How “Not Like Us” Ended Up in Court
By Olivia Marcoccia ‘28
Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” won five Grammys in February 2025. However, the song's success is nothing new. Since its release in May 2024, Lamar’s hit has been streamed one billion times. The song has an easily likable tempo, but that isn’t why it skyrocketed in popularity. Instead, it is the lyrics, which accuse fellow rapper Drake of predatory behavior towards minors, which caused widespread discourse on the internet and got the song tangled up in a defamation lawsuit.
The title of this blog is admittedly misleading– Kendrick Lamar is not being sued in this case. Rather, the plaintiff, Drake, is suing Universal Music Group (UMG). UMG has produced, distributed, and represented Drake since 2009. Lamar signed a short-term contract with the company in 2023. “Not Like Us” was recorded under this contract, and thus is exclusively published and licensed by UMG. In January 2025, Drake sued his own label for Defamation per se regarding the release and promotion of the song. Naturally, questions arise from this case.
Why Is Drake Suing UMG and not Kendrick Lamar?
This case is about the effect that Lamar's lyrics had on Drake’s reputation and safety. The lyrics alone cannot be damaging if a third party doesn’t hear them. “Not Like Us” is on streaming platforms, social media, and televised networks/shows such as the Super Bowl because of UMG. UMG, because of their long partnership with Drake, also had a “higher level of knowledge” than Lamar that the allegations were false, according to Drake’s attorneys. Additionally, UMG had more to gain by distributing “Not Like Us”. The lawsuit defines three reasons why UMG would promote the song, despite the interests of Drake. First, UMG knew that the song would be profitable. Secondly, UMG was actively trying to prove to Lamar that the company could benefit him better than any other group in pursuit of a long-term contract with the rapper. Finally, devaluing Drake would lessen the cost of his renewed contract with UMG. UMG is the defendant in this case because UMG ultimately had a larger role, better understanding, and more to gain by spreading the allegations against Drake.
What is Defamation per se?
There are five elements, or requirements, to prove that a statement is defamatory…
A knowingly false statement is made
The statement is about the plaintiff
The statement was published to a third-party
The defendant made/endorsed/spread the statement
The plaintiff was harmed by the statement
Defamation per se means that the fifth element does not have to be proven– the “per se” equates to the judge believing that the plaintiff has been harmed by the statement without the plaintiff having to provide evidence that harm did occur.
Does It Apply In This Case?
Yes. The statement was undoubtedly published to a third party and spread by UMG; “Not Like Us” was released to the public in many different forms. UMG is the owner of Interscope Records, which is the label that released “Not Like Us”. This makes the proof for the third and fourth elements irrefutable.
The “false” statement is Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us”, specifically the many lyrics in the song that allude to Drake being attracted to minors. The hard part there is proving that the defendant knew that the statement was false and published it anyway. The plaintiff argues, in the complaint, that since UMG had an extensive relationship with Drake, UMG knew that the lyrics in the song were untruthful. To prevail in this case, the defense will have to show that UMG did not know that the statements made against Drake were false. Proving that UMG did not know that the allegations were true could get messy for Drake. Hypothetically, all UMG would need to do is offer evidence that might connect Drake to the crimes cited in the song or provide testimony that UMG representatives had a strictly professional relationship with Drake, thus not having the personal knowledge to refute any claims against him. Since Kendrick directly named Drake in the song and made the album cover a bird's eye view of Drake's house in Toronto, proving that the statement was made about the plaintiff will be facile.
Defamation “per se” applies in this case because harm does not have to be proven if someone is accused of a serious crime, like pedophilia, within the defamatory statement. If we apply the elements in this case, it appears as though the plaintiff will not struggle to meet most of their burden.
What Happens Next?
There are three routes that this lawsuit can go. First, the suit could be dropped either by Drake or the judge. It's unlikely that this will happen though. It has been established that the case does have merit, so a judge wouldn't dismiss it. The parties could decide to settle. Usually, settlements occur because one or both of the parties want to save money and/or have a clear understanding of which party would succeed in the eyes of the law. Both of the parties have a substantial set of resources available, allowing them to fight this case in court which would be the alternative to settling. The case will probably go to trial but as of right now, there is no confirmation of that nor is there a timeline.
Olivia Marcoccia is a freshman majoring in English.
Sources
Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 1:25-cv-00399, (S.D.N.Y.) Retrieved February 9, 2025, from _______https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/drake-UMG-defamation-complaint.pdf
Ricks, D. Settlement or Trial. Which Will it Be? Davidrickslaw.com. Retrieved February 20, 2025, from _______https://www.davidrickslaw.com/library/rancho-cucamonga-personal-injury-attorney---settlement-or-trial--_______which-will-it-be-.cfm#:~:text=About%2095%25%20of%20all%20cases,it%20makes%20it%20to%20trial
Stebbins, A. (2023, August 4). Elements of Defamation. Bdblaw.com. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from _______https://www.bdblaw.com/elements-of-defamation/
Stebbins, A. (2023, December 7). What is Defamation Per Se? Bdblaw.com. Retrieved February 9, 2025, from _______https://www.bdblaw.com/what-is-defamation-per-se/
