Yale Law Professors Slam Drake’s Not Like Us Lawsuit Appeal

Legal scholars from Yale Law School have filed an amicus brief opposing Drake’s efforts to revive a defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) regarding Kendrick Lamar’s diss track Not Like Us. The scholars argue that the rapper willfully consented to the lyrical conflict, which should effectively bar his claims of defamation.

The brief, submitted on April 3, 2026, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, was prepared by the Media Freedom &amp. Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School. It was submitted by the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression and Professor Lyrissa Lidsky, a prominent defamation scholar and the Raymond & Miriam Ehrlich Chair in U.S. Constitutional Law at the University of Florida’s Levin College of Law.

The Argument of Consent

The core of the Yale scholars’ argument is that Drake’s participation in a rap battle constitutes legal consent to the resulting lyrics. They contend that consent is a complete defense under established defamation law.

Suppose a self-assured boxer challenges the world champion to a prize fight, is knocked out on live television, and, with bruised ego and body, files a lawsuit for battery. That lawsuit would fail at the outset for a simple but important reason: the challenger consented to the fight, and consent is a classic defense to an intentional tort. Defamation is also an intentional tort, and defamation claims are likewise foreclosed by consent.

Yale Law School Scholars

The scholars specifically point to Drake’s Taylor Made Freestyle as evidence of this consent. In that track, they claim Drake directly invited Lamar to talk about [Drake] likin’ young girls, which introduced the topic of pedophilia into the conflict. Because Lamar accepted this invitation by publishing Not Like Us, the scholars argue the allegedly defamatory statements are not actionable.

The brief further suggests that Drake’s decision to pursue legal action is a reaction to his failure to win the dispute in the public sphere. The scholars stated that after losing in the court of public opinion, Drake attempted to seek a remedy in a legal forum.

Previous Court Rulings and Appeals

This legal battle follows a ruling from October 2025, in which Judge Jeannette Vargas dismissed Drake’s initial defamation case. Judge Vargas determined that the lyrics in Not Like Us—which included accusations that Drake was a certified pedophile—constituted protected opinion rather than actionable defamation.

In her ruling, Judge Vargas noted that the song must be viewed within the broader context of a heated rap battle characterized by incendiary language and offensive accusations hurled by both participants. She concluded that the lyrics could not reasonably be understood as conveying a factual matter regarding Drake’s behavior with minors.

Drake subsequently appealed this decision, describing the ruling as an unprecedented and categorical rule that suggests rap diss tracks are exempt from being treated as statements of fact. Drake alleged that UMG’s marketing of the song misled consumers.

Broader Academic Opposition

The Yale Law School brief is not the only academic filing supporting UMG. A second amicus brief was filed on April 3, 2026, on behalf of a group of legal scholars and social scientists from multiple institutions, including:

• Howard University
• The University of Richmond
• Virginia Polytechnic Institute
• Tulane University

This second brief was represented by Jack I. Lerner of the UCI Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. Both the Yale and the multi-institutional briefs urge the appeals court to affirm Judge Vargas’s October 2025 dismissal and maintain the protection of the lyrics under the First Amendment.