Drake to Appeal After Judge Dismisses Defamation Lawsuit Against UMG

A federal judge has dismissed Drake’s defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG). This closes—at least for now—one of the year’s most closely watched artist-versus-label disputes. The ruling follows the fallout from Kendrick Lamar’s viral diss track “Not Like Us,” which sparked a summer-long debate over artistry and competition. It also raised questions about the line between performance and personal attack.

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas ruled that the disputed lyrics—one of which targeted Drake—were protected under the First Amendment as “rhetorical hyperbole.” They were not considered statements of fact. In her opinion, she wrote that within hip-hop’s long tradition of lyrical sparring, no “reasonable listener” would take such words literally. The court also found that UMG, as the track’s distributor, could not be held liable for content that qualifies as artistic expression.

Rap’s freedom versus legal limits

Drake’s legal team argued that UMG knowingly profited from material they believed to be defamatory. They contended that UMG should have acted to limit the song’s reach. UMG countered that diss tracks are naturally exaggerated and performative. They form a core part of rap’s creative culture.

Following the decision, a spokesperson for Drake said the rapper plans to challenge the ruling. “We intend to appeal today’s ruling, and we look forward to the Court of Appeals reviewing it,” the spokesperson shared with HOT97.

The dismissal underscores ongoing tension between free expression and defamation in modern music. As rap lyrics continue to blur the line between character and confession, Drake’s appeal could set an important precedent. The case may shape how courts interpret artistic expression born from rivalry, bravado, and cultural commentary in hip-hop.