Business
Page: 183
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing Aerosmith singer Steven Tyler of sexually assaulting a teenage girl decades ago, ruling that she had waited too long to bring her case.
Former teen model Jeanne Bellino sued the rocker in November, claiming he had forcibly kissed, groped and “humped” her twice over a single day in Manhattan in the summer of 1975. The case was filed under a recently-amended New York City law that allows abuse victims to sue over decades-old claims.
But in a ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that Bellino’s case did not qualify under the new statute. He ruled that the special “lookback” window only applies to cases where the abuser’s actions presented a “serious risk of physical injury” – and that Tyler’s alleged actions did not do so.
Trending on Billboard
“The complaint in this case does not alleged conduct presenting a serious risk of physical injury and therefore fails to state a legally sufficient claim under the [NYC statute],” the judge wrote.
Wednesday’s ruling could be legally significant. Numerous other alleged victims who have filed long-delayed abuse cases under the law in question — New York’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law – after it opened a two-year window for such lawsuits from March 1, 2023 to March 1, 2025.
Bellino sued in November, claiming she had suffered “severe and permanent emotional distress” over the incidents, which allegedly occurred when she was 17 and Tyler was 27. “Tyler used his power, influence, and authority as a well-known musician to sexually assault Plaintiff.”
In her complaint, Bellino claimed that she and a friend had arranged to meet Aerosmith in Manhattan. First, she said that Tyler pushed her into a phone booth and “stuck his tongue down her throat” before groping her and “humping her pretending to have sex with Plaintiff.” After she returned to a hotel with the band later in the day, she claimed that Tyler “again pinned Plaintiff against the wall” and forcibly kissed and groped her.
Tyler has not publicly commented on the lawsuit, but in court filings, his attorneys have said he “vehemently denies” the allegations. In their motion to dismiss the case, his lawyers argued Bellino could not use the New York City newly-enacted statute to sue over “purported sexual misconduct that occurred nearly half a century ago.”
“Ms. Bellino’s attempt to advance a claim based on legislative enactments decades after the purported misconduct occurred is contrary to the legislative intent, statutory construction, and fundamental notions of individual liberty and due process embedded in both the state and federal constitutions,” Tyler’s lawyers wrote in a motion earlier this month.
Wednesday’s ruling from Judge Kaplan granted that motion, dismissing the lawsuit. But the judge said Bellino could potentially seek to file an updated version of her case; he gave her until next month to request the right to do so. Neither side immediately returned requests for comment on Thursday.
The lawsuit was the second abuse case against Tyler in recent years. In 2022, the rock star was sued by Julia Holcomb, who claims that Tyler repeatedly assaulted her for three years starting in 1973, when she was just 16 years old. Holcomb claims to be the girl Tyler referred to in his memoir, Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?, when he wrote he “almost took a teen bride” and convinced her parents to grant him guardianship over her.
Holcomb’s case, filed in Los Angeles under a different look-back statute, remains pending. Tyler has denied those allegations, too, and his lawyers are seeking to have the case dismissed.
A new sexual assault lawsuit has been filed against Nigel Lythgoe, this time by an unidentified woman who claims the former American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance producer forcibly touched her in 2016.
The suit, filed on Saturday in Los Angeles Superior Court, is the latest against Lythgoe accusing him of sexual misconduct and abuse. After Paula Abdul sued the producer in December over two separate incidents of sexual assault, a pair of unnamed contestants on “AAG,” which is believed to be a reference to reality series All American Girl cited in a complaint from the women, came forward with accusations that he made unwanted sexual advances and groped them inside his Los Angeles home in 2003. That second suit was filed in January against a defendant with the initials “N.L.,” which multiple outlets identified as the producer.
Lythgoe stepped back from his on-camera and behind the scenes roles on SYTYCD in the wake of the allegations. The producer did not immediately respond to requests for comment for this story.
Trending on Billboard
The suit says the accuser met Lythgoe at a hotel in Beverly Hills and that he “insisted” on driving her home. The complaint describes the alleged assault, which took place inside his car over the course of at least ten minutes.
“Plaintiff tried to push Lythgoe away from her and instruct Lythgoe’s driver how to return to her house, but Lythgoe continued to grab at Plaintiff, fondle her breasts, and kiss her,” the suit states. “Lythgoe even shoved his hand up Plaintiff’s skirt and penetrated her genitalia.”
The woman claims the producer eventually relented once his driver arrived at her apartment after allegedly taking an unexpectedly long route. She alleges she continues to suffer severe mental anguish due to the incident.
The complaint brings claims for sexual battery, gender violence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It seeks an unspecified amount in damages.
“It is troubling to hear of yet another alleged incident of a woman being taken advantage of and abused by a prominent public figure,” said Melissa Eubanks, a lawyer for the Jane Doe plaintiff who also represents Abdul in her suit against Lythgoe, in a statement.
In her complaint, Abdul accused Lythgoe of assaulting her twice during one of the early seasons of American Idol and years later when she was a judge on SYTYCD.
“Lythgoe shoved Abdul against the wall, then grabbed her genitals and breasts and began shoving his tongue down her throat,” the suit stated.
This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter.
In September 2020, Kanye West fired off a series of “NEW RECORDING AND PUBLISHING DEAL GUIDELINES” on Twitter, the app now known as X. He called for artist-friendly income splits — 80% to the musician — and contracts that are easy to understand. “The artist owns the copyright in the recordings and songs,” West proposed, “and leases them to the record label / publisher for a limited term.”
His new album Vultures 1, a full-length collaboration with the singer Ty Dolla $ign, arrives with even fewer strings attached — he doesn’t have a label partner, just a distribution company (Label Engine) to help ensure the music’s presence on streaming services. This arrangement outside of the major label system means that West and Ty Dolla $ign are likely taking home even more than the 80% cut the rapper tweeted about in 2020. Although Label Engine advertises that clients get 82.5% of revenue, stars like West almost certainly have the leverage to push that number significantly higher.
Billboard estimates that Vultures 1, which debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200, earned a little more than $1 million in its opening week in the United States, mostly from streaming (around $892,000 from close to 169 million on-demand streams) plus a little extra from sales (roughly $145,000). If West and Ty Dolla $ign are giving up 5% for distribution — which might be high — they take home around $986,000. (More when you factor in global streams and publishing.)
Trending on Billboard
Contrast this with the situation West faced at the start of his career in the major label system: Images of old contracts he tweeted in 2020 indicate that when he made The College Dropout, he earned a 14% royalty on albums sold in the U.S. As is typical in a royalty deal, West’s old contract notes that “no royalties shall be due and payable… until such time as all advances have been recouped.” That recoupment comes out of an artist’s share, meaning that measly 14% rate has to do all the heavy lifting to earn the advances back.
In a theoretical example, if West was in this deal and he had just $1 million in recoupable expenses (such as an advance) associated with an album — which would be low for him, historically speaking — that release would need to generate more than $7 million in total sales income for him to recoup and start earning money from his music going forward. (In this simple hypothetical, an artist is only generating income through sales, not synchs or other ancillary sources, and the royalty rate isn’t increasing when an artist hits certain sales thresholds.)
To generate around $1 million in royalties for its creators, as Vultures 1 did for West and Ty Dolla $ign in just one week, the album stuck in a 14% royalty deal would then have to earn an additional $7 million in total sales revenue. Translated to on-demand streams, that would mean around another 1.3 billion plays.
Since West is no longer affiliated with a major label, the commercial success of Vultures 1 has been lauded on social media as a breakthrough moment for the independent sector. But while calling the rapper independent is technically accurate — he’s not working with a major label — it’s also misleading. Imagine if Lebron James retired and people started describing him as an amateur basketball player because he was no longer on an NBA roster.
The term independent gets thrown around a lot these days. gamma boss Larry Jackson recently called Usher “the first independent artist to ever play the Super Bowl.” (Usher, by the way, has the No. 2 album in the country with Coming Home.)
Both West and Usher built their superstar careers within the major-label system, however. They were thrown lavish budgets to make their albums. And they benefited from the full weight of the record companies’ promotional muscle at a time when those companies had a lot of influence over what the public heard.
In West’s case, images of recording agreements he tweeted in 2020 showed that Universal Music Group forked over an $8 million advance for Yeezus, along with another $4 million for recording and sample clearances. The contract photos also indicated that Universal was prepared to pay a $3 million advance and an additional $3 million for recording and clearances for The Life of Pablo. UMG also poured money into marketing and radio promo over the years. It’s hard to imagine West — who has since arguably become as well known for his troubling history of antisemitic comments, which have lost him numerous business deals, as for his music — reaching the level of cultural ubiquity he achieved without that investment from the majors.
And even if the rapper is enjoying a larger share of profits from his music these days, the real money may be coming to him from outside of the music industry: West recently claimed he made more than $19 million off of clothing sales in a single day.
Livestream shopping platform NTWRK is acquiring streetwear, music and sports-centric media company Complex Networks. The deal will create a new entity that the two companies claim will be “a new destination for ‘superfan’ culture” and bring an e-commerce marketplace into the former media brand’s ecosystem.
The news was announced Wednesday (Feb. 21), with investment from Main Street Advisors, Universal Music Group, Goldman Sachs and Interscope Records founder Jimmy Iovine. UMG will also come on board as a strategic partner and current Interscope chairman/CEO John Janick will join the company’s board.
NTWRK is acquiring Complex from Buzzfeed, which purchased the streetwear-focused media company in 2021 for $300 million. Terms of the deal were not disclosed, though The New York Times reported last October that a deal worth $140 million was close; subsequent reporting in December put the price at slightly more than $100 million. NTWRK co-founder/CEO Aaron Levant — who initially created NTWRK alongside Jamie Iovine and Gaston Dominguez-Letelier, and co-founded ComplexCon with Complex founder Marc Ecko in 2016 — will become CEO of the new company.
Trending on Billboard
“Complex has been a beacon of culture and innovation for over two decades,” Levant said in a statement. “My journey with Complex began as an admirer of their original magazine in 2002 and it has now come full circle as I step into the leadership role. Alongside this impressive team, we will create the definitive global content, commerce and experiential platform of convergence culture.”
NTWRK has previously worked with several UMG artists, including Billie Eilish, Post Malone and BLACKPINK, the latter of whom worked with Takashi Murakami for Interscope’s 30th anniversary vinyl collection. UMG’s involvement, however, is not an exclusive one, and the new platform will remain open to artists of any label, major or independent.
“This partnership will give our artists access to a dynamic network to deepen connections with superfans through unique collaborations and cultural moments,” said Janick in a statement. “We share a collective vision on how D2C, experiential, brand partnerships and content are mutually reinforcing cornerstones of the fan experience. We will continue to sign and elevate new generations of great talent and we believe that we can best serve these artists through a holistic set of capabilities.”
The focus on the superfan is one that is a priority for UMG this year, with UMG chairman/CEO Lucian Grainge writing in his New Year’s memo to staff that “the next focus of our strategy will be to grow the pie for all artists, by strengthening the artist-fan relationship through superfan experiences and products,” which he called part of “the blueprint for the labels of the future.”
The new company also comes amid a lot of changes in both the music and media spaces. UMG announced a huge label restructuring earlier this year, with Janick taking on oversight of Capitol Music Group and other labels, as the music major approaches looming layoffs. At the same time, Buzzfeed is believed to be selling Complex for much less than half of what it acquired it for just three years ago, amid a wider run of layoffs and closings of media outlets across the industry. Warner Music Group, which last year laid off 600 people, also announced that it would be selling some of its owned media properties, such as HipHopDX and Uproxx.
“Aaron Levant, along with Jamie Iovine and Gaston Dominguez-Letelier, are building an incredible platform and this acquisition will exponentially accelerate its growth,” Jimmy Iovine said in a statement. “Combining the power and reach of Complex with the NTWRK engine serving creators across music, fashion and art will be transformative for the next generation of consumer technology.”
Kobalt is raising $266.5 million through the sale of a security backed by the publishing royalties of a 5,000-song catalog that includes YoungBoy Never Broke Again (a.k.a. NBA YoungBoy), AJR, Busta Rhymes and Jessie J.
The securitization is backed by a catalog valued at $410 million by Virtu Global Advisors, according to a pre-sale report by Kroll Bond Rating Agency (KBRA) released Tuesday (Feb. 20), which gave Kobalt’s asset-backed security an A- preliminary rating.
The bond allows Kobalt to raise capital on the value of the catalog and pay back investors with the publishing royalties the compositions generate. That puts music royalties in the company of common asset categories such as auto loans, mortgages and credit card receivables — all have a contractual obligation to pay — that are frequently used in asset-backed securities.
Trending on Billboard
The proceeds are expected to be used to fund reserve accounts, pay certain transaction expenses, repay existing debt and for other general corporate purposes, according to KBRA’s report.
Kobalt’s asset-backed security is the latest in a handful of large securitization deals in the music industry in recent years. Since 2021, Concord, Hipgnosis Song Management, KKR Credit Advisors (with a catalog owned and administered by Kobalt) and Northleaf Capital Partners have raised money through music asset-backed securities rated by KBRA.
The catalog backing Kobalt’s bond is diversified but younger than the typical multi-million-dollar music asset transaction. About 40% of the total net publisher share comes from compositions released since 2019 and about 43% comes from compositions first released between 2011 and 2018. Less than 3% of the total net publisher share comes from compositions from 2000 or earlier.
Nearly a third of the catalog — 29% of the last 12 months’ royalties collections — may be terminated prior to the legal final payment date in 2064, but no termination windows will fall within the next 30 years, according to KBRA. The catalogs of two artists, which account for about 1% of the catalog’s value, are subject to contractual reversion or termination prior to the final payment date. One song is currently subject to a copyright infringement claim that would result in legal expenses and reduced cash flows.
Pop music accounts for 52% of the catalog’s value while hip-hop represents 28% and rock accounts for 9%. Revenue from the United States makes up 63% of gross collections compared to 12% for the European Union and 10% for the United Kingdom.
During its first week of release, Vultures 1, the first full-length release from the artist formerly known as Kanye West and singer Ty Dolla $ign, changed distributors, was pulled from Apple Music temporarily and got cut by a song to ward off a possible copyright infringement issue brought up by Donna Summer’s estate. So far, the story of the album may be as interesting as the music itself — and Billboard has reported that some samples remain uncleared, which suggests that this could only be the beginning.
Like many hip-hop artists, Ye makes music that involves both snippets of other recordings (samples) and passages of other songs that are re-recorded (interpolations, which confusingly are often referred to as samples as well). Samples generally require a license from the owner of the recording and the underlying composition, while interpolations only require the latter. West seems to have cleared some of the samples and interpolations he’s used, but not all of them.
Trending on Billboard
There was a time when that would have been dangerous. When the music business was dominated by physical media, rights holders whose work was used without a license had the legal leverage they needed to take most, or even all, of the rights to a song, as ABKCO famously did with the Verve’s “Bitter Sweet Symphony,” which sampled a version of the ABKCO-controlled Rolling Stones song “The Last Time.” The Verve’s only other choice would have been to destroy all existing copies of the album it was on and stop promoting what became its breakthrough hit.
West won’t face those issues, partly because no single song on Vultures 1 depends as much on one sample or interpolation, and partly because the nature of streaming means that most music — most art, really — isn’t ever really final anymore. When the estate of Donna Summer said that West had used elements of “I Feel Love” without a license for “Good (Don’t Die),” the song was simply pulled offline. Uncleared samples could be re-recorded, if West can get permission from a publisher but not a label, or simply replaced by other musical elements. Albums can evolve for legal reasons as well as artistic ones.
This is an extreme example of what seems like a general trend, as is the Travis Scott album Utopia which Billboard recently reported has its own issues with songwriting credits and royalty splits. In this case, Scott worked with producers and co-writers but didn’t finalize all of the relevant agreements. Scott is far from the only artist to deal with this issue. Here, too, Scott’s collaborators could sue — although this would be a foolish move since many of them depend on his star power to market their work and the nature of streaming blunts potential legal threats.
In both cases, the balance of power in a licensing system that initially gave more leverage to songwriters and other rights holders is now tilting toward recording artists, especially powerful ones. That could be bad for other creators, because the less money they make, the more tempted they are to take any deal they can get to keep money coming in. In most cases, delays in negotiation and payment are just that — arranging all the co-writing deals gets very complicated because there’s only so much credit, and thus royalties, to go around. But the way the leverage shifts toward artists doesn’t exactly inspire their teams to deal with this as fast as possible.
The same kind of pressure doesn’t apply to publishers that control interpolation rights for older songs, but it’s important to remember that this money, too, goes to creators — often on better terms than streaming revenue does. Financial issues aside, creators also have the right to decide if they want to be associated with other creators, just as they have the right to turn down advertisement opportunities. In West’s case, Ozzy Osbourne turned down West’s request to sample a live version of “Iron Man,” which he wrote with his bandmates in Black Sabbath, because of West’s antisemitic comments. So West simply went ahead and sampled his own song, “Hell of a Life,” which uses the same riff. Osbourne should be able to prevent that — his team didn’t comment on West’s use of this other song — and he may decide to try.
The music business needs a code of conduct to deal with this situation before it gets any worse. If it’s overly strict to require artists to sort out all rights before the release of an album, a voluntary code could mandate having rough agreements in place or requiring final ones to be completed within a certain amount of time. The idea would be to give artists the time they need to sort out rights issues, within reasonable deadlines that will keep negotiations relatively equitable. If artists can’t figure out the credits issues that get their collaborators paid, maybe they shouldn’t submit their music for the Grammy Awards — which are voted on by other creators — or even be allowed to. The idea isn’t to penalize anyone, just to create a hard deadline.
None of this would address Osbourne’s issue with West, which I can’t help but take more seriously than the others. Think about it: The No. 1 album in the country this week is by an antisemite who has praised Adolph Hitler and the Nazis and will soon headline a major festival. (In December, West apologized for his comments with a statement in Hebrew but it’s hard to know how seriously to take that, considering that this album has a line about how “I just f—ed a Jewish b—-.”) I think it’s possible to enjoy good art made by bad people, and I assume that most people listening to Vultures 1 don’t agree with the crazy things West has said. At the same time, it feels wrong to write about the copyright issues West faces without acknowledging how hateful he has been. Presumably, West will find ways to license the snippets of music he uses on this album or else replace them. But as he faces pushback from creators and rights holders who are reluctant to be associated with him, as Osbourne is, perhaps he’ll begin a more serious effort to make up for some of the awful things he’s said.
Spotify is launching a music advisory agency for brands, the streamer announced on Wednesday (Feb. 21). For its inaugural campaign, the agency, dubbed AUX, connected Coca-Cola with the DJ-producer Peggy Gou. The two have “built a long-term partnership that will span live concerts and events, social media content, a branded playlist, and on-platform promotional support,” […]
A federal appeals court has rejected a copyright lawsuit that claimed Nickelback ripped off its 2006 hit “Rockstar” from an earlier song called “Rock Star,” ruling that the band can’t be sued simply for using “clichés” and “singing about being a rockstar.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Upholding a judge’s decision last year that tossed the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Monday that Kirk Johnston had not even come close to proving that Nickelback infringed his earlier song when it released “Rockstar.”
Johnston, the lead singer of a Texas band called Snowblind Revival, had argued that the two songs have such similar lyrics that the lower judge should have ruled that they were “strikingly similar,” but the appeals court sharply disagreed.
Trending on Billboard
“Johnston’s expert categorizes the lyrics into common themes such as ‘making lots of money,’ ‘connections to famous people,’ and ‘references to sports’,” the three-judge panel wrote. “But these broad categories are mere clichés of being a rockstar that are not unique to the rock genre. Singing about being a rockstar is not limited to Johnston.”
Ditto for other lyrics about sports, the appeals court wrote. Johnston’s song included the line “Might buy the Cowboys and that’s how I’ll spend my Sundays,” while Nickelback’s song featured the line “And a bathroom I can play baseball in.”
“These lyrics reference different sports in different contexts, and do not approach the threshold of striking similarity,” the appellate judges wrote. “No reasonable juror would think that Nickelback could have produced its lyric about baseball only by copying Johnston’s lyric about football.”
Released on Nickelback’s 2005 album, All the Right Reasons, “Rockstar” has not aged well with critics. In 2008, the Guardian said the song “makes literally no sense and is the worst thing of all time.” In 2012, Buzzfeed listed it as the second-worst song ever written, citing it as an example of “why everyone hates Nickelback so much.” But the song was a commercial hit, eventually reaching No. 6 on the Billboard Hot 100 in September 2007 and ultimately spending nearly a year on the chart.
Johnston sued in May 2020, claiming the hit song had stolen “substantial portions” of his own “Rock Star,” including the “tempo, song form, melodic structure, harmonic structures and lyrical themes.” In particular, he cited similar lyrics about rock star lifestyles, making huge amounts of money and having famous friends.
But in March 2023, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman that Johnston’s case at times “borders on the absurd.” He said any similarities between the two songs were just “outlandish stereotypes and images associated with being a huge, famous, rock star,” and that much of the rest of the songs were different.
“Stated simply, they do not sound alike,” the judge wrote. “Where both songs evoke similar themes, they are rendered dissimilar through the vivid detail of the original expression in Nickelback’s lyrics.”
On Monday, the Fifth Circuit upheld that decision – meaning that, barring an extremely unlikely trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, the case is over for good.
In the ruling, the appeals court also upheld another important finding: That there was zero evidence that frontman Chad Kroeger and the other members of the rock band ever heard Johnston’s earlier song. Such “access” is a key question in any copyright lawsuit; without showing “access”, an accuser like Johnston must prove that two songs are essentially identical.
In appealing that ruling, Johnston argued that his band Snowblind Revival and Nickelback were “moving in relatively the same circles,” or that UMG executives had potentially attended one of his band’s shows at an Austin concert venue. But the appeals court was unmoved, calling it “mere speculation.”
“Inferring access from this evidence would require ‘leaps of logic’ that are not supported by the record,” the appeals court wrote. “A jury would have to infer that the executives Johnston named actually attended Snowblind’s shows or received one of his demo CDs, and that these executives then showed the song to Nickelback. This “chain of hypothetical transmittals is insufficient …especially in the face of testimony from Nickelback members and relevant executives that they had never heard of Johnston’s song.”
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment on Wednesday.
Catch Point Rights Partners, the private-equity backed music rights acquisition firm that has purchased the publishing of such artists/songwriters and/or producers as Brantley Gilbert, Yelawolf and All Time Low, is now offering a program through which it will buy performance rights income streams from songwriters while allowing them to retain ownership and control of all of […]
Sean “Diddy” Combs has filed his first legal response to allegations that he “sex trafficked” and “gang raped” a 17-year-old girl in 2003, telling a federal court that the allegations are “fictional” and violate his constitutional right to due process.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The lawsuit, filed in December, was one of several abuse cases filed against the hip hop mogul late last year. In it, an unnamed Jane Doe accuser claimed that Combs and former Bad Boy Records president Harve Pierre “plied” her with drugs and alcohol before raping her in a Manhattan recording studio when she was just a high school junior.
But in his first formal response to the lawsuit, attorneys for Combs tell a federal court Tuesday that the events simply did not happen: “He never participated in, witnessed, or was or is presently aware of any misconduct, sexual or otherwise, relating to plaintiff in any circumstance whatsoever.”
Trending on Billboard
Led by prominent entertainment litigator Shawn Holley, Combs’ attorneys not only argue that the allegations are false, but that they are unconstitutional. They say that the statute cited in the lawsuit — New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law — is itself unconstitutional “on its face,” and that his accuser’s “decision to wait more than two decades” has cost Combs “the ability to defend himself fully and fairly.”
“For example, some or all evidence that otherwise would have been available if the action had been promptly commenced may be unavailable, lost, or compromised,” Holley writes. “The absence of evidence materially impacts defendant’s ability to defend against essential aspects of plaintiff’s claims. Witness identification, availability, and recollections are likely compromised due to the substantial passage of time since the alleged incident.”
The lawyers for Combs also say the case violates the so-called doctrine of unclean hands – meaning the accuser filed the lawsuit in bad faith. In making that argument, they said the lawsuit “alleges an entirely fictional account that never occurred.” They also argue that photos cited by the accuser in her complaint could be fake, disputing the “context, genuineness, and/or accuracy” of the images.
Combs was hit with a deluge of abuse claims late last year, first in the form of explosive allegations of rape by R&B singer and longtime romantic partner Cassie. That case quickly settled, but Combs was then sued by two other women who say they were sexually assaulted, and then hit with the current case over the alleged 2003 rape of Jane Doe.
Combs has already strongly denied all of the allegations. In a statement in December, he said: “I did not do any of the awful things being alleged. I will fight for my name, my family and for the truth.”
In her complaint, Jane Doe claimed that she met Pierre at a Detroit club in 2003, when she was just a junior in high school. After he “smoked crack cocaine” and “sexually assaulted Ms. Doe by forcing her to give him oral sex,” she says she flew to New York on Combs’ private jet to visit him in his Manhattan recording studio.
While at the studio, the lawsuit claims that Combs, Pierre and an unnamed third man “plied Ms. Doe with drugs and alcohol” until she was so inebriated that she “she could not possibly have consented to having sex with anyone, much less someone twice her age.”
“While at the studio, Ms. Doe was gang raped by Mr. Combs, the Third Assailant and Mr. Pierre, in that order,” Wigdor writes in the lawsuit. The lawsuit claims the unnamed man “raped Ms. Doe as she told him to stop,” and that Pierre “violently forced her to give him oral sex, during which Ms. Doe was choking and struggling to breathe.”
After the attack, the lawsuit says the accuser “could barely stand up” and “had to be helped to walk out of the building and back into a car.” She says she was then flown back to Michigan.
Also on Tuesday, Pierre filed his own formal response to the lawsuit, saying he “never participated in the sexual assault of the Plaintiff nor did he ever witness anyone else sexually assaulting the plaintiff.” Two corporate entities named in the lawsuit — Daddy’s House Recordings, Inc. and Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc. – also asked to be dismissed from the case, arguing they could not be held liable for any alleged wrongdoing by Pierre and Combs.
In a statement to Billboard on Wednesday, Jane Doe’s lawyers sharply rejected the arguments from Combs’ lawyers: “The deeply troubling allegations against the defendants by multiple women speak for themselves. The ridiculous claim that the photos are somehow fake and the law at issue is unconstitutional are nothing more than desperate attempts to conjure a defense where none exists.”
Read Diddy’s full legal filing here: