\n 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 \u2014 a move that drew ridicule in the hip-hop world<\/a>. Fewer still expected him to file it against UMG, his longtime label and the biggest music company in the world.<\/p>\n Lamar released \u201cNot Like Us\u201d 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<\/a>, including record and song of the year, and formed the centerpiece of Lamar\u2019s Super Bowl halftime show<\/a>.<\/p>\n Last January, Drake responded with litigation \u2013 claiming UMG had defamed him by boosting the track\u2019s popularity, including through the use of bots and other nefarious marketing tactics. The lawsuit, which didn\u2019t name Lamar himself as a defendant, alleged that UMG \u201cwaged a campaign\u201d against its own artist to spread a \u201cmalicious narrative\u201d about him.<\/p>\n But in October, Judge Jeannette Vargas dismissed the case. She said Kendrick\u2019s insulting lyrics were the kind of \u201chyperbolic\u201d opinions that cannot be considered defamatory because listeners would not think they were \u201csober\u201d statements of fact that could be proven true or false.<\/p>\n \u201cAlthough 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 \u2018Not Like Us\u2019 imparts verifiable facts about plaintiff.\u201d<\/p>\n In Wednesday\u2019s appeal, Drake\u2019s lawyers call that ruling \u201cindefensible\u201d \u2013 warning that it had ignored evidence that fans understood the song as a \u201cfactual indictment of Drake\u201d and instead had issued \u201cdangerous\u201d new rule that rappers can\u2019t be sued.<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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,\u201d his lawyers say. \u201cThis case illustrates that.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n When it does respond, UMG is likely to argue that Judge Vargas was merely applying settled law on defamation and free speech \u2014 in which experts told Billboard<\/em><\/a> that courts are willing to punish outright lies, but give wide leeway to forms of artistic expression like music. They\u2019ll likely also cite legal scholars who have warned that the case could have a \u201cchilling effect\u201d<\/a> on hip-hop and encourage prosecutors to use rap lyrics as evidence in criminal cases, a controversial practice<\/a> in its own right.<\/p>\n In Wednesday\u2019s appellate brief, Drake\u2019s lawyers don\u2019t shy away from that touchy subject; to the contrary, they cited the fact that \u201crap lyrics are regularly used as evidence in criminal case\u201d as support for their position that fans could have taken Kendrick\u2019s words seriously.<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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,\u201d Drake\u2019s attorneys write.<\/p>\n Read Drake’s entire appeal here<\/a>.<\/p>\n