{"id":10204,"date":"2026-04-07T16:32:38","date_gmt":"2026-04-07T16:32:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/drakes-kendrick-lamar-lawsuit-called-dangerous-by-legal-scholars\/"},"modified":"2026-04-07T16:32:38","modified_gmt":"2026-04-07T16:32:38","slug":"drakes-kendrick-lamar-lawsuit-called-dangerous-by-legal-scholars","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/drakes-kendrick-lamar-lawsuit-called-dangerous-by-legal-scholars\/","title":{"rendered":"Drake’s Kendrick Lamar Lawsuit Called ‘Dangerous’ by Legal Scholars"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tLegal scholars are harshly criticizing Drake\u2019s bid to revive his lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar\u2019s \u201cNot Like Us,\u201d arguing that he cannot sue after he \u201cconsented\u201d to the war of words \u2014 and that litigation over rap lyrics is \u201cdangerous.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tDrake is currently appealing an October ruling that dismissed his case, which accused Universal Music Group (UMG) of defaming him by releasing Lamar\u2019s Grammy-winning diss track that tarred him as a \u201ccertified pedophile.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tBut according to law professors from Yale University, the case ought to stay dismissed. In a brief filed Friday (April 3), they say Drake clearly granted \u201cconsent\u201d \u2014 not only for the exchange of diss tracks generally, but specifically by goading Lamar to rap about him \u201clikin\u2019 young girls.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cSuppose a self-assured boxer challenges the world champion to a prize fight, is knocked out on live television, and, with bruised ego and body, files a lawsuit for battery,\u201d the Yale scholars write. \u201cThat lawsuit would fail at the outset for a simple but important reason: the challenger consented to the fight, and consent is a classic defense to an intentional tort.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tHaving given consent to the rhetorical bout \u2014 and having made his own bombastic claims about Lamar \u2014 Drake was not allowed to go to court when he lost, according to the professors. \u201cLamar won in the court of public opinion,\u201d they say. \u201cHaving lost in that forum, Drake turned to another.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tLamar released \u201cNot Like Us\u201d in May 2024 amid a war of words with Drake that saw the two UMG stars release a series of bruising diss tracks. The song, a knockout punch that blasted Drake as a \u201ccertified pedophile\u201d over an infectious beat, became a chart-topping hit in its own right and won five Grammy Awards, including record and song of the year.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Kendrick<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tIn January, Drake stunned the music business by taking UMG to court over the song, claiming his own label had defamed him by boosting its popularity. The lawsuit, which didn\u2019t name Lamar himself as a defendant, alleged that UMG \u201cwaged a campaign\u201d against its own artist to spread a \u201cmalicious narrative\u201d about pedophilia that it knew to be false.<\/p>\n

\n\tBut just 10 months after Drake filed it, Judge Jeannette Vargas dismissed the case. Ruling that diss tracks are often filled with \u201cfigurative and hyperbolic language,\u201d the judge said listeners would not have taken Kendrick\u2019s insults as literal statements of fact.<\/p>\n

\n\tWith Drake currently appealing that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, outside groups are now weighing in on the case \u2014 a common step in high-profile legal battles.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn addition to the Yale scholars, Friday also saw the filing of a separate brief from a group of scholars who have extensively studied the use of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal cases \u2014 a controversial tactic sometimes employed by prosecutors. Urging the judge to reject Drake\u2019s case, they warned that his approach would lend fuel to the fire.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Jay-Z<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\t\u201cDrake\u2019s defamation claim rests on the assumption that every word of \u2018Not Like Us\u2019 should be taken literally, as a factual representation,\u201d the professors write. \u201cThis assumption is not just faulty \u2014 it is dangerous. When rap lyrics are admitted, it is because they are treated as literal. This in turn opens the door to racial bias and stereotypes in the courtroom.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe brief\u2019s signatories include Erik Nielson, a University of Richmond professor who wrote a book on rap lyrics in criminal cases; Charis E. Kubrin and Jack I. Lerner, professors at the University of California, Irvine, who conducted widely-cited empirical studies of rap in trials; and prominent professors from several other schools who have studied the issue.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cDiss tracks are an emblematic and long-standing feature of the history and cultural context of rap,\u201d they write. \u201cThey are understood by audiences not to represent factual assertions about the opposing artist, but rather to demonstrate skill and dominance meant to build allegiance and win competitions through clever wordplay, hyperbole, bluster, and demonstrations of disrespect.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tBoth Drake and UMG have already filed their own briefs in the case (read more about Drake\u2019s here, and UMG\u2019s here.) The case will be argued before the appeals court in the months ahead, with a ruling expected at some point in the next year. An attorney for Drake did not immediately return a request for comment on Friday\u2019s amicus briefs.<\/p>\n


\"Billboard
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Legal scholars are harshly criticizing Drake\u2019s bid to revive his lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar\u2019s \u201cNot Like Us,\u201d arguing that he cannot sue after he \u201cconsented\u201d to the war […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":10205,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[7679,2544,401,402,403,303,136,7680],"class_list":["post-10204","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-called","tag-dangerous","tag-drakes","tag-kendrick","tag-lamar","tag-lawsuit","tag-legal","tag-scholars"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10204","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10204"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10204\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10205"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10204"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10204"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10204"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}