Drake’s feud with Kendrick Lamar has taken a dramatic turn into the legal realm, but his filings in Texas and New York courts are raising eyebrows in legal circles.
Story Summary:
- Drake’s legal filings against Kendrick Lamar and Universal Music Group aim to investigate defamation and potential misconduct.
- Legal experts argue that the claims lack merit, especially given the diss track’s artistic context.
- The filings span multiple jurisdictions and include ambitious claims that may be difficult to substantiate.
Drake’s case is ‘embarrassing’ – Here’s why
According to podcasters and legal commentators Josh Barro and Ken White, the filings appear more like a display of frustration than a well-founded legal strategy.
At the heart of the dispute is Kendrick Lamar’s diss track, Not Like Us, which accuses Drake of being a “certified paedophile” and a “predator.”
While the lyrics are undeniably inflammatory, legal experts suggest they are unlikely to meet the standard for defamation.
The defamation problem
For a statement to be considered defamatory, it must be a provably false assertion of fact.
In the context of a diss track—a genre known for exaggeration and lyrical insults—statements like “certified paedophile” are likely to be interpreted as rhetorical rather than factual.
Josh Barro, a journalist, and Ken White, an attorney, discussed this on their Serious Trouble podcast, noting that the context of the lyrics makes it almost impossible for Drake to argue defamation.
According to White, the phrase is more of an insult than a statement of fact, making it protected speech under the First Amendment.
This fundamental issue undermines the basis of Drake’s filings, leading some to describe the effort as legally weak or, as Barro put it, “embarrassing.”
Sweeping allegations and ambitious claims
Drake’s legal filings aren’t limited to defamation. In his Texas petition, he accuses Lamar’s label, Universal Music Group (UMG), of engaging in payola—a prohibited practice where labels secretly pay radio stations to play their songs.
He alleges that UMG used bots, and influencers, and even removed copyright restrictions to artificially boost the popularity of Not Like Us.
In New York, Drake explores whether UMG and Lamar engaged in unfair competition or violated racketeering laws (RICO).
The RICO claim is particularly ambitious, as it requires proof of organised criminal activity—a notoriously difficult threshold to meet in court.
White and Barro highlight the speculative nature of these claims, noting that the petitions seem to be fishing for evidence rather than presenting a clear legal case.
“He’s trying to find wrongdoing where it might not exist,” Barro quipped.
The scope and nature of Drake’s filings suggest a level of overreach that has drawn criticism.
Pre-litigation discovery, like the depositions Drake seeks, is designed to help gather information before filing a lawsuit. However, it’s not a tool to pursue baseless or speculative claims.
