Drake Responds to Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl Diss: A Feud Enters the Courtroom

 

What began as lyrical sparring between two of hip-hop’s biggest stars has now escalated into a high-stakes legal battle that could set precedents for free speech in music. Drake has formally responded to Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl halftime performance in early 2025, in which the Compton rapper reignited their ongoing feud through a provocative performance of his track Not Like Us. The song, already known for taking sharp aim at Drake, included an allegation—thinly veiled and chilling in implication—that referred to the Toronto rapper as a “certified pedophile.”

Though Lamar strategically censored the word “pedophile” during the Super Bowl performance, substituting it with a scream and leaving the audience to fill in the blanks, the implications were unmistakable. Fans on social media dissected the moment in real-time, noting that Lamar’s pause—"Certified Lover Boy? Certified—"—deliberately echoed the track’s original lyrics. The performance immediately sparked backlash and speculation, and Drake soon broke his silence.

Posting a photo on Instagram shortly after the show, Drake displayed his iconic OVO owl chain, widely interpreted as a rebuttal to Lamar’s own symbolic accessory worn during the performance—a custom necklace in the shape of a lowercase “a,” an apparent reference to the musical chord A minor, and potentially a layered diss.

But Drake didn’t stop at symbolism. In a move that surprised many in the music industry, he filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) in January 2025, alleging that the distribution and promotion of Not Like Us constituted defamation. In the filing, Drake’s legal team claimed that the repeated broadcasting and streaming of the song—particularly through UMG-controlled platforms and during high-profile events like the Super Bowl and the Grammys—had caused real harm to his personal and professional life.

According to the complaint, the lyrics led many fans and members of the public to believe the allegations were grounded in fact rather than artistic hyperbole. Drake's attorneys stated, “Millions of people believe the defamatory statements to be true. This is not mere artistic license; this is a direct attack on the character and safety of our client.”

Though Kendrick Lamar was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit—a decision that legal analysts have interpreted as strategic—UMG has responded by asserting the company’s position on artistic freedom. A spokesperson for the label called Drake’s claims “unfounded,” emphasizing that the track falls within the boundaries of protected speech. “Art, especially music, has long been a space for personal and political expression,” the statement read. “While it may be controversial, Not Like Us is a creative work.”

Drake, however, has argued that the line was crossed when the song was broadcast to hundreds of millions during the Super Bowl. The platform, he claims, amplified the falsehoods in a context where they were impossible to miss and hard to interpret as metaphor.

The feud traces back several years, but tensions peaked in late 2024 when Kendrick released Not Like Us, a track many consider a landmark in modern diss records. The song took aim at Drake’s authenticity, artistic integrity, and personal conduct, with lines that many critics and fans found unusually direct. Despite—or perhaps because of—its incendiary nature, the song became a chart-topping success, culminating in multiple Grammy Awards, including Song and Record of the Year.

The legal case is further complicated by Drake’s own lyrical response. In his track The Heart Part 6, released in the wake of Not Like Us, Drake attempted to flip the narrative, accusing Lamar of fabricating stories and exploiting tabloid-style allegations for musical clout. He even claimed that he had deliberately fed Lamar false information, anticipating it would be used against him—a detail that, if true, adds yet another layer of intrigue to the already murky battle.

What’s clear is that the fight has moved beyond music. Legal experts note that the case could test the limits of defamation law in the era of viral music and digital media. The key question the court must now weigh is whether the general public can reasonably distinguish between artistic expression and real-life accusation, especially when the stakes involve alleged criminal conduct.

Meanwhile, fans remain polarized. Some believe Drake’s response is justified and overdue. “You can’t just call someone a pedophile in front of the world and hide behind a beat,” one fan posted on X (formerly Twitter). Others argue that diss tracks have always pushed boundaries, and Lamar is simply continuing a long-standing tradition in hip-hop—albeit with sharper edges.

What complicates matters further is the cultural and racial subtext. Lamar, widely viewed as a socially conscious lyricist, has often positioned himself as a truth-teller, unafraid to challenge hypocrisy in the music industry. Drake, often labeled a pop-rap crossover artist, has been criticized for maintaining a curated public image. Their feud is not just personal—it’s ideological.

As the court case proceeds, the music world is holding its breath. If Drake’s lawsuit succeeds, it could lead to tighter constraints on lyrical content and increased legal scrutiny of artists and record labels. If it fails, it may solidify the notion that in music—especially hip-hop—there are few boundaries left uncrossed.

In the meantime, the public continues to listen, dissect, and debate. For better or worse, the feud between Drake and Kendrick Lamar is redefining what diss culture looks like in the 21st century—not just as entertainment, but as a flashpoint for deeper questions about truth, power, and the reach of an artist’s voice.