Drake Files Notice of Appeal in Defamation Case Over Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’

In a widely anticipated legal maneuver, Drake has officially filed an appeal to overturn the dismissal of his defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG). The notice was lodged with the District Court this Wednesday, formally challenging the opinion and order issued earlier this month. His legal team is expected to detail their arguments in a subsequent brief. A spokesperson for the artist—whose 2023 album 'For All The Dogs' immediately topped the Billboard 200 chart—confirmed the development to Variety, remarking, "This confirms our intent to appeal, and we look forward to the Court of Appeals reviewing that filing in the coming weeks." UMG has not issued a public statement.

The initial lawsuit was dismissed on October 9th by District Judge Jeannette Vargas, who ruled that Kendrick Lamar's diss track "Not Like Us" constituted protected opinion and was not defamatory. Judge Vargas emphasized that the "rap battle" framework was crucial for interpreting the song's lyrics from a reasonable listener's perspective. She explained that within the heightened context of a public feud, where audiences expect hyperbolic statements and verbal sparring, even lines presented as factual assertions can be considered non-actionable opinion.

Drake's attorneys had signaled their plan to appeal immediately following the case's dismissal. The original complaint, initiated in January, centered on UMG's promotional efforts for "Not Like Us," the most commercially successful single to arise from the highly publicized feud with Lamar. The rapper alleged that the label engaged in defamation by actively marketing the track. After UMG moved to dismiss the suit in March, Drake's legal representatives submitted an amended complaint that cited later high-profile events, such as Lamar's performance of the song at the Super Bowl and its inclusion in the 2025 Grammy Awards ceremony.

This protracted conflict underscores the complex legal terrain where artistic expression and defamation law converge. Courts have historically granted significant leeway to artistic rivalries, a precedent partly established by cases like *Hustler Magazine v. Falwell*, which fortified protections for parody and rhetorical exaggeration in public debates. An entertainment lawyer not involved in the case observed, "The judiciary is typically reluctant to act as a referee in rap battles, recognizing that the audience understands the genre's established norms. For an appeal to prevail, it must show that a specific, provably false claim was disseminated with actual malice." The outcome of this appeal may set a critical new legal precedent concerning record labels' liability for the content they promote, potentially reshaping how future artistic disputes are adjudicated in court.