Drake vs. UMG: Legal Scholars Weigh In on Defamation Lawsuit Over Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’
The legal battle between Drake and Universal Music Group (UMG) over Kendrick Lamar's diss track 'Not Like Us' continues to escalate, drawing in legal scholars who are now warning of the potentially 'dangerous' implications of the lawsuit. At the heart of the debate is whether rap lyrics should be taken as literal factual representations, a question that has significant ramifications for freedom of speech and the use of rap lyrics in criminal cases.
Drake filed a defamation lawsuit against UMG earlier this year, arguing that the label knowingly promoted and profited from 'Not Like Us,' a song he claims contains false and damaging allegations. UMG has countered with a motion to dismiss, asserting that Lamar's lyrics are nonactionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole, a point now supported by a group of academics from the University of California, Irvine.
These scholars recently submitted a proposed amicus brief to the court, cautioning against treating rap lyrics as literal confessions or factual representations. 'Drake’s defamation claim rests on the assumption that every word of Not Like Us should be taken literally, as a factual representation,' they wrote. 'This assumption is not just faulty—it is dangerous.'
They argue that interpreting diss track lyrics literally could lead to racial bias in the courtroom and stifle artistic expression within the hip-hop industry.
The academics added that diss tracks are typically understood as displays of skill and competitive dominance, employing hyperbole and clever wordplay rather than factual assertions.
The legal scholars cite examples of rappers who have fabricated aspects of their personas and criminal activities for commercial gain. They mention Jay-Z’s early rap battles and 50 Cent’s admission that his track 'High All The Time' was created to appeal to a market segment, not to reflect his personal experiences.
Furthermore, the scholars suggest that taking lyrics literally undermines civil and constitutional rights, potentially leading to the exploitation of rap lyrics to introduce prejudice and racial bias in legal proceedings. The motion to dismiss, filed on behalf of UMG, calls Drake’s lawsuit is an attempt to save face after an unsuccessful rap battle, with UMG stating that it remains committed to propelling Drake’s career while supporting creative expression.
UMG also stated that Drake himself utilized provocative taunts and similar creative expression in his own songs, meaning he willingly participated in this performative rap-battle of music and poetry.
As the legal proceedings continue, access to documents, including Lamar's contracts, are being requested. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for how rap lyrics are interpreted in legal contexts. The industry is watching closely, bracing for the potential chilling effect of a ruling that treats artistic expression as factual testimony.
What are your thoughts on this case? Should rap lyrics be taken literally in legal proceedings? Share your opinions in the comments below.
