Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl performance just gave the NFL a major legal reprieve—but not everyone agrees on what that means for free speech and artistic expression.
In what many are calling a surprising twist, the NFL has quietly avoided being pulled into the high-profile legal clash between Drake and Kendrick Lamar—thanks to a recent court ruling that dismissed Drake’s defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group.
While the National Football League never faced direct legal exposure from Kendrick Lamar’s explosive Super Bowl halftime performance of "Not Like Us," the possibility of getting entangled in the lawsuit was very real. The song, which contains pointed lyrics accusing Drake of being a "certified pedophile," sparked immediate backlash—and eventually led to legal action.
But here's where it gets controversial: A New York judge, Jeannette Vargas, ruled that the lyrics should be seen as exaggerated expressions within the context of a fierce rap rivalry—not factual statements. In her opinion, she emphasized that listeners familiar with hip-hop culture understand such charged language as rhetorical flair rather than literal truth.
"Although the accusation...is certainly serious," Judge Vargas wrote, "the broader context of a heated rap battle...would not incline the reasonable listener to believe that ‘Not Like Us’ imparts verifiable facts about [Drake]."
This interpretation shields not only Universal Music but also indirectly protects the NFL, which had briefly considered altering some elements of the performance due to public outcry. During the planning stages, the league reportedly discussed editing certain lyrics before ultimately deciding to air the full version without censorship.
Had Drake’s case moved forward, he likely would have sought to question NFL officials during the discovery phase about why specific lines were changed—or left unchanged—for the broadcast. His legal team could have argued that the league’s hesitation revealed internal concerns over the content’s propriety.
And this is the part most people miss: Even though the lawsuit is now off the table—at least temporarily—the debate around artistic license, accountability, and how far record labels and performers can go when feuding in public is far from settled. Drake has already announced plans to appeal the dismissal, meaning there’s a chance we haven’t heard the last of this legal drama.
So what does this mean for future halftime shows? Should leagues like the NFL take a more active role in vetting lyrical content? Or should creative freedom reign supreme—even if it risks offending or crossing ethical boundaries?
Let us know in the comments: Is the judge’s decision fair, or should entertainment companies face consequences when controversial lyrics blur the line between hyperbole and harm?
