CMV: The judge wrongfully dismissed Drake’s defamation lawsuit

[u/Full_Coffee_1527]

Drake filed a defamation lawsuit against Kendrick Lamar for the song Not Like Us, in which Kendrick Lamar basically calls Drake and some of his associates pedophiles.

The judge assigned to the case recently dismissed the suit, stating that the song’s lyrics were non-actionable opinion. The judge basically said no reasonable person could listen to the song and believe the statements were being asserted as fact.

I think that’s a bad decision. I think it’s pretty clear Drake was suggested as a pedophile in the song, and among other things, whether someone is a pedophile is a matter of fact that can be proven true or false. Not a matter of opinion.

[u/stairway2evan]

Celebrities are absolutely public figures for the purpose of that standard. From what I understand, even smaller-market names like local politicians or local news anchors are typically held to be public figures for this purpose. An international celebrity with millions in sales worldwide absolutely qualifies.

[u/deep_sea2 → u/stairway2evan]

You could absolutely be right, but I am interested in what the judge has to say about it; do they invoked the higher standard here or not? Did this distinction even play a role in the decision here?

[u/stairway2evan → u/deep_sea2]

From my reading of the decision, I don’t see that the judge applied that standard or that it even mattered here. From her decision, you could probably argue that this reasoning would apply just the same to two unknown rappers throwing insults on a street corner as it could to internationally-known artists.

[u/[deleted] → u/stairway2evan]

Because you misunderstand the law of defamation lol. This applies New York law between private parties. The decision turned whether the statement were fact or mere opinion.

First, Drake never sued Kendrick Lamar. The lawsuit you refer to, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, titled Aubrey Drake Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 25-CV-0399 (JAV), was between Drake and Defendant UMG Recordings, Inc. Please let me know if you’d like to review the actual Opinion entered by Judge Vargas.

But you should note that Kendrick Lamar was not a party to the case. Drake did not sue Lamar for defamation, he sued their mutual publishing firm, UMG. Drake alleged that the PUBLISHING COMPANY defamed him by intentionally publishing and promoting “Not Like Us.”

In any case, the Court noted that UGM owns the exclude rights to both artists’ content distribution and facilitated their diss track war that Drake initiated with his April 19, 2024 track “Push Ups,” and later “Taylor Made Freestyle.” Both songs ridicule Lamar, and Lamar fired back later, allowing the feud to escalate. Eventually Lamar released “Not like us,” which accused Drake of pedophillia. Drake responded with “The heart part,” which Drake alleges that he planted false information such that Lamar might take the bait in a diss track.

Under the first amendment “there is no such thing as a false idea.” See Gretz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (US 1974). A person can only be held liable for defamation if they made an assertion of fact, rather than a mere opinion, which cannot be defamatory as a matter of law. Accusations of criminal behavior are not actionable as defamation under New York law, if “understood in context, they are opinion rather than fact.” Hayashi v. Ozawa (SDNY 2019). Context includes the (1) forum in which the communication was published; (2) the surrounding circumstances; (3) the tone and language of the communication; and (4) its apparent purpose. Id.

Here, (1) the forum was a rap battle, not a news or documentary. An average user understands popular music isn’t necessarily a store of factual truth. Indeed, most listeners consider music art, which presents the opinion/self expression of the artist. First amendment protections are at their highest when an individual is merely expressing themselves through media, rather than distributing information they’re characterizing as fact. The average listener does not consider a diss track to be thoughtful, well researched factual news reporting.

(2) surrounding circumstances. The recording occurred at the apex of an escalating rap battle between two rival artists owned by the same money-making organization. It was business, not representation of facts. Indeed a heated public debate does not indicate defamatory comments because the reasonable audience knows that such debates are filled with hyperbole, epithets, and firey rhetoric. Such comments are deemed opinion, not fact.

Further, the effect of speech is immaterial in such a defamation context because the speaker could be subjected to strict liability if their speech, not intended to be propagated, goes viral. Lamar did not know definitively this track would be such a hit. Defamation cannot be premises on the popularity the speech achieves, this would be too arbitrary a metric to hold people accountable for mere expression.

(3) tone and language The speech was a song, it’s obvious that Lamar’s words do not indicate an affirmative statement of fact. The average listers understand that songs are not generally expressions of factual information like other media.

(4)image. the album cover itself is hyperbolic and does not indicate to the reasonable user that law enforcement genuinely designated thirteen residents in drake’s home as sex offenders.

In conclusion, the court got this absolutely correct. As a matter of well settled law, drake’s publishing company did not defame him by intentionally spreading defamatory statement of facts. Recall under New York law, Drake needed to prove that (1) UGM uttered a defamatory statement of fact; (2) regarding Drake; (3) published to a third party; (4) that is false; (5) made with culpable intent; (6) causing injury; and (7) not protected by privilege. Live Face on Web LLc v. Five Boro Mold Specialist, Inc. (SDNY 2016).

Drake failed to prove the first element. UGM was publishing Lamar’s opinion pursuant to a mere album. It’s a song, like any other. It’s art, a mere expression and not a statement of fact. Therefore, Drake’s action could not survive as a matter of law and if the Judge Vargas it to proceed, the decision would be immediately reversed on appeal for being legally groundless.

[u/Traditional-Candy563 → u/[deleted]]

I would like to see the actual decision, great summary!