EntertainmentNews

Drake’s ‘Janice STFU’ lawsuit is dropped: What the dismissal actually means

The songwriter who accused Drake of copying an unpublished demo has dismissed his copyright case. The filing leaves open the possibility of another lawsuit.

A promotional ice sculpture for Drake’s Iceman album in Toronto.
A Drake Iceman promotional ice sculpture in Toronto, photographed in 2026. File photograph; it does not show the lawsuit or its dismissal. CrabbyPotato — Drake Iceman Ice Sculpture (resized and converted to WebP). CC BY 4.0.Image sourceImage licence: CC BY 4.0
WhatsAppXLinkedInEmail
Save for later

Drake’s copyright lawsuit over ‘Janice STFU’ was voluntarily dismissed on Tuesday, October 27, after songwriter Aviel Calev Hirschfield moved to drop the case, Billboard reported. The dismissal ends this case for now, but its ‘without prejudice’ terms mean Hirschfield could file it again.

The filing gave no explanation for the decision, according to Billboard. That leaves the abrupt change in a closely watched dispute unexplained: the legal action has stopped without a ruling on Hirschfield’s claim that Drake copied his work.

What did Hirschfield allege about ‘Janice STFU’?

Hirschfield filed the suit on October 16, alleging that ‘Janice STFU’ copied an unpublished demo he said he sent to the song’s producers. He claimed eight lines in the song’s chorus appeared verbatim in that demo, Billboard reported. Those were allegations in his complaint, rather than findings by a court.

A representative for Hirschfield defended the demo in an interview with Rolling Stone last week. The representative said ‘multiple experts’ had examined metadata supplied for the file and deemed it legitimate. That account was the representative’s claim; the reported dismissal does not establish the demo’s authenticity or decide whether the song infringed copyright.

How did Drake’s team respond?

Drake’s representatives denied the accusation from the outset. Billboard reported that they called it a ‘manufactured and baseless attempt to exploit Drake’s name.’ Rolling Stone separately reported the team’s categorical denial, describing its response as calling the lawsuit ‘manufactured and baseless.’

Before the dismissal, Hirschfield’s representative told Rolling Stone that ‘the complaint speaks for itself’ and said the song had been written specifically for Drake using music provided to Hirschfield by Drake’s producers. The competing accounts concerned the origins of a chorus on a prominent track from Drake’s album ‘Iceman’; the voluntary dismissal settles neither account on its merits.

Could the lawsuit return?

Yes. Billboard reported that Hirschfield dismissed the case without prejudice, which leaves him able to refile. The filing did not say why he dropped it, and neither outlet reported a new case. For now, the practical change is that this lawsuit has ended while the underlying dispute remains unresolved.

Read in depth: Entertainment

Sources and context

AI-assisted article checked against the listed sources. NewsJaws did not conduct interviews or attend the reported events.

Topics in this story

About NewsJaws Desk

AI-assisted reporting and explainers reviewed against the linked source documents. No claim of on-scene reporting or original interviews.

More from NewsJaws Desk

More from Entertainment

See all