Business
Page: 409
The Nettwerk Music Group has recapitalized, bringing in a new investor in the form of Flexpoint Asset Opportunity Fund II and additional funding from existing investors Beedie Capital and Vistara Growth. Flexpoint Asset Opportunity Fund II is a buyout fund managed by Flexpoint Ford, a private equity firm with approximately $7.8 billion of assets under management. Terms of the funding weren’t disclosed.
“The capital from Flexpoint will enable Nettwerk to invest in artists and make music catalogue acquisitions that will benefit from the fast-growing independent sector of the music industry,” Nettwerk CEO and co-founder Terry McBride said in a statement. “We’re excited to partner with Flexpoint as we continue to execute on our vision of connecting artists with their fans globally.”
Nettwerk describes itself as a full-service artist development and music intellectual property brand builder with a history spanning nearly 40 years. Its current roster includes Passenger, Syml, Banners, the Album Leaf, Matt Maltese, Wild Rivers and Wrabel among many others.
“Nettwerk has been at the forefront of the evolution in the independent music sector building a compelling catalogue of music by offering white-glove services and growth opportunities to independent artists traditionally reserved for superstars,” Flexpoint managing director Mike Morris said in a statement. “We believe Terry and the team are well positioned to prosper in the rapidly evolving music industry and are excited to help the team execute their vision.”
Beedie Capital managing director David Bell added, “The team at Nettwerk are differentiated leaders in a complex industry, and we are excited to support them through continued execution of their unique, artist-centric strategy.”
Artisan served as buyside financial advisor and Latham & Watkins and Bennett Jones served as legal counsel to Flexpoint. Cooley and Morgan Daniels Slager served as legal counsel to Nettwerk.
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Post Malone reaches a last-minute settlement to avoid trial in a closely-watched copyright case over his smash hit “Circles”; Bad Bunny faces a lawsuit from an ex-girlfriend over his alleged use of a recording of her voice in songs; a federal appeals court upholds Cardi B’s defamation verdict against a gossip blogger; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: The Big Post Malone Trial … That Didn’t Happen
This morning, I was ready to tell you all about The Next Big Music Trial.
Set to run all this week, it was going to pit Post Malone against Tyler Armes, a musician who claims that he co-wrote the superstar’s chart-topping song “Circles” but was unfairly cut out of the credits. Billboard had reporters at the courthouse, and the case had it all: dramatic text message exchanges; a fateful all-night studio session; thorny questions about who owns what when a song gets written; and much more.
But now, there’s one big thing the case won’t have: a trial.
Minutes before the proceedings were set to start in Los Angeles federal court Tuesday (March 21), a settlement was reached. The judge jokingly waved goodbye to media members gathered to cover the case, and staffers could later be seen wheeling out musical equipment that was set to be utilized during the trial. What a letdown.
The specific terms of the settlement aren’t yet known, and neither side is commenting; we’ll keep an eye out to see if any credits for “Circles” are changed in the coming months. And I’ll let you know about the Next Big Music Trial — for real this time.
To get the full story, go read our full deep-dive breakdown of the case against Malone and our breaking news story about today’s big settlement.
Other top stories this week…
BAD BUNNY FACES VOICE LAWSUIT – Bad Bunny was sued by an ex-girlfriend who says he violated the law by using a recording of her uttering a now-famous catchphrase — “Bad Bunny Baby” — in two of his songs without her consent.
CARDI B’S LIBEL VERDICT AFFIRMED – A federal appeals court upheld Cardi B’s $4 million defamation verdict against Tasha K, a gossip blogger who made salacious false claims about the rapper on YouTube and social media concerning drug use, STDs and prostitution.
CHER v. MARY BONO MOVES AHEAD – More than a year after Cher sued Sonny Bono’s widow, Mary Bono, over a messy mix of royalties, termination rights and divorce law, a federal judge issued an initial ruling refusing to dismiss the case.
XXXTENTACION KILLERS CONVICTED – Three men were found guilty of the 2018 killing of star rapper XXXTentacion, who was shot outside a South Florida motorcycle shop while being robbed of $50,000; all three now face mandatory life sentences. The convictions came after a jury trial that was sometimes overshadowed by defense attorneys’ unsuccessful efforts to pull Drake into the proceedings over his alleged beef with the late rapper.
“THEY DO NOT SOUND ALIKE” – Nickelback beat a copyright lawsuit claiming the band ripped off its 2006 hit “Rockstar” from an earlier song called “Rock Star.” A judge ruled there was zero evidence that the band’s frontman, Chad Kroeger, ever heard the earlier song, adding that the two tracks simply “do not sound alike.”
THE WEEKND SETTLES COPYRIGHT FIGHT – Suniel Fox and Henry Strange, two musicians who sued The Weeknd for allegedly stealing key elements of his 2018 track “Call Out My Name,” reached a settlement with the superstar to end the lawsuit.
YOU KNOW YOU MAKE ME WANNA SUE – The Isley Brothers member Rudolph Isley filed a lawsuit against his brother Ronald Isley, accusing him of improperly attempting to secure a federal trademark registration on the “The Isley Brothers” — even though the name is supposed to be jointly owned.
COPYRIGHTS FOR AI SONGS? – Amid growing interest in the role that could be played in the music industry by “generative AI” tools similar to ChatGPT, a new report from the Copyright Office aimed to offer clarity on when such works can be protected by copyrights — and hinted that a more sweeping study might be in the works.
JAMES DOLAN v. EVERYBODY – Madison Square Garden filed a lawsuit challenging efforts by New York state regulators to revoke the company’s liquor licenses over its use of facial recognition technology, marking the latest defiant act by MSG chairman James Dolan in his increasingly sprawling battle to ban plaintiffs lawyers from his venues.
TikTok went on a counteroffensive Tuesday amid increasing Western pressure over cybersecurity and misinformation concerns, rolling out updated rules and standards for content as its CEO warned against a possible U.S. ban on the Chinese-owned video sharing app.
CEO Shou Zi Chew is scheduled to appear Thursday before U.S. congressional lawmakers, who will grill him about the company’s privacy and data-security practices and relationship with the Chinese government.
Chew said in a TikTok video that the hearing “comes at a pivotal moment” for the company, after lawmakers introduced measures that would expand the Biden administration’s authority to enact a U.S. ban on the app, which the CEO said more than 150 million Americans use.
“Some politicians have started talking about banning TikTok. Now this could take TikTok away from all 150 million of you,” said Chew, who was dressed casually in jeans and blue hoodie, with the dome of the U.S. Capitol in Washington in the background.
“I’ll be testifying before Congress this week to share all that we’re are doing to protect Americans using the app,” he said.
TikTok app has come under fire in the U.S., Europe and Asia-Pacific, where a growing number of governments have banned TikTok from devices used for official business over worries it poses risks to cybersecurity and data privacy or could be used to push pro-Beijing narratives and misinformation.
So far, there is no evidence to suggest this has happened or that TikTok has turned over user data to the Chinese government, as some of its critics have argued it would do.
Norway and the Netherlands on Tuesday warned apps like TikTok should not be installed on phones issued to government employees, both citing security or intelligence agencies.
There’s a “high risk” if TikTok or Telegram are installed on devices that have access to “internal digital infrastructure or services,” Norway’s justice ministry said, without providing further details.
TikTok also rolled out updated rules and standards for content and users in a reorganized set of community guidelines that include eight principles to guide content moderation decisions.
“These principles are based on our commitment to uphold human rights and aligned with international legal frameworks,” said Julie de Bailliencourt, TikTok’s global head of product policy.
She said TikTok strives to be fair, protect human dignity and balance freedom of expression with preventing harm.
The guidelines, which take effect April 21, were repackaged from TikTok’s existing rules with extra details and explanations.
Among the more significant changes are additional details about its restrictions on deepfakes, also known as synthetic media created by artificial intelligence technology. TikTok more clearly spells out its policy, saying all deepfakes or manipulated content that show realistic scenes must be labeled to indicate they’re fake or altered in some way.
TikTok had previously banned deepfakes that mislead viewers about real-world events and cause harm. Its updated guidelines say deepfakes of private figures and young people are also not allowed.
Deepfakes of public figures are OK in certain contexts, such as for artistic or educational content, but not for political or commercial endorsements.
Dallas’ renowned So What?! Music Festival is returning for its 15th edition with newly-announced headliners The Used, Pierce The Veil, Sleeping With Sirens and Thursday, who will perform their acclaimed War All The Time album. The event — now managed under a partnership between Third String Entertainment and Disco Donnie Presents — will be held June 24-25 at Dallas’ Fair Park.
Other highlights at this year’s festival include Breathe Carolina, which will perform a rare throwback live set, as well as reunion sets from Maylene & The Sons of Disaster; Woe, Is Me; The Color Morale; Millionaire$; Head Automatica; and Dallas’ own Forever The Sickest Kids.
The latest iteration will also feature some of today’s most in-demand hip-hop artists (both mainstream and underground), including Oliver Francis; the highly anticipated reunion of emo-rap collective GothBoiClique; screamo/hip-hop project Jasiah; and Freddie Dredd.
With a reputation for being the first to introduce the festival world to future stars like G-Eazy, this year’s So What?! is also spotlighting a number of rising artists and internet sensations, including Phonk rapper Sxmpra, hyperpop artist WHOKILLEDXIX, punk-inspired rapper Nascar Aloe and San Francisco hip-hop artist Haarper.
This year’s So What?! festival is the first to be managed under Disco Punk, a partnership struck in January between Third String Entertainment promoters Mike Ziemer and Orlando Mendoza and James “Donnie” Estopinal‘s leading independent electronic promoter outfit Disco Donnie Presents.
Since its founding in 1994, Disco Donnie Presents has primarily focused on the electronic music scene, producing over 18,000 shows and selling over 18 million tickets in over 100 different cities since its inception, as well as over 300 club shows and events in Texas alone. Speaking with Billboard, Ziemer says the Third String team highly values the wealth of experience brought by Estopinal, who has long served as a mentor to promoters.
“I see a lot of myself in Donnie,” says Zeimer. “We think the same way, but he has been through all the possible good and bad scenarios and knows how to navigate the festival landscape in a way where we can actually scale up and grow our festivals properly. We are both learning a lot from each other in this partnership so far and it feels very natural. He actually gives a s— about what he’s doing, who he’s working with, and how things are done.”
Estopinal says he has “kept an eye on” Third String Entertainment “for a long time,” adding, “It’s amazing what they’ve accomplished so far. We’ve always talked about working together and saw this year as the perfect opportunity. I see a lot of myself in Mike and Orlando…I also think they can teach us a lot.”
Ziemer says this year’s festival will feel more focused than the 2022 edition. In 2023, So What?! will feature fewer than 100 acts — roughly three times fewer than last year — and span three stages versus last year’s seven. “We kind of went nuts last year because COVID had us taking a few years off from the festival and we sort of felt compelled to make up for lost time by trying to go as big as possible,” he says. “In the end, we hurt our event because of short sets, too many scheduling conflicts, too many stages, etc. This year we are back to our core of what makes the festival special to our fans. We always did three stages…and people loved the easy ability to rotate between the three and catch as many acts as possible.”
When it first launched in 2008, So What?! featured a blend of pop-punk, rock and metal artists. It has since grown to encompass more genres and become Texas’ fastest-growing festival of its kind, with past headliners including Simple Plan, Trippie Redd, 100 Gecs, Rae Sremmurd and Underoath.
For more information on this year’s So What?! festival, including ticket prices, payment plan options and more, visit SoWhatMusicFestival.com.
Universal Music Group, the country’s biggest record label, has recently taken steps to rein in the costs of radio campaigns, multiple sources tell Billboard. The move comes at a time when there is debate around the music industry about the most effective methods of spending marketing dollars and promoting a record, and traditional outlets — airplay, late-night television appearances, and even prominent playlisting on streaming services — don’t always drive engagement.
As many radio formats focused on new music are struggling, more label executives say it’s an open question whether paying big money for airplay is worth it. “The math is just not working,” according to one major label promotions executive outside of the UMG system.
Record companies have long supplemented their in-house radio departments with help from contractors, known as independent promoters. Working multiple songs in multiple formats across hundreds of stations around the country requires a lot of staff and local relationships. Indie promoters often cultivate those relationships with specific stations by region or format. Some operate on a retainer basis, charging a set amount for the duration of a promotional campaign. Others charge for each add they obtain for a song on station playlists, with costs ranging from a few hundred dollars to several thousand.
When it comes to the latter model, the world’s leading record company wants to limit the cost of adds, according to four veteran promotions executives. A rep for UMG declined to comment.
“It’s common knowledge Universal has drawn back” from spending as much on radio promotion, says Joey Carvello, a veteran who previously worked in-house for major labels and as an independent. “It’s a hot topic,” adds Daniel Glass, founder of Glassnote Records, who notes that Universal’s new approach was “being spoken about everywhere” at an industry event earlier this year in Los Angeles.
Major labels have attempted to limit the cost of radio campaigns multiple times over the years. More than four decades ago, Billboard’s Nov. 8, 1980 issue reported that labels in the Warner Music Group system were looking to “realize as much as $3 [million] to $6 million a year in savings by dropping their outside promotion help.” Today, a label aiming to get to the top of the mainstream R&B/hip-hop airplay chart is going to need to budget more than $100,000, executives say; in some cases, a pop campaign can cost over $300,000.
Past efforts by the majors to curb promotion costs were often undone by the necessity of radio exposure. The key difference nowadays is streaming’s ability to mint major artists with little or no radio play. Take 23-year-old rapper Youngboy Never Broke Again: Only Drake and Taylor Swift earned more streams in 2022, according to Luminate, but Youngboy has only ever cracked Billboard‘s all-genre Radio Songs chart once — as a featured act.
Streaming now accounts for 84% of U.S. music industry revenues, according to the RIAA’s 2022 year-end report. And it’s not always clear, even to the people in radio, that airplay drives more streams.
A 2021 report by the market research company MusicWatch found that streaming and listening on social media accounted for 46% of survey respondents’ weekly listening, while AM/FM radio accounted for 16%. A survey by MIDiA Research last year found that YouTube was the leading source of music discovery. And for the all-important Gen Z, TikTok was in second place.
MusicWatch’s study also indicated that streaming dominated lean-in listening — YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music, and Amazon Music accounted for 56% of this activity, as compared to 13% for broadcast radio. That’s important because lean-in listeners are likely to be more active fans, who might be inclined to buy tickets or vinyl or sweatshirts from an artist they love.
In this environment, a major-label radio promotion executive complained last year that the cost of airplay may not make economic sense. He recalls needing to spend $3,000 to get a song into rotation in a small city. That airplay would need to drive around a million streams in that area alone “to justify that expense,” he said. The city’s population was less than 150,000 people.
Of course, not everyone in the music industry feels the same. “At the end of the day, radio makes pop stars,” Carvello says. And Midia’s survey found that, outside of Gen Z, radio was the number two source of music discovery after YouTube.
Glassnote — the independent label home to Phoenix and Mumford & Sons — has no plans to change its radio strategy, according to Glass: “Independent promotion has been very important to the growth of Glassnote over the years. We’re not going to change our loyalty.”
Post Malone has reached an apparent settlement with a musician who claims he helped create the smash hit “Circles,” ending a contentious lawsuit minutes before a jury trial was set to begin.
Tyler Armes sued in 2020 over allegations that he and Malone co-wrote the song during an all-night jam session in 2018, but that the superstar refused to give him credit. Malone strongly denied the allegations, and a hotly-anticipated trial was set to kick off Tuesday (March 21) in Los Angeles federal court.
But in an abrupt turn of events, U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright indicated Tuesday morning that a settlement had been reached to avert trial.
Just before a jury was to be selected, the judge jokingly waved goodbye to assembled media and cleared the courtroom. Staffers could later been seen removing musical equipment from the courtroom that had been prepared for the pending trial, and Armes himself was eventually seen leaving. A deputy court clerk later confirmed to Billboard a settlement had been reached.
The terms of the agreement have not been publicly disclosed, and neither side’s attorneys immediately returned a request for comment.
Armes, best known as a member of the Canadian rap-rock band Down With Webster, sued Malone in 2020, claiming he had played a key role (along with Malone and collaborator Frank Dukes) during an August 2018 all-nighter that led to the creation of “Circles.” That allegation was no small thing, because the song was eventually a smash hit, spending three weeks atop the Hot 100 and ultimately spending 61 weeks on the chart.
After the “Circles” was released and Armes reached out to complain, he claimed that Malone offered to give him a 5% share of the publishing royalties. But when he tried to negotiate for a better deal, he says the star’s people revoked the offer and refused to give him anything.
Malone (real name Austin Richard Post) strongly denied the allegations, arguing that Armes “did not write or author any portion of the ‘Circles’ composition” and that he was simply trying to get an undeserved cut from a lucrative song.
“It is an age-old story in the music business that when a song earns the type of runaway success that ‘Circles’ has garnered, an individual will come out of the woodwork to falsely claim to take credit for the song, and demand unwarranted and unearned windfall profits from the song,” Post’s lawyers wrote. “This lawsuit arises from such a story.”
Last year, Judge Wright refused to dismiss Armes’ allegations, ruling that he might ultimately be able to persuade a jury that he deserved to own a piece of “Circles.” If the jury believed Armes, the judge said, they could find that Malone, Dukes and Armes “shared equal control in the session, making nonhierarchical contributions to a unitary whole.”
That set the stage for a trial set to kick off on Tuesday, which had been expected to run through the end of the week.
The Isley Brothers are headed to court over the trademark rights to the band’s name.
In a lawsuit filed Monday in Chicago federal court, Rudolph Isley accused his brother Ronald Isley of improperly attempting to secure a federal trademark registration on the “The Isley Brothers” – even though the name is supposed to be jointly owned.
“Counsel for defendant Ronald Isley has asserted in correspondence that defendant alone has exclusive ownership of the [trade]mark,” Rudolph’s lawyers wrote in their complaint. “These assertions … are false.”
The lawsuit claims that Ronald, “acting without the knowledge or approval of Rudolph,” applied in 2021 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register “The Isley Brothers” as a trademark under his name alone. The agency approved the application and registered the trademark last year.
In filing the case, Rudolph is asking a judge to declare that the trademark rights to the name are “jointly owned by Plaintiff and Defendant equally.” He also wants a ruling that forces Ronald to explain how he has “exploited” the trademark and to share any revenue derived from it.
An attorney for Ronald did not immediately return a request for comment.
Band names are a constant source of trademark disputes, typically among various current and former members who disagree about who has the right to keep using a famous title. Who truly constitutes the band? Is it the members, or an LLC that owns the rights to the name? Is it the original lineup, or the one that produced the biggest hits?
Journey, Stone Temple Pilots, Jefferson Starship, the Rascals, the Ebonys, the Commodores and the Platters have all resorted to such litigation over the years. Members of the Beach Boys spent more than 10 years fighting over their name, before a settlement was reached in 2008. And Morris Day recently had an ugly fight with the Prince estate over the trademark rights to his band name, The Time.
In the case of the Isleys, Rudolph claims that since the 1986 death of their third brother O’Kelly Isley, he and Ronald have been the equal co-owners of the group’s intellectual property. He says that arrangement is formalized in two overlapping holding companies, Isley Brothers Royalty Venture I SPC Inc. and Isley Brothers L.L.C.
“Both plaintiff and defendant are currently 50% owners of all rights and interests of the group, with neither party having the authority to enter into deals concerning the group or the exploitation of the mark without consent of the other party,” Rudolph’s lawyers wrote.
Ronald’s lawyers see things differently. In back-and-forth legal correspondence sent before Monday’s case was filed, his attorneys had argued that the “Isley Brothers” trademarks are the property of those who have actually been using a name – and that Rudolph has not performed with the band since 1986.
“Rudolph has not used the mark in approximately thirty-six (36) years,” Ronald’s lawyer, Navarro W. Gray, wrote to his brother’s attorneys in a January letter. “Thus, Ronald’s profits from the business endeavors he has sought and created for himself, in relation to The Isley Brother’s brand, are not to be shared as he has been the party actually using the mark in commerce.”
Read Rudolph Isley’s entire complaint here:
Duars Entertainment, the indie label, management, booking and publishing company that handles Puerto Rican star Rauw Alejandro, Cauty and Sie7e, among other artists, has formally launched a new events production company, Duars Live.
Duars Live is led by Duars Entertainment founder Eric Duars Pérez, along with veteran Puerto Rican promoter Paco López as co-producer, Orlando “Chispa” Acosta as stage manager, Omar Rodríguez as head of pre-production and Alexis Soto as production manager.
The launch of Duars Live formalizes an event production and concert promotion operation that Duars Entertainment las long had in place, but is now ready to expand. A catalyst was Alejandro’s “Saturno” tour, which kicked off in March and will play over 70 dates around the world, making stops in 34 North American arenas, 19 European arenas and 17 Latin American arenas. Duars Live is producing the tour in partnership with Outback Presents.
“Producing events is my real passion” says Duars, who began managing Alejandro several years ago and eventually signed him to his label, Duars Entertainment (which now releases his music via a joint venture with Sony Music Latin). “At some point in my career I had the opportunity to manage artists and release music, but I feel like in an odd turn of events, life has led me back to event production which I am totally enjoying now.”
In hiring touring veterans as his support staff, Duars was also aiming at sustained growth of his company overall. “I want to develop people within my structure so that in 10 years they can function without me,” he says. “I want to grow, sign artists, do more projects. My goal is, literally, to grow.”
In addition to Rauw Alejandro’s tour, Duars Live is also producing two shows at Coliseo de Puerto Rico by reggaetón star De La Ghetto and will soon launch another major tour.
China’s leading music streaming company Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME) reported on Tuesday a 9.3% decline in the company’s annual revenues last year, as falling earnings from its social entertainment services business compounded a decline in monthly active users on its music platform.
TME’s total revenues fell to RMB 28.34 billion (USD $4.11 billion) in 2022 from RMB 31.24 billion 2021, with revenues for the fourth quarter ending Dec. 31 having fallen by 2.4% to RMB 7.43 billion ($1.08 billion) compared to the fourth quarter in 2021.
TME, which owns streaming platforms QQ Music, Kugou and Kuwo, plus karaoke app WeSing, said revenues from its social entertainment services and others fell 19.8% in 2022 to RMB 15.86 billion ($2.30 billion). The number of paying users fell 24.3% due to the macroeconomic environment, competition from other platforms and COVID-19, the company said.
Revenues from music subscriptions rose 18.6% to RMB 8.70 billion ($1.26 billion) helping TME’s online music services revenues to increase overall by 8.9% to RMB 12.48 billion ($1.81 billion) for 2022. The number of paying subscribers grew by 22.7%. However, average revenue per user was slightly lower — RMB 8.6 in 2022 compared to RMB 8.9 in 2021 — due to higher marketing costs, and the number of mobile monthly active users (MAU) of its online music division fell 7.8% to 567 million in the fourth quarter.
“During the fourth quarter, as a result of macro headwinds, increased competition from other platforms and the surge in COVID cases social entertainment services MAUs and paying users declined year over year,” said Tony Yip, TME chief strategy officer, on a call discussing the company’s earnings on Tuesday.
China’s late-year increase in COVID cases as it loosened pandemic restrictions and increased competition also led to the year-over-year decline in online music mobile MAUs, Yip said.
Declining social entertainment services revenues held one benefit for TME: lower revenue sharing fees in 2022. That contributed to a savings of more than RMB 2.27 billion, as its cost of revenues for the year fell 10.4% year-over-year to RMB 19.57 billion ($2.84 billion).
This helped TME achieve an operating profit up nearly 17% to RMB 4.44 billion ($644 million) in 2022. Operating income is the income that remains after accounting for nearly all costs of doing business.
TME expects 2023 total revenues and profitability to be up from last year, and for the share of quarterly revenues coming from online music services will exceed those coming social entertainment services at some point this year as they continue to achieve “high quality growth in both subscription and non-subscription revenue,” Yip said.
Tencent Music Entertainment Group’s 2022 Highlights:
Mobile monthly active users (MAU) for its online music division fell 7.8% to 567 million in the fourth quarter 2022 from 615 million in the fourth quarter 2021
Mobile MAU for social entertainment fell 16.6% to 146 million in the fourth quarter of 2022 from 175 million in the fourth quarter 2021
Paying users of TME’s online music platform rose 16.1% to 88.5 million in the fourth quarter 2022 from 76.2 million in the fourth quarte 2021
Paying users of TME’s social entertainment platform fells 15.6% to 7.6 million in the fourth quarter 2022 from 9 million in the fourth quarter
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Cardi B’s $4 million defamation verdict against a gossip blogger who made salacious claims on YouTube about drug use, STDs and prostitution.
In a five-page decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected an appeal from Tasha K, who had claimed that the massive verdict against her was the result of “very lopsided presentation of evidence to the jury.”
The appeals court ruled that Tasha K (real name Latasha Kebe) had failed to properly make that argument to the trial judge, meaning she forfeited the right to do so before an appeals court.
“Defendant Latasha Kebe asks for a new trial, saying that there was insufficient evidence for the jury verdict against her,” the appeals court wrote. “But as she all but admits, she didn’t make either of the required post-verdict motions in the district court.”
Tasha’s attorneys had also argued that the judge overseeing the trial withheld key evidence that might have helped her beat Cardi’s accusations, but the Eleventh Circuit rejected that argument, too.
“She never tells us where in the 5500-page record the district court’s alleged errors can be found,” the appeals court wrote. “Because Kebe’s brief falls well short of what we require, she has abandoned this argument.”
Cardi B (real name Belcalis Almánzar) sued Tasha in 2019, over what the rapper’s lawyers called a “malicious campaign” on social media and YouTube aimed at hurting Cardi’s reputation. The star’s attorneys said they had repeatedly tried – and failed – to get her to pull her videos down.
One Tasha video cited in the lawsuit includes a statement that Cardi had done sex acts “with beer bottles on f—ing stripper stages.” Others videos said the superstar had contracted herpes; that she had been a prostitute; that she had cheated on her husband; and that she had done hard drugs.
Following a trial in January, jurors sided decisively with Cardi B, holding Tasha liable for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They awarded more than $2.5 million in damages and another $1.3 million in legal fees incurred by the rapper. Judge William Ray later issued an injunction forcing her to pull the videos from the internet.
Tasha appealed that verdict last summer, arguing in her opening appellate brief that Judge Ray withheld key details from jurors and the verdict was the result of a “very lopsided” trial. She’s vowed to keep fighting the case “all the way to the Supreme Court if need be,” even if it “takes years” to do so.
Following Tuesday’s decision, a trip to the Supreme Court would be the procedural next step, but it’s unclear if Tasha will actually do so. The high court hears only a tiny fraction of the cases it is sent, and Tasha’s appeal does not likely present the kind of close questions that the justices typically want to tackle.
Tasha’s attorney did not return a request for comment on Tuesday’s ruling.
The status of the $4 million damages award is also unclear. In September, Cardi’s attorneys warned Judge Ray that Tasha might use the delay caused by her appeals to avoid paying.
“This is more than a hypothetical concern in this case,” attorney Lisa F. Moore and Cardi’s other lawyers at the time. “During the litigation, Kebe bragged publicly that she had taken steps to insulate herself from a judgment. And there have been recent online reports that Kebe has moved from Georgia to avoid enforcement of the judgment.”
A month later, Judge Ray ruled that Tasha would need to either immediately pay Cardi B, or secure a bond covering the entire amount while she appeals. It’s unclear if she ever did either.