The relationship between superstar artists Kendrick Lamar and Aubrey Drake Graham, known by his stage name Drake, can be generously characterized as hostile. Fans have watched their contentious relationship unfold over the past decade. With each passing year, their contempt for one another has grown. Many believe the “beef” between them began in 2012 when Lamar intentionally insulted, or dissed, Drake in his song “Control” with rapper Big Sean in which Lamar claimed to be more talented than Drake. From that point forward, both artists have been subtly attacking or “sub-dissing” one another. Diss tracks and rap battles are a common tradition in hip-hop music which serve to promote creativity and competition among artists. However, this tradition is now facing scrutiny as rappers are pushing legal boundaries with their music. In January 2025, Drake sued Universal Music Group for defamation over Lamar’s recent diss track, “Not Like Us,” in which Lamar calls Drake a pedophile. The question then becomes whether these diss tracks function as artistic expression or a vehicle to cause harm.
Under the First Amendment, individuals possess the right to express themselves freely. However, there are limitations as certain forms of speech are not protected. One such form is incitement, which is speech directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action or speech likely to produce such action. In the 1991 case, Waller v. Osbourne, the plaintiffs alleged that after listening to the Ozzy Osbourne song, “Suicide Solution,” their son was incited to take his own life. The court found that while the song was in poor taste, there was no evidence of intentional incitement. Therefore, the song was protected under the First Amendment. The intent of the artist is a critical factor in determining whether their lyrics will be protected under the First Amendment.
Drake’s complaint alleges that, following the release of Lamar’s song, multiple individuals attempted to break into his home and illicit harm upon him and his family. One of the individuals opened fire on his property and severely injured his bodyguard. Drake alleges that Lamar’s “Not Like Us” suggested that Drake was a pedophile and called for violent vengeance against him. The exact words used in the song are, “[He] needs to be placed on neighborhood watch.” While Drake is not pursuing legal action for the potential incitement of violence against him, we are faced with a broader question of how artists may use song lyrics as a vehicle to illicit harmful actions. Lamar’s intent remains up for interpretation. However, Drake will likely cite the attempted break-ins and shootings as evidence of a harmful intent. Lamar will likely argue that, while potentially in bad taste, his lyrics do not have any direct calls to action that would prompt violence, as similarly seen in Waller. If the court ruled in favor of Drake on this issue, the nature of hip-hop music would drastically change going forward, not only affecting artists but also consumers.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was enacted on October 28, 1998, establishing penalties for digital copyright infringement. The DMCA also provided owners of sound recording copyrights with a right to royalties on streaming and internet platforms. This is especially relevant in the modern landscape of popular streaming sites such as YouTube and Twitch. Drake’s complaint further alleges that UMG “[removed] the Recording’s copyright restrictions on YouTube and Twitch, thereby ‘whitelisting’ the Recording to ensure content creators would republish it broadly.” Drake then argues that the removal of the DMCA copyright restrictions, which sound recording copyright owners have the right to choose to enforce, amplified the audience and reaction to “Not Like Us.”
In New York, where Drake’s complaint was filed, defamation law distinguishes between private individuals and public figures. While private individuals must prove negligence, public figures are held to a higher standard, requiring proof of actual malice. The Drake and Lamar beef sits at the intersection of copyright and defamation law. In fact, the case underscores the balance between content creators’ reliance on fair use and streaming platforms’ obligations to enforce copyright protection.
Diss tracks have been a cultural staple in hip-hop for decades, and digital platforms now allow an artist to reach fans with unprecedented ease. Incendiary and potentially inciting lyrics can now gain traction faster than ever before, making them particularly vulnerable to misinterpretation and misrepresentation. Even if an artist’s intention is to form a piece of art, touching on sensitive topics has the risk of spiraling into a real-world conflict. A prime example of this was the feud between the East Coast and West Coast rappers Tupac Shakur and The Notorious B.I.G. in the 1990s. After a series of escalating diss tracks and public tension, both Tupac and Biggie were murdered in drive-by shootings.
Diss tracks are increasingly popular as they offer a combination of entertainment and drama, while also social commentary that is often fueled by real-life rivalries between two artists. It allows for listeners to engage in the rivalry and provides a platform for artists to intrigue their audience. Rather than name Kendrick Lamar as a defendant in this suit, Drake’s complaint encompasses only UMG’s actions for deciding to “publish, promote, exploit, and monetize allegations” it knew to be false. Drake also alleges in the complaint that UMG paid unknown parties to stream the song on Spotify in order to increase the amount of streams. His lawyers believe that UMG’s tactic is to profit solely from damaging Drake’s image, in malicious fashion with disregard of the truth. In response to these allegations, UMG emphasizes that it has not and will not engage in defamation against any individual and will work to protect its reputation.
In regards to the monetary flow that has been generated from these diss tracks, Lamar and Drake have aggregated around $15.4 million collectively. Still, Lamar’s diss tracks have outperformed Drake’s, contributing significantly to his earnings. Even though Drake is being accused of different acts in Lamar’s diss track, internet feuding can ultimately still boost an artist’s visibility and increase revenue for them. These feuds have played a major role in shaping the hip-hop industry as we know it today. The track exploded in popularity, even snagging Record and Song of the Year at the Grammys. The upside to this is that the artists will still benefit, the public gets new music, and the entire industry will see a boost. Whether these benefits sufficiently outweigh the downsides of reputational damage remains to be seen.
Ultimately, Universal Music Group is a business that has invested millions into Drake’s music, helping him achieve significant financial success. Drake himself has used UMG to release tracks that function as “rap battles,” with lyrics that openly express his true feelings about other artists. The outcome of this case is hard to predict as this will come down to the jury and if they are sympathetic to Drake. While Drake may have lost some money with the release of Lamar’s track, he has still reaped financial gains and publicity that will ultimately boost his career. At first, it might seem like a simple clash between two artists who are not fond of one another, but from a broader perspective, it is a significant business tactic. The jury could potentially determine that UMG used its influence to gain an advantage in negotiating more favorable contract terms to renew its deal. However, considering Drake’s immense success in the music industry, it would be no challenge for him to secure representation from another major label if needed.
Drake’s lawsuit against UMG raises important legal and ethical questions about the intersection of business, artistry, and public perception. It also highlights the complex dynamics of the music industry, where personal rivalries can blur the lines between creative expression and corporate strategy. Certainly, this suit has the potential to make pivotal changes to the music industry.
*The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of Santa Clara University.