By: Joseph Valcazar

The rap industry is no stranger to a diss track. Whether it was the rap battles of Tupac v. Notorious B.I.G., Nas v. Jay-Z, N.W.A. v. Ice Cube, or Eminem v. Ja Rule, music has been and continues to be a medium for artists to express their opinion of others in the industry. Typically, this bad blood stays within the confines of lyricism; but on occasion the legal system gets involved. An ongoing legal battle between one of the largest artists and largest record labels is the latest adventure of a rap battle turning legal. 

A diss track is a song targeted at a specific individual or group (usually another artist) that includes lyrics meant to publicly attack or disrespect them. In 2024, Kendrick Lamar and Drake, two of the largest rap artists in the world, traded diss tracks, bringing in millions of views every day, and generating months of online discourse. While the musical back and forth ended in May 2024, the artists’ feud reached a new boiling point in January 2025 when Drake filed a civil lawsuit in federal court against Universal Music Group (UMG) — the record label that represents both Kendrick and Drake. The lawsuit raises interesting questions on First Amendment free speech and defamation stemming from song lyrics.

The Timeline

While the story of Kendrick and Drake’s contentious relationship can be traced back over a decade, this saga began with the release of “First Person Shooter,” a collaboration between Drake and J. Cole containing a verse that crowned Drake, J. Cole, and Kendrick the big three of rap. This sparked a response from Kendrick in a featured verse on Future’s album, where he dismissed the big three and declared “it’s just big me.” 

This began a multi-month back and forth, consisting of eight tracks, that escalated into personal callouts between the two artists. On May 4, 2024, Kendrick would release his final track of the back and forth, and the song at issue in the lawsuit, “Not Like Us.” The track contains lyrics insinuating Drake has had inappropriate relationships with minors, which lay at the center of his claim against UMG. This song would transcend the rap battle and enter the mainstream; topping the Billboard Hot 100, amassing over one billion streams, and earning Kendrick Grammys for “Record Of The Year,” “Best Rap Performance,” “Best Rap Song,” and “Best Music Video.” Eight months after the release of Not Like Us, Drake would file his lawsuit against UMG.

The Lawsuit

Drake is clear in his complaint that this is not a lawsuit against Kendrick Lamar. Rather, the lawsuit has been filed against UMG, one of the largest record labels in the world. The lawsuit filed by Drake — whose legal name is Aubrey Graham — claims that the label has defamed him by promoting the song “Not Like Us”, which, as mentioned, insinuates Drake had inappropriate relationships. It is further alleged that UMG has artificially inflated streams through botting to boost the perceived success of the song. Drake believes the combination promotion and inflated popularity has directly led to threats and harassment, all of which have led to Drake suffering reputational harm, while the record label profited from the success of Kendrick’s song. Drake filed this lawsuit one month before Kendrick Lamar would perform “Not Like Us” to a live audience of over 130 million at the Super Bowl halftime show. In response, an amended complaint to claim that Kendrick’s performance and Grammy success further damaged his reputation. 

The Defamation Claim

Does Drake’s claim hold any weight? The answer isn’t crystal clear. 

To succeed on a typical defamation claim a plaintiff must establish four elements: 

1. A false statement is made that is presented to be fact; 
2. The statement is published or communicated to a third party;
3. Defendant’s fault in releasing the statement amounts to at least negligence; and 
4. Some reputational harm occurred to the person targeted by the statements. 

Here, Drake will have to establish an additional element. In the Supreme Court’s landmark New York Times v. Sullivan opinion, the Court established a legal doctrine that requires a plaintiff to prove actual malice when they are a public figure (someone who has achieved prominence and/or influence in society’s affairs). Establishing actual malice requires a heightened “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard; a middle ground between the civil “preponderance” standard and criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. 

Drake is undeniably a public figure. To show actual malice he must prove that UMG promoted Not Like Us with “reckless disregard of whether [the statement] was false or not.” Given this heightened standard, proving a defamation claim as a public figure is substantially more difficult than for an average citizen.  

UMG filed a motion to dismiss which raised the “rhetorical hyperbole” defense. Rhetorical hyperbole refers to exaggerated statements that a reasonable person would not take literally. This is an interesting legal doctrine in the context of rap battles. After all, the objective is to one-up each other’s lyrical call-outs until one artist is declared the “winner” through public opinion. It’s not as if “Not Like Us” came out of nowhere. Drake was an active participant in this back-and-forth. His own lyrics made claims that Kendrick was unfaithful and physically abusive to his partner. 

This would not be the first time UMG has raised a successful rhetorical hyperbole defense. In 2005, record producer Armen Boladian sued UMG about a verse performed by George Clinton containing  lyrics that painted Boladian as an abuser. The lyrics referred to him as “a disgrace to the species.” The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Boladian “failed to meet their burden of showing an actual, objectively verifiable defamatory statement”. The court noted the colorful lyrics to be the “kind of puerile taunt that, for better or worse, is typical of rap music.” Do Kendrick’s lyrics fall within this typicality of rap music? This will be a central question as litigation continues.

Conclusion

Is this a case of “be careful what you wish for?” Or has Kendrick overstepped the traditional protections afforded to musical works by courts and into defamation territory? Either way the legal battle for Drake appears to be an uphill one. Concerns about the potential chilling effect that artists may face if Drake were to win have also been raised. If litigation becomes the primary response to any perceived notion of defamation, a natural consequence of this would be the stifling of artistic expression as artists attempt to avoid liability that they previously felt insulated from. Whatever the end result, what started as a rap battle for the ages will be discussed and read about by law students in their entertainment law course for decades to come.

#WJLTA #DrakevsKendrick #Defamation