Drake is not backing down in his lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) over allegations that Kendrick Lamar’s lyrics in “Not Like Us” falsely labeled him a pedophile—and now, he’s throwing actor and media personality Michael Rapaport into the legal fire.
In a new court filing, Drake’s legal team argued that UMG’s attempt to dismiss the defamation lawsuit relies on a flawed legal precedent, specifically, Rapaport’s failed defamation case against Barstool Sports.
Drake claims UMG is trying to dodge accountability by citing the Rapaport case, which involved a series of hostile and exaggerated online feuds rather than serious accusations of criminal behavior.
According to Drake’s filing, UMG is grasping at legal straws, comparing a case where Rapaport sued Barstool over insults like being called a “fraud” and a “creepy herpes riddled failure” to one where Drake was publicly accused of being a pedophile.
The difference? Context and believability.
Rapaport’s case was dismissed because the court ruled that no reasonable person would interpret Barstool’s over-the-top attacks as literal truth.
But in Drake’s case, he argues that millions of people worldwide did, in fact, take Kendrick’s lyrics seriously.
The song at the center of Drake’s lawsuit—Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” —became a cultural phenomenon, was performed at the 2025 Super Bowl and swept the Grammys in 2025.
Drake’s filing stresses how this global exposure made the allegations even more damaging.
Drake also points out that UMG has continued to promote the song despite knowing the damage it has caused him.
His lawyers emphasize that unlike the Barstool case, which was essentially social media mudslinging, Kendrick’s lyrics were presented in a format that implied inside knowledge—suggesting to fans that there was actual evidence backing the claim.
On top of that, Drake claims the impact has gone far beyond online gossip. His filing details real-world consequences, including vandalism of his businesses and a shooting at his home.
Unlike Rapaport’s situation, where the court ruled that no one actually believed the defamatory statements, Drake argues that his reputation and personal safety have been put at risk.
While UMG has pushed to get the case thrown out, arguing that Drake is better because he lost the battle and that Kendrick’s lyrics are artistic expression and protected opinion, Drake isn’t letting them off the hook.
His lawyers demand that UMG turn over internal communications to determine whether the company knowingly profited from spreading a false narrative.
