B & P Associates | Diss Songs, Defamation & Drake

24 Oct Diss Songs, Defamation & Drake – A 3d Legal Analysis

Posted at 11:43h in Blog by bpaghana

Introduction

The outcome is rarely dull whenever art collides with the law.

In 2024, Aubrey Drake Graham (“Drake”) and Kendrick Lamar Duckworth (“Kendrick”) each released four “diss songs” against each other in a classic hip-hop/rap feud fashion. Drake’s songs were titled “Push Ups”, “Taylor Made Freestyle”, “Family Matters”, and “The Heart Part 6”. Kendrick’s songs were titled “Euphoria”, “6:16 in LA”, “Meet the Grahams”, and “Not Like Us”. These eight songs were dropped over the course of 16 days, with “Not Like Us” widely regarded as the coup de grâce Kendrick dealt to Drake to seal his victory.

Unfortunately for Drake, Not Like Us was commercially a monumental success and ultimately became (and still is) a cultural sensation in the world of Hip-Hop. Aggrieved, Drake instituted an action[1] in the New York District Court, against Universal Music Publishing Group (“Universal”), a company that holds exclusive music publishing and distribution rights to both Drake and Kendrick’s songs. Drake’s claim against Universal was primarily for defamation, due to Universal’s publication and promotion of Not Like Us, which alleged that Drake and his associates were paedophiles. Universal moved the Court in an application to dismiss Drake’s claim, on the basis that it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action in defamation. The Court delivered its ruling on the motion, through Judge Jeannette A. Vargas on the 9^th of October 2025, in favour of Universal.

This article explores the reasoning behind the Court’s judgment; the cultural significance of the Court’s ruling; and what impact the ruling could have in countries with analogous legal systems such as Ghana.

The Disses

To begin with, the slang “diss” in Hip-Hop/Rap culture, is essentially an abbreviation of the word “disrespect”. A diss song is a song that contain lyrics that are written and performed purposely to disrespect, insult, or undermine another artist. For the purposes of this article, the disses analyzed in the Kendrick/Drake feud, shall be confined to only those from the aforementioned eight songs, although there may have been other aggravating subliminal jabs or insults that predated those songs (including Kendrick’s lyrics on the song titled “Like That”).

In Push Ups, Drake performed lyrics that insinuated that Kendrick lacked autonomy over his own music catalogue and was under the control of his label.[2] Subsequently, Drake released Taylor Made Freestyle,[3] using artificial intelligence (AI) software to emulate the voices of legendary West Coast rappers Tupac Shakur and Snoop Dogg, both of whom are Kendrick’s idols. In the song, Drake taunted Kendrick for not responding quickly enough to Push Ups. Another significant moment worth noting in that song, is that the AI Tupac made reference to industry rumours concerning Drake being a paedophile, and challenged Kendrick to try using these paedophilia accusations against Drake.

In Euphoria, Kendrick’s first response to Drake, Kendrick attacked Drake’s cultural credibility and authenticity as an artist.[4] In the song, Kendrick also mocked Drake’s financial wealth and commercial successes as empty trophies that he used to camouflage the lack of his moral and artistic depth. Kendrick, in 6:16 in LA, called Drake a terrible person and a bully, claiming that even his own team members secretly wanted to see him fail.[5]

Drake responded to Kendrick subsequently with Family Matters.[6] In this song, he implied that Kendrick physically abused and cheated on his partner. He also insinuated that Kendrick was not the biological father of one of his children. In response to this, Kendrick released Meet the Grahams, accusing Drake of being a “deadbeat” father, who hides the existence of his children.[7] Kendrick further alleged that Drake had gambling problems and was addicted to drugs and alcohol.

Shortly after Meet the Grahams, Kendrick released Not Like Us. In Not Like Us, Kendrick called Drake a “certified paedophile”, and suggested that his label “October’s Very Own”, was constituted by members who were sex offenders and predators. In Drake’s final response, The Heart Part 6, he denied Kendrick’s allegations, claiming he had planted some of the information Kendrick used against him.[8] However, the attempt to shift the narrative failed because the damage had already been done.

The Tort of Defamation

At this stage, it is pertinent to briefly explain the tort of defamation. The tort of defamation is a form of legal action which seeks to protect a person from false or defamatory statements that damage the person’s reputation. Defamation may occur in the form of libel or slander. Libel refers to publications, writings, signs, pictures and other means that confer permanence on the statement, whereas slander refers to spoken defamation.

The tort of defamation comprises a number of elements. Generally, at common law, for an action to succeed in defamation, the Plaintiff must prove: that the statement is capable of a defamatory meaning and actually defamatory; that reference was made to the Plaintiff; that the statement was published to a third party; and that there is no defence available to the Defendant.[9] Under New York law,[10] the elements of a defamation claim are:

A defamatory statement of fact;
regarding the plaintiff;

published to a third party;

that is false;
made with the applicable level of fault; causing injury; and
not protected by privilege.

Despite the fact that there may be slight jurisdictional differences in these constituent elements, what is constant and of particular relevance to this discussion is a defamatory statement. In the landmark, common law case of Sim v. Stretch,[11] Lord Atkin famously defined a defamatory statement as a statement that would “lower the Plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally”.

In the Drake/UMG lawsuit, the Court relied on a definition provided by the Court in Jacob v. Lorenz, which posited that a defamatory statement “exposes an individual to public hatred, shame, obloquy, contumely, odium, contempt, ridicule, aversion, ostracism, degradation, or disgrace, or induces an evil opinion of one in the minds of right thinking persons, and deprives one of confidence and friendly intercourse in society.”[12]

Simply put, a defamatory statement is an insult that lands so well that it practically ruins someone’s life. Ergo, why Drake sought judicial intervention. However, globally, judicial decisions often demonstrate that seeking reputational refuge in Court is not always successful, particularly where the Defendant has legal justification. In defamation suits, the courts typically attempt to balance the Plaintiff’s right to dignity with the Defendant’s freedom of expression, by exploring the availability of defences such as truth, fair comment, consent, absolute privilege, and qualified privilege.

It is important to note, however, that in Drake’s lawsuit, none of these defences arose because the Court’s ruling was on the issue of whether Kendrick’s lyrics in Not Like Us were capable of a defamatory meaning.

The Court’s Reasoning

Primarily, the Court drew a distinction between a statement of fact and a statement of opinion. A statement of fact is one which suggests the existence of a fact, and therefore, may be actionable. Conversely, a statement of opinion is a statement which is simply an expression of opinion, and may not be actionable Judge Vargas observed that whether a statement is a fact or opinion is a question of law for the court to decide based on what the average or reasonable listener would take it to mean. In other words, if a reasonable listener perceived the lyrics in Not Like Us as Kendrick stating actual facts, then UMG would be liable. Conversely, if the average listener perceived the lyrics as Kendrick’s personal opinions, then UMG would not be liable. However, the Court caveated that mixed opinions (justifiable opinions based on facts) are also actionable.

Per the Court, three factors guide the distinction between statements of facts and statements of opinion:[13]

Whether the specific language in issue has a precise meaning which is readily understood.
Whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false.
Whether either the full context of the communication in which the statement appears or the broader social context and surrounding circumstances are such as to signal readers or listeners that what is being read or heard is likely to be opinion, not fact.

The reasoning of the Court centered on the third factor above, which considered not only the lyrics in Not Like Us, but the over-all context of the rap battle. By context, the Court explained that what is meant is the forum in which the communication was published, the surrounding circumstances, the tone and language of the communication, and its apparent purpose. The Court proceeded to dissect the meaning of “forum”, “surrounding circumstances”, “tone and language” and “apparent purpose”.

The Forum: Per the court, Not Like Us as a diss song, thrived on forums like YouTube and X, which are meant to foster internet discussions or opinions, rather than journalistic reporting. Accordingly, the forum of the diss song was a strong indication that the average listener was more likely to be under the impression that Kendrick’s lyrics were his personal opinions of Drake and not necessarily fact-checked, verifiable content.

Surrounding Circumstances: The Court noted that it was not just Not Like Us which gained a “cultural ubiquity”, but the entire rap battle itself. Accordingly, Not Like Us could not be viewed in isolation because the fact that the song was created in the course of a rap battle was crucial in determining its impact on the reasonable listener. For example, in Taylor Made Freestyle, Drake challenged Kendrick to use the paedophilia rumours against him:

Talk about him likin’ young girls

That’s a gift from me

Heard it on the Budden Podcast

It’s gotta be true

It was in this context that Kendrick responded in Not Like Us with the following lyrics:

Say, Drake, I hear you like ‘em young

You better not ever go to cell block one

Tone, Language, and Apparent Purpose: The Court observed that in diss songs, the nature and tone of the language employed is loose, figurative and hyperbolic or exaggerated. Accordingly, even if the lyrics deprecate a Plaintiff, they are not actionable as defamatory statements because the reasonable listener would not perceive the words as an accurate, factual estimation of the Plaintiff. Additionally, the apparent purpose of a diss song is to showcase disrespect, not to provide the listener with verifiable facts about the Plaintiff.

In sum, considering the overall context in which the diss songs were made, the Court found that the entire rap battle was just a “war of words”. Consequently, Kendrick’s lyrics in Not Like Us would not be reasonably understood by an average listener that Drake is a paedophile or that he has engaged in sexual relations with minors as a matter of fact. Per the Court, no reasonable person would listen to the song and assume that Kendrick actually had access to credible facts that revealed Drake to be a paedophile.

Judicial and Cultural Significance of the Judgment

Judge Vargas’ judgment is both legally interesting and culturally symbolic, because it sits at the intersection of artistic expression in hip-hop/rap culture and defamation law in today’s digital age. The Court’s ruling was a rare harmony between law and internet discourse, and reflected what the culture had already decided. (Trigger warning, Drake fans.) Kendrick won the feud, and the global audience already understood the lyrics as metaphorical and performative.

Hip Hop/Rap culture may have originated in New York City in the 70s, but today it is a global culture. Diss songs are universally recognized as a combative sub-genre of hip-hop/rap, meant to entertain listeners and demonstrate which artist is lyrically superior. For example, in 2016, Sarkodie fired at M.anifest with his infamous and scathing “Kanta”[14] song, in response to M.anifest’s “God MC”.[15] The aftermath of this rap feud in Ghana perfectly captures how diss songs are accepted as part of the culture’s creative sport, meant to entertain and engender discussions among fans, rather than to defame.

Judge Vargas’ ruling, though foreign, could have persuasive influence in Ghana’s jurisprudence. Ghana’s defamation law is rooted in common law principles, and similarly requires that a statement be capable of a defamatory meaning before liability arises.[16] In future, Judge Vargas’ reasoning that diss tracks operate within a performative and hyperbolic context, could potentially guide Ghanaian courts in similar defamation suits involving musicians, comedians, or other creatives. Such reasoning would promote a balance between protecting reputation and preserving creative freedom in Ghana’s growing entertainment industry.

In conclusion, just like stand-up comedy, diss tracks operate in a hyperbolic register and are understood by the listeners as performance. If courts start policing metaphors and insults in art just because they sting, creativity and entertainment would invariably be stifled. Exaggeration and personal attacks are part of how artists perform and compete in rap battles. If you thought Kendrick’s lyrics were brutal, wait until you stumble upon a URL battle on YouTube.

By: David William Akuoko-Nyantakyi
Legal Associate

[1] United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Aubrey Drake Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 25-CV-0399 (JAV), Filed 10/09/25

[2] Drake – Push Ups Lyrics | Genius Lyrics

[3] Drake – Taylor Made Freestyle Lyrics | Genius Lyrics

[4] Kendrick Lamar – euphoria Lyrics | Genius Lyrics

[5] Kendrick Lamar – 6:16 in LA Lyrics | Genius Lyrics

[6] Drake – Family Matters Lyrics | Genius Lyrics

[7] Kendrick Lamar – meet the grahams Lyrics | Genius Lyrics

[8] Drake – THE HEART PART 6 Lyrics | Genius Lyrics

[9] Anas Ameyaw Anas v. Kennedy Agyepong (2023) JELR 110378 (HC)

[10] Live Face on Web, LLC v. Five Boro Mold Specialist Inc., No. 15 CV 4779-LTS-SN, 2016 WL 1717218, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2016)

[11] Sim v. Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237