David White
A year ago, Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us dominated the charts, cementing its place as one of the most scathing diss tracks in hip-hop history. Diss tracks have long been a staple of rap culture, a battleground where lyrical prowess and personal jabs intertwine. However, Drake’s decision to file a defamation lawsuit over the song attempted to redefine how courts view artistic expression in rap battles.
At the heart of the lawsuit is the question: can a diss track constitute defamation, or is it protected under the First Amendment as opinion and rhetorical hyperbole? Courts have traditionally hesitated to treat artistic expression as literal fact but have not hesitated to hold individuals liable for defamatory statements made with malice. For example, in Murphy v. Boston Herald, Inc., The Court ruled that falsely attributing statements to the plaintiff, combined with the resulting media frenzy—which the defendant made no effort to contain—and the defendant’s apparent “willful blindness” to the truth, crossed the well-protected line into actionable defamation.[1] While Murphy concerned print news, in the context of rap music, where braggadocio and insults are often theatrical, courts could apply a similar analysis.
Drake’s legal team argues that Not Like Us crosses a line from opinion into false statements of fact. Specifically, they claim that Kendrick’s lyrics falsely accuse him of criminal activity and predatory behavior, potentially harming his reputation and career.[2] Defamation law requires that the plaintiff prove (1) a false statement purporting to be fact, (2) publication of that statement, (3) harm to reputation, and (4) at least negligence on the part of the speaker.[3] It’s hard to dispute that Drake is a public figure, with more than 300 entries into the Billboard Hot 100, in the 21st century Drake is as public as they come.[4] As a result Drake’s legal team was then responsible for proving negligence on the part of the speaker and that the lyrics were false statements purporting to be fact. More specifically, they needed to show that Kendrick knowingly lied or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Courts have historically recognized that statements in music, comedy, and satire often contain exaggerated or symbolic language. In Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, the Supreme Court ruled that calling someone a "blackmailer" in a heated debate was not defamatory because no reasonable person would interpret it as a factual accusation.[5] Applying this logic, Kendrick’s lyrics may be seen as exaggerated storytelling rather than factual allegations. However, the landscape has changed with the rise of social media, where audiences dissect and amplify lyrics in real time. If Kendrick’s lyrics are widely interpreted as factual accusations, could that shift the legal analysis? Courts have increasingly factored in audience perception in defamation cases, as seen in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., where the Supreme Court found that a journalist’s statement could be interpreted as asserting a fact rather than mere opinion.[6]
Drake’s lawsuit also raises concerns about the chilling effect on artistic expression. If successful, could it open the door for more defamation claims in music, discouraging artists from engaging in traditional rap battles? Hip-hop has long relied on exaggeration, storytelling, and metaphorical language to craft compelling narratives. A ruling in Drake’s favor might not only redefine legal boundaries but also alter the creative freedom that has fueled rap’s evolution. At the same time, Kendrick’s response will be crucial. If he can prove that his lyrics were meant as entertainment rather than factual assertions, he may have a strong defense. Additionally, if any of the allegations in the song are supported by evidence, Drake’s claim weakens significantly. As hip-hop continues to dominate global music culture, the legal battle between two of its biggest stars could set a new precedent for the genre. Whether this case reaffirms the tradition of diss tracks as protected speech or signals a shift toward greater legal accountability remains to be seen.
[1] Murphy v. Boston Herald, Inc., 449 Mass. 42 (Mass., 2007).
[2] NBC News, Drake Files Federal Lawsuit Against UMG for Defamation, Promotion of Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’, NBC News (Mar. 11, 2025, 3:00 PM), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/drake-files-federal-lawsuit-umg-defamation-promotion-kendrick-lamars-n-rcna187790.
[3] Legal Information Institute, Defamation, Cornell L. Sch. (last visited Mar. 13, 2025), https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation.
[4] Billboard, Drake’s Hot 100 Records: Most Top Two Billboard Hot 100 Hits, Billboard (Mar. 13, 2025), https://www.billboard.com/lists/drake-hot-100-records/most-top-two-billboard-hot-100-hits/.
[5] Greenbelt Co-op. Pub. Ass'n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (U.S.Md. 1970).
[6] Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S.Ohio,1990).