Drake’s “Janice STFU” Copyright Suit Dismissed After 10 Days

Producer Aviel Hirschfield withdrew his copyright suit against Drake over “Janice STFU” within 10 days of filing in federal court earlier this month, according to a recent court filing.

The legal brief had a shorter life than the viral thread. No court decided who wrote the chorus. Rolling Stone’s reporting leaves the central allegations unresolved.

What did Hirschfield claim?

Hirschfield, 33, alleged that he was driving to Seattle last year in a friend’s borrowed Maybach when Lykke Li’s 2011 indie-pop classic “I Follow Rivers” began playing. The Portland, Oregon producer and rapper said he had not heard the song for some time and was struck by its catchy hook.

He alleged that he wrote a Lykke Li-inspired chorus and that, less than six months later, Drake used it verbatim on the global hit “Janice STFU.”

In a Rolling Stone interview last week, his representative said Drake had stolen “his copyrighted music and [claimed] it as their own” on the chorus. The representative added: “The complaint speaks for itself.” He continued: “This song was written specifically for Drake using music provided to [Hirschfield] that was created by Drake’s producers.”

Rolling Stone described the song as the anchor of Drake’s comeback on Iceman and, by some metrics, one of the biggest hits of the rapper’s career. The report also called it one of the year’s biggest pop songs. Drake’s team categorically denied the allegations and called the lawsuit “manufactured and baseless.”

Why did the lawsuit collapse?

Rolling Stone reported that coverage spread through music publications, the mainstream Canadian press, vlogs, podcasts and viral threads for more than a week. Days after the outlet sent several follow-up questions to Hirschfield’s attorney, the producer officially withdrew the case in court.

Rolling Stone reported that the dispute centered on a recording leaked to X that purported to be a demo (an early recording) by Hirschfield. It included a pitched-down vocal singing the familiar “Janice STFU” chorus.

A representative told Rolling Stone that “multiple experts” had examined the metadata (the file’s embedded information) Hirschfield supplied and deemed it legitimate. Internet sleuths questioned the demo as soon as it appeared online.

What remained unresolved?

Rolling Stone’s report left four central points unresolved:

• The credit gap: Why would Drake, already carrying years of controversy, reputational damage and litigation, invite another legal fight by allegedly neglecting to credit the songwriter who supplied the chorus lyrics?
• The career jump: An essentially unknown producer with no mainstream writing credits before 2022 became a credited songwriter on one song from Beyoncé’s Renaissance and claimed authorship of the entire “Janice STFU” chorus.
• The beat chronology: Hirschfield said he wrote to a beat in January 2026, while another producer involved in the song recently told Billboard that the beat was not written until March.
• The borrowed melody: “Janice STFU” borrows its chorus melody from the well-known 2011 song in an industry increasingly reliant on interpolations (new works that rework existing melodies). Rolling Stone said the case raised the question of how copyright claims work in that setting.

Who is Aviel Hirschfield?

Aviel Hirschfield describes himself on LinkedIn as a “studio manager, audio engineer, and music producer.” His stated clients include Playboi Carti, Travis Scott, Star Wars and Disney. Rolling Stone could not reach him directly for comment.

His highest-profile credit before the lawsuit was “Heated” on Beyoncé’s 2022 album Renaissance. The song’s current writing credits, as reported by Rolling Stone, list more than a dozen people, including Hirschfield and Drake. Rolling Stone noted that the lawsuit and early coverage emphasized that connection.

According to Rolling Stone, some published credits say Hirschfield provided guitars and co-produced the track. Other versions list him as “Calev” and credit him only with guitar. Spotify now lists him among its 18 songwriters. Beyoncé’s representative did not answer Rolling Stone’s request to clarify his role.

When “Heated” was released, Hirschfield wrote on X that he had “co-produced” Beyoncé’s song. Rolling Stone noted that he repeatedly posted about the album’s success. When Renaissance was nominated for nine Grammys, he attended the ceremony in L.A. and gave a red-carpet interview.

He said: “I started the idea for the song that I produced maybe five years ago.” He added: “I knew that the idea was good. I just had to find the right home.” Three years after those awards, he brought the allegations in the now-withdrawn suit.

Why does the legal context matter?

Kevin Greene, a copyright scholar and law professor, said songwriters and producers often fear professional repercussions if they sue major stars. “If you’re in the songwriting community, you have to think hard about whether you want to sue Drake, even if there’s an infringement,” Greene says. “[It’s a question of], ‘Do you want to work again? With that on your resume?’”

Entertainment and copyright lawyer Brian Levenson said even when songwriters come forward with allegations against famous pop songs, assessing the merits is not straightforward. He said it is not uncommon for his firm to turn down frivolous copyright claims. “I’ve gotten calls that are like, ‘Billy Joel’s “Piano Man” infringes on my work.’”

What would a renewed case need to prove?\n

The withdrawn action leaves three central issues for any future claimant: the provenance of the demo, the timeline of the beat and the legal treatment of the interpolation. Without those answers, “Janice STFU” has a louder allegation than a judicial finding. Drake’s team has denied the allegations. A renewed suit would need better evidence than a disputed upload and a beat chronology pointing in two directions at once.