On January 15 Aubrey “Drake” Graham brought a novel defamation action against his own label, Universal Music Group, Inc., for its role in approving, publishing, and promoting  Kendrick Lamar’s viral diss track Not Like Us.

In case you have been living under a rock, just know that for years now there has been no love lost between the former collaborators (see Poetic Justice), but their feud reached a boiling point in the spring of 2024 when the two released an exchange of diss tracks at seemingly record speed. 

Kendrick put the proverbial nail in the coffin with the release of 2025 Grammy-winning Song and Record of the Year Not Like Us.  At issue are Kendrick’s explosive lyrics “Say, Drake, I hear you like ‘em young,” “Certified Lover Boy? Certified pedophiles,” and, most famously, “Tryna’ strike a chord and it’s probably A-minor.” 

It is worth noting that since Drake filed his complaint, Not Like Us has won five Grammy Awards including 2025 Song and Record of the Year, and on Sunday night Kendrick performed Not Like Us at the 2025 Super Bowl Halftime Show.  Kendrick himself did not say the word “pedophile,” but the whole crowd seemed to fill the lyric in for him.  (And he did look directly at the camera and before rapping “Say, Drake, I hear you like ‘em young.”)  Unsurprisingly, Kendrick’s Halftime performance has been dominating social media for the last 48 hours. 

Back to the lawsuit.  In his complaint, Drake alleges that the lyrics (together with the album cover art and Not Like Us music video) “advance the false and malicious narrative that Drake is a pedophile.” To prevail, Drake has to demonstrate that the lyrics are false statements of objective fact and not just exaggerated or hyperbolic statements of expression. He alleges that “voluminous public commentary” confirms” that “the average listener or viewer has understood” the lyrics to “reflect the truth rather than art or hyperbole.”  Whether those allegations are enough to survive a motion to dismiss remains to be seen. 

Lyrics like Kendrick’s have enjoyed historical protection from defamation liability.  While courts have had few occasions to weigh in, at least a few courts have recognized that audiences do not understand song lyrics to represent statements of fact capable of verification. See Boladian v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 123 F. App’x 165, 171 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding that vaguely accusatory lyrics are not verifiable statements of fact and are therefore not defamatory); Davidson v. Time Warner Inc, 1997 WL 405907, at *17-18 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 1997) (holding reasonable listener would not understand lyrics to be statements of fact about the plaintiff).  Expect UMG to argue, among other things, that the context, tone, and purpose of Not Like Us all sufficient signal to reasonable listeners that its lyrics are nothing more than hyperbolic statements of expression, which, even if unpleasant, are protected by the First Amendment. 

So why did Drake sue UMG and not Kendrick directly?  For one, to avoid an “unclean hands” problem: whether or not Drake initiated to the spring 2024 feud, he willingly participated, and his own lyrics in Family Matters alluded to criminal activity.  But Drake's complaint also accuses UMG of deceptive business under New York including the inflation of streams of Not Like Us by over 30 million, diversion of royalties from Drake and other artists, and actions aimed at decreasing Drake’s value as an artist to and ultimately to devalue Drake as an artist to increase UMG’s bargaining power in advance of upcoming negotiations with Drake over renewal of his contract in 2025.  Drake's deceptive business practices claim may be more viable than the defamation claim. 

It will be interesting to see whether the court entertains imposition of defamation liability on the kind of speech historically protected by the First Amendment. Developments in this case may also force record labels and other music publishers to take a harder look not only at the content they are asked to approve, but also at the scope and manner of their marketing efforts.  

UMG is scheduled to respond to the complaint on March 17. Stay tuned.  

Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 25 Civ. 00399 in the Southern District of New York.