What is Defamation?
Defamation is a false statement presented as fact that injures the reputation of an individual or entity. In many common law jurisdictions (including the US and UK), to prove defamation you generally need to show:
A false statement purporting to be a fact.
Publication or communication of that statement to a third party.
Fault amounting to at least negligence or actual malice (depending on whether the plaintiff is a public figure).
Harm — damage to reputation, emotional distress, or other quantifiable impacts.
Defamation claims are serious because they involve statements presented as truth that could cause real-world harm.
What is Opinion?
Opinion, in contrast, refers to statements that are subjective, rhetorical, hyperbolic, or non-verifiable. Opinion is generally protected speech. Key features of opinion include:
Lack of verifiable facts.
Phrasing or context that signals it’s an insult, exaggeration, metaphor, rhetorical device, or artistic expression.
The impossibility of proving the statement true or false in a factual sense.
In legal tests, courts often distinguish between factual assertions (which can be defamatory if false) and opinions or hyperbole, which are not actionable.
Why the Distinction Matters
Freedom of Speech / Artistic Expression: Opinions are given wide latitude, especially in commentary, criticism, satire, or art.
Potential Chilling Effect: If everything someone says in strong, colourful language could be defamation, that would chill speech, particularly in creative fields.
Burden of Proof: Plaintiffs must show the statement was false and presented as a fact, not just a viewpoint or rhetorical excess.
The Drake v. Universal Music Group Case: “Not Like Us”
This recent lawsuit provides a vivid illustration of the boundary between opinion and defamation in an artistic context. Below are the salient facts, the arguments, the court’s reasoning, and what this case teaches us.
Key Facts of the Case
Parties: Aubrey “Drake” Graham filed a defamation lawsuit against his record label, Universal Music Group (UMG). Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us” is at issue. UMG is the label that released/promoted the track. The Guardian+3euronews+3Salon.com+3
Allegation: The song contains lyrics accusing Drake of being a “certified pedophile,” includes lines like “I hear you like ’em young,” and other damaging insinuations. Drake claims UMG approved, published, and promoted the song with knowledge that those allegations were false, and that by doing so, they harmed his reputation, safety, and brand. Salon.com+3euronews+3The Guardian+3
UMG’s Defence: Universal argues the lyrics are typical of diss tracks, using hyperbole, insults, metaphor, and rhetorical excess — in short, opinion rather than factual claims. They also argue that Drake, having participated in similar kinds of lyrical battles, cannot treat his own participation differently now. CNN+2Digital Music News+2
What the Court Decided
In October 2025, U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas dismissed Drake’s lawsuit. She found that the lyrics in “Not Like Us”, including the lines calling Drake a pedophile, were non-actionable opinion. In her view, a “reasonable listener” would not believe the song was stating verifiable facts but rather engaging in a heated rap battle, with figurative, exaggerative and hyperbolic language. the-journal.com+3Reuters+3EW.com+3
The judge emphasised context: profanity, insults, threats, and metaphors are typical in diss tracks. The court decided that given the artistic medium and the nature of the dispute (public rap feud), the statements were not sufficiently factual to sustain a defamation claim. WKMG+3Salon.com+3AP News+3
Analysis: Opinion vs. Defamation in this Case
The Drake/UMG case highlights several legal principles in action:
Context is Crucial
The context of the lyrics (a diss track, a rap feud, artistic hyperbole) strongly influences whether statements are considered fact or opinion. What might be defamatory out of context may be opinion within a heated artistic exchange.Hyperbole and Rhetorical Excess
Expressions like “certified pedophile” are severe, but when heard as part of a musical battle with metaphor, exaggeration, and figurative insults, they may be interpreted not literally. Courts look at whether the statement is verifiable. If it can’t be proven true or false, or if no reasonable person would take it as a factual allegation, it’s more likely to be opinion.Reasonable Listener / Reader Standard
The court assesses how an average, reasonable member of the public would interpret the statement. If listeners understand the work as entertainment, metaphor, or exaggeration, they’re less likely to see it as a literal factual assertion.Protection of Artistic Expression
The ruling reaffirms that creative works often push boundaries. There is legal space for insult, parody, and hyperbole, especially in genres (like rap) where lyrical conflict and exaggerated insults are part of the tradition.
Broader Implications
For public figures, the bar for defamation is especially high: often, they must show actual malice (that the statement was made knowing it was false or with reckless disregard). That makes opinion defences more potent.
Platforms, labels, and publishers may still face liability if they publish factual falsehoods portrayed as facts. But artistic “diss” style content is more protected.
This case may deter similar suits from artists claiming defamation over lyrics, especially where claims are obviously in the realm of rhetorical overstatement rather than actual factual wrongdoing.
Conclusion
The line between opinion and defamation is not always sharp, but it is legally essential. The Drake vs. UMG case is a strong reminder that:
Defamation requires falsity and factual assertion
Opinion, hyperbole, rhetorical insult, and artistic exaggeration are generally protected, especially in expressive works
Context — genre, medium, audience — matters greatly
In Drake’s case, the court found that the lyrics in “Not Like Us” were part of the longstanding tradition in rap battles of lyrical exaggeration and insults, not statements of objective fact that could be proven or disproven.
Lexdot simplifies connecting with legal professionals across borders for flexible and on-demand legal services.
