October 9, 2025 – Southern District of New York
In a closely watched decision blending entertainment, defamation law, and First Amendment principles, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York dismissed Aubrey Drake Graham’s lawsuit against UMG Recordings, Inc.[1] The rapper had alleged that UMG defamed him by publishing and promoting Kendrick Lamar’s hit diss track “Not Like Us,” which accused Drake of being a pedophile. The court held that the lyrics constitute protected opinion rather than actionable statements of fact.
Background
The ruling stems from the now-notorious 2024 rap feud between Drake and Kendrick Lamar, during which the artists exchanged eight diss tracks over 16 days. Drake claimed that Lamar’s “Not Like Us” contained false accusations of pedophilia and that UMG knowingly published and promoted the song despite its defamatory implications. Drake brought claims for defamation, harassment, and deceptive business practices under New York law.
UMG moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the lyrics were nonactionable hyperbole and artistic expression protected by the First Amendment.
The Court’s Analysis
- Defamation: Artistic Hyperbole, Not Fact
Judge Vargas held that no reasonable listener would interpret “Not Like Us” as conveying verifiable facts. The lyrics of this song constitute “non-actionable opinion”, rather than factual assertions. The opinion emphasized several factors:
- Context: The song arose from a public “war of words” between two rappers known for exaggeration and rhetorical sparring. In this context, listeners expect exaggeration, insults and metaphor, not factual reporting. In fact, Drake’s previous song (Taylor Made Freestyle) invited the allegations of pedophilia in a bizarre statement by an AI generated voice that sounded like late-rapper 2Pac urging Lamar to “talk about him likin’ young girls.” Lamar’s allegations of pedophilia in “Not Like Us” followed Drake’s song. Judge Vargas stated in her opinion “The similarity in the wording suggests strongly that this line is a direct callback to Drake’s lyrics in the prior song.”
- Forum: A rap diss track is a creative, opinion-based medium — not a news outlet. Listeners do not expect literal truth in that artistic form.
- Tone and Language: The song’s use of hyperbolic, violent, and mocking language signaled to a reasonable audience that it was artistic expression, not fact.
- Broader Context: The feud had been widely publicized, and earlier songs invited provocative responses. The court found that even serious accusations, like pedophilia, are understood as rhetorical attacks in such circumstances.
The court compared the case to Steinhilber v. Alphonse and Torain v. Liu, both of which protected heated insults in public feuds as non-factual opinion. It also cited Rapaport v. Barstool Sports, where a defamation claim over a diss track was dismissed for similar reasons.
- Harassment Claim Dismissed
Drake’s claim under New York Penal Law § 240.26(3) failed because New York does not recognize a civil cause of action for harassment. Penal Law § 240.26(3) is a criminal statute without a private right of action. Following Hammer v. American Kennel Club (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003), the legislature intended such laws to be enforced only by prosecutors and police. Judge Vargas noted that the statute is criminal in nature and does not imply a private right of action under the state’s legislative scheme. Therefore, the harassment claim was barred as a matter of law.
- Deceptive Practices Claim Dismissed
Drake’s claim under N.Y. General Business Law § 349 alleged that UMG deceptively promoted “Not Like Us” through paid influencers, bots, and pay-for-play arrangements. The court found the allegations speculative and unsupported by specific facts. The allegations were leaded on “information and belief” without any supportive evidence. Even if true, the alleged conduct was not consumer directed. The statute protects consumers from deceptive conduct, not artists disputing business practices within the industry. Ultimately, this claim was dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim.
Conclusion
Judge Vargas concluded that “Not Like Us” is protected opinion and artistic expression under the First Amendment and the New York Constitution. The court dismissed all claims with prejudice, reinforcing robust constitutional protections for creative speech—even when it offends or maligns public figures.
The decision underscores the judiciary’s continued deference to artistic expression in defamation disputes, particularly within genres like rap, where provocation and hyperbole are defining features of the art form.
[1] The full opinion can be found here: https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-10/25cv00399%20-%20ECF%20No.%2096%20-%20Opinion%20and%20Order.pdf
