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

Drake has formally moved to revive his high-profile defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group, filing a notice of appeal this week in response to a federal judge’s dismissal of the case earlier this month. The filing, submitted Wednesday morning, signals the rapper’s intent to challenge the court’s determination that Kendrick Lamar’s chart-topping diss track “Not Like Us” was protected speech and therefore not legally defamatory.

In the notice, attorneys representing Drake informed the court that he is appealing District Judge Jeannette Vargas’s October 9 opinion and order, which rejected his claims against UMG. While the filing does not yet outline the detailed legal arguments the rapper plans to pursue, those are expected to appear in a full appellate brief in the coming weeks. A representative for Drake confirmed the move in a statement to Variety, saying, “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 publicly commented on the appeal.

The lawsuit stems from Drake’s January filing accusing UMG of intentionally engaging in defamation by promoting Lamar’s “Not Like Us,” the most commercially successful track to emerge from the artists’ heated back-and-forth earlier this year. Drake argued that the song contained allegations portrayed as factual and that UMG amplified these claims by marketing and distributing the record. In its March response, UMG sought dismissal, positioning the song as an obvious piece of artistic expression in the context of a longstanding rap battle tradition. Drake’s legal team subsequently amended their complaint to incorporate events occurring after the initial filing, including Lamar’s performance of the track during the Super Bowl halftime show and the song’s prominent placement at the 2025 Grammy Awards.

Judge Vargas ultimately sided with UMG, ruling that the contested statements in “Not Like Us” were “nonactionable opinion” under First Amendment protections. Her decision emphasized the cultural and artistic context surrounding the record, noting that courts must consider the expectations of a reasonable listener within a charged, highly performative environment. “The fact that the Recording was made in the midst of a rap battle is essential to assessing its impact on a reasonable listener,” she wrote. “Even apparent statements of fact may assume the character of statements of opinion when made in public debate, heated labor dispute, or other circumstances in which an audience may anticipate the use of epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole.”

The ruling aligns with prior decisions addressing artistic speech, particularly within genres known for exaggerated, confrontational, and stylized expression. Legal experts have long argued that defamation claims targeting diss tracks, stand-up comedy routines, and other forms of pointed entertainment often struggle to meet the threshold for actionable false statements. Judge Vargas’s opinion echoed this precedent, underscoring the judiciary’s reluctance to police artistic rivalries.

Drake’s lawyers signaled immediately after the dismissal that they would pursue an appeal, framing the district court’s reasoning as overly broad and insufficiently attentive to what they assert were statements presented as fact rather than rhetorical taunts. The forthcoming appellate brief is expected to focus on that distinction, pressing the argument that certain allegations in “Not Like Us” crossed a legal boundary even within the permissive norms of hip-hop battles.

The appeal also reflects the increasingly intertwined relationship between artistic expression and digital amplification. Drake’s team has argued that UMG’s promotion of the track magnified the perceived credibility of the disputed statements, especially given the label’s marketing reach and the song’s cultural ubiquity. The revised complaint highlighted the song’s extraordinary visibility throughout 2024 and early 2025, with its inclusion in major televised events fueling continued public attention.

Industry observers note that the case stands at the intersection of music, reputation, and corporate responsibility. Although labels typically maintain significant latitude in distributing their artists’ work, Drake’s lawsuit tests the limits of that freedom when the content involves pointed personal allegations against another high-profile figure. An appellate decision in his favor could introduce new considerations for labels promoting contentious material during artist disputes.

For now, the case proceeds into the appeals process, where the court will evaluate whether the district court properly applied longstanding protections for artistic opinion or erred in dismissing the complaint outright. While the timeline for a ruling remains uncertain, the filing ensures that one of hip-hop’s most talked-about legal battles will continue to unfold well into next year.