{"id":297369,"date":"2026-01-22T09:12:09","date_gmt":"2026-01-22T09:12:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/297369\/"},"modified":"2026-01-22T09:12:09","modified_gmt":"2026-01-22T09:12:09","slug":"drake-appeals-to-revive-defamation-case-over-kendricks-not-like-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/297369\/","title":{"rendered":"Drake Appeals to Revive Defamation Case Over Kendrick’s \u2018Not Like Us\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\tThree months after a federal judge dismissed Drake\u2019s defamation lawsuit<\/a> against Universal Music Group, the superstar rapper and his lawyers filed an opening appellate brief Wednesday that seeks to overturn the ruling and revive his bid for damages<\/a> over Kendrick Lamar<\/a>\u2019s Grammy-winning diss track, \u201cNot Like Us.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIn the new 60-page brief obtained by Rolling Stone, Drake<\/a> argues that Lamar\u2019s track states, as an \u201cunambiguous matter of fact,\u201d that he is a \u201ccertified pedophile.\u201d He also claims Universal Music Group \u201crelentlessly\u201d marketed the song in a way that misled consumers and caused him serious harm. The brief contends that the allegation carries a \u201cprecise\u201d and readily understood meaning that is \u201ccapable of being proven true or false,\u201d a point the district court previously acknowledged, according to the filing.<\/p>\n

\n\tDrake also claims that the dismissal of his lawsuit could have far-reaching consequences. By ruling that rap diss tracks are non-actionable opinion, the lower court created a \u201cdangerous categorical rule\u201d that would shield artists and labels from defamation liability regardless of how direct or damaging a statement might be, he argues. \u201cThe court effectively created an unprecedented and overbroad categorical rule that statements in rap diss tracks can never constitute statements of fact,\u201d his brief claims.<\/p>\n

\n\tDrake previously filed his notice of appeal on Nov. 12 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan, signaling he would challenge the Oct. 9 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Jeannette A. Vargas. In her ruling, Judge Vargas concluded that Lamar\u2019s lyrics accusing Drake of pedophilia were \u201cnonactionable opinion\u201d rather than statements of fact.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThe issue in this case is whether \u2018Not Like Us\u2019 can reasonably be understood to convey as a factual matter that Drake is a pedophile or that he has engaged in sexual relations with minors,\u201d Judge Vargas wrote. \u201cIn light of the overall context in which the statements in the recording were made, the court holds that it cannot.\u201d<\/p>\n

\t\tEditor\u2019s picks<\/p>\n

\n\tShe said the \u201cbroader context\u201d of the song was \u201ca heated rap battle, with incendiary language and offensive accusations hurled by both participants,\u201d adding that it \u201cwould not incline the reasonable listener to believe that \u2018Not Like Us\u2019 imparts verifiable facts.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tBut in his Wednesday filing, Drake says the song\u2019s repeated references to pedophilia, combined with its \u201cubiquitous cover art,\u201d and subsequently released viral video, plausibly convey a false statement of fact that should be decided by a jury. Drake\u2019s appeal asks the court to send the case back, insisting that his claim he was defamed by \u201cNot Like Us\u201d is a question to be decided at trial, not in a motion to dismiss.<\/p>\n

\n\tDrake, whose legal name is Aubrey Drake Graham, sued UMG last January<\/a>, accusing the label of promoting Lamar\u2019s hit song in a way that \u201cintended to convey the specific, unmistakable, and false factual allegation that Drake is a criminal pedophile.\u201d He notably sued only the record label he shares with Lamar, not Lamar himself.<\/p>\n

\n\tUMG<\/a> responded with a scathing motion to dismiss that ultimately prevailed. \u201cPlaintiff, one of the most successful recording artists of all time, lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated,\u201d lawyers for UMG wrote. \u201cInstead of accepting the loss like the unbothered rap artist he often claims to be, he has sued his own record label in a misguided attempt to salve his wounds.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tA spokesman for UMG did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Drake\u2019s opening appellate brief. UMG\u2019s response brief is due March 27. <\/p>\n

\t\tTrending Stories<\/p>\n

\n\tThe\u00a0nine-track rap battle<\/a>\u00a0at the center of the legal war started making headlines in April 2024. It exploded when Drake released \u201cFamily Matters\u201d on May 3, 2024. The song insinuated that Lamar had cheated on his fianc\u00e9e and was physically violent with her. Lamar responded with the back-to-back drops of \u201cMeet the Grahams\u201d and \u201cNot Like Us,\u201d with the latter\u2019s hook of \u201ccertified lover boy, certified pedophile\u201d becoming an instant and\u00a0viral sensation<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cNot Like Us\u201d went on to win Grammy Awards for record and song of the year last February. Lamar also performed the song during last year\u2019s Super Bowl halftime show<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Three months after a federal judge dismissed Drake\u2019s defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group, the superstar rapper and…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":297370,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[264],"tags":[20705,21209,1447,18,117,19,17,1448,337,69656],"class_list":{"0":"post-297369","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-music","8":"tag-controversy","9":"tag-courts-and-crime","10":"tag-drake","11":"tag-eire","12":"tag-entertainment","13":"tag-ie","14":"tag-ireland","15":"tag-kendrick-lamar","16":"tag-music","17":"tag-umg"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@ie\/115937984397367140","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/297369","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=297369"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/297369\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/297370"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=297369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=297369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=297369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}