Drake’s Lawsuit Over Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’ Is ‘Dangerous,’ Legal Scholars Warn

A group of legal scholars say Drake’s lawsuit against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” is “dangerous” because it will have a “chilling effect” on hip-hop and encourage prosecutors to use rap lyrics as evidence in criminal cases.

Filed in January, Drake’s case claims that UMG defamed him by releasing Lamar’s scathing diss track, which tarred the Canadian rapper as a “certified pedophile.” He says that millions of people took that lyric literally, severely harming his reputation.

But in a legal brief filed in the case on Wednesday, a group of professors from the University of California, Irvine School of Law say that Drake’s argument is “not just faulty—it is dangerous.”

“Drake’s complaint rests on the assumption that every word of ‘Not Like Us’ should be taken literally, as a factual representation,” professors Charis E. Kubrin, Jack Lerner, Adam Dunbar and Kyle Winnen write in the court filing. “[We] urge this court to recognize the danger that assumption poses.”

Diss track lyrics are a creative artform that are understood by listeners not as “factual arguments or a series of news reports,” the professors write, but as “hyperbole, bluster, and demonstrations of disrespect” that are “designed to entertain and impress their audience.”

The professors warn that the consequences of endorsing Drake’s literal interpretation of Kendrick’s lyrics would extend far beyond his case – including to the long-controversial practice of using lyrics as evidence in criminal cases against rappers.

“When courts ignore rap music’s history and artistic conventions, the effect is to deny rap the status of art and instead to flatten lyrics into literal confessions or statements of specific intent,” write the UCI professors. “This problematic treatment has introduced racial bias and unfair prejudice in countless criminal cases [and] has created a demonstrable chilling effect across the industry.”

The use of rap music as criminal evidence has been widely criticized, both because it threatens the right to free speech and can sway jurors by tapping into racial bias. One empirical study – authored by Kubrin and Dunbar – found that listeners who viewed violent song lyrics responded more negatively if they believed they came from a rap track than if they were told the exact same lyrics came from a country or heavy metal song.

Over the past few years, the practice has drawn backlash from the music industry and led to efforts by lawmakers to stop it, including a landmark California statute. But it has persisted in high-profile instances – including Young Thug’s gang case in Atlanta and briefly in Lil Durk’s federal murder-for-hire case.

Moving to dismiss Drake’s lawsuit, UMG has argued that Lamar’s lyrics are “rhetorical hyperbole” — the kind of statement that might sound bad but cannot actually be proven false. Since defamation only covers false assertions of fact, statements of hyperbole can’t form the basis for such cases.

In making that argument, UMG has pointed to Drake’s own public support for a 2022 petition criticizing prosecutors for using rap lyrics as evidence in criminal cases. That letter, also signed by Megan Thee Stallion, 21 Savage and many other stars, criticized prosecutors for treating lyrics as literal statements of fact.

“As Drake recognized, when it comes to rap, ‘the final work is a product of the artist’s vision and imagination,’” UMG’s lawyers write. “Drake was right then and is wrong now.”

A rep for Drake’s legal team did not immediately return a request for comment on the arguments made by the professors.