Lawsuit
Page: 10
Kelly Clarkson has settled a lawsuit against her ex-husband Brandon Blackstock over commissions he was paid during his time as her manager, according to a new report in Rolling Stone.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Clarkson requested a dismissal of the case on Tuesday (May 21), while Blackstock and his father’s management firm, Starstruck Entertainment, requested to dismiss the case on Wednesday (May 22), according to court documents reviewed by Billboard — though the documents do not mention a settlement.
Billboard has reached out to Clarkson and Blackstock’s reps for more information but did not receive a response at the time of publication.
Trending on Billboard
The reported settlement comes two months after Clarkson filed a case in Los Angeles courton March 14 seeking a ruling that Starstruck Entertainment had been violating state labor rules stemming from the start of their relationship. The lawsuit sought the return of “any and all commissions, fees, profits, advances, producing fees or other monies” she paid to Starstruck Entertainment dating all the way back to 2007.
Clarkson filed for divorce from Blackstock in June 2020 after seven years of marriage. The case was finalized in 2022, and the singer agreed to pay her ex-husband monthly child support of $45,601 for their two children — nine-year-old daughter River Rose and eight-year-old son Remy Alexander — plus a one-time payment of $1.3 million.
Shortly after Clarkson filed for divorce, Starstruck sued her for alleged unpaid fees, claiming the company had “invested a great deal of time, money, energy, and dedication” into her and had “developed Clarkson into a mega superstar.”
In response, Clarkson filed a complaint with California’s Labor Commissioner, claiming that Blackstock and Starstruck had violated California’s Talent Agencies Act by serving as her managers as well as unlicensed talent agents who booked her business deals. In November, a Labor Commissioner ruled in Clarkson’s favor and Blackstock was ordered to repay Clarkson more than $2.6 million in commissions she paid him for handling a number of deals, including her role as a coach on The Voice. A month later, Blackstock and Starstruck challenged the ruling in court, asking for a Los Angeles judge to rule rather than the Labor Commissioner.
A Department of Justice lawsuit against Live Nation for violating U.S. antitrust laws is imminent and could be filed as soon as Thursday (May 23), a source with knowledge of the DOJ’s plans tells Billboard.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The lawsuit is rumored to charge that Live Nation has a monopoly on event ticketing through Ticketmaster and that it illegally uses its monopoly power to grow its business and stifle competition. The DOJ has been investigating Live Nation for more than two years. With that investigation now wrapped, company president Joe Berchtold recently said he was that he was hopeful his company would avoid a legal showdown with the DOJ’s top antitrust lawyer, Jonathan Kanter.
“These are always serious discussions. We wouldn’t get to this point if they didn’t have concerns, but the good news is we’re still talking and they’ve said they have an open mind,” Berchtold told attendees at the J.P. Morgan Global Technology, Media and Communications conference in Boston on Tuesday (May 21).
Trending on Billboard
“Without getting into the real details of the conversation, I think it’s fair to say I continue to believe that we fundamentally have business practices that are fully defensible,” Berchtold added, before continuing: “We’re also open to figuring out common ground in order to get this settled and moved on. But we don’t know exactly what they want at this point still.”
Live Nation declined to comment for this story.
The Department of Justice’s case is believed to be centered around Ticketmaster’s use of exclusive ticketing contracts when signing up venues for its ticketing services. Typically, Ticketmaster pays venues an advance on the revenue that it generates from the fees it charges consumers as part of the ticket-buying process. The longer the contract, the larger the advance Ticketmaster can pay out.
DOJ officials don’t like the practice, arguing that it locks out new companies from competing in the ticketing space. Ticketmaster officials, however, argue that they are open to working with non-exclusive contracts — both the Greek Theatre in Hollywood and Red Rocks in Denver are open facilities where promoters use the ticketing provider of their choice — but that venues often rely on exclusive deals to meet their capital needs.
While Ticketmaster holds more exclusive ticketing contracts than any other company, it isn’t the only one to make use of them: Every major competitor pays upfront advances in exchange for exclusive ticketing agreements with venues and sports teams.
That includes SeatGeek, which reportedly paid $10 million in 2021 for exclusive rights to ticket events at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn for a seven-year term. Two years into the agreement, Billboard reported at the time, Barclays Center and BSE Global chief executive Sam Zussman threatened to publicize SeatGeek’s tech problems and breaches of contract if it didn’t immediately agree to terminate the deal.
SeatGeek eventually agreed to wind down its relationship with Barclays Center and was replaced by Ticketmaster. DOJ officials reportedly scrutinized the incident during its investigation of Live Nation.
Beyoncé, Sony Music and others are facing a copyright lawsuit over her chart-topping hit “Break My Soul,” filed by a New Orleans group that says she sampled from a Big Easy rapper who had illegally lifted lyrics from their earlier song.
In a complaint filed Wednesday (May 22) in Louisiana federal court, members of Da Showstoppaz accuse Beyoncé (Beyoncé Knowles Carter) of infringing their 2002 song “Release A Wiggle” on “Break My Soul,” which spent two weeks atop the Billboard Hot 100 in 2022.
Rather than stealing their material directly, the group alleges that Beyoncé infringed their copyrights by legally sampling the 2014 song “Explode” by the New Orleans rapper Big Freedia. That track, they say, illegally borrowed several key lyrics from their song.
Trending on Billboard
“While Mrs. Carter … and others have received many accolades and substantial profits … Da Showstoppaz’s have received nothing—no acknowledgment, no credit, no remuneration of any kind,” the group’s attorneys wrote, also naming Big Freedia (Freddie Ross) as a defendant.
“Explode” was one of several high-profile samples on “Break My Soul,” which also heavily pulled from Robin S.‘s house song “Show Me Love.” After the release of the song, Big Freedia thanked “Queen Beyoncé” and said she had been “honored to be a part of this special moment.”
At the center of the new dispute is the phrase “release yo wiggle” and several related variants, which Da Showstoppaz call “unique phrases” that they coined in their song. They say Big Freedia — a well-known rapper in New Orleans’ bounce music scene — infringed their copyrights by using similar phrases in “Explode.”
“The infringing phrase ‘release yo’ wiggle’ and several other substantially similar phrases are featured prominently in the song and evenly spread out across Explode’s two-minute and forty-seven second runtime,” the group’s lawyers wrote. “Any reasonable person listening to ‘Release A Wiggle’ and ‘Explode’ would conclude that the songs are substantially similar.”
Such allegations could face long odds in court. Copyright law typically does not protect short, simple phrases, and a court could potentially dismiss the case on the grounds that Big Freedia was free to use such lyrics even if The Showstoppaz used them first.
But the group’s lawyers aren’t concerned, saying they “have a copyright to their unique and distinctive lyrics” that was clearly infringed by Big Freedia: “The coined term and phrase ‘release a/yo wiggle’ has now become closely synonymous with Big Freedia, thereby contributing to Big Freedia’s fame. However, Big Fredia did not compose or write the phrase, and Big Freedia never credited Da Showstoppaz as the source.”
According to the lawsuit, Da Showstoppaz first learned about Big Freedia’s song when they heard “Break My Soul.” They say they notified Beyoncé and others of the alleged infringement infringement last month, but that she has refused to take a license.
Reps for Beyoncé and Sony Music did not immediately return a request for comment on the allegations.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Diddy, real name Sean Combs, is already scrambling from a personal image standpoint based on the leak of the video showing Combs violently assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. Amid the chatter surrounding those images, another accuser has filed a lawsuit alleging that Diddy sexually assaulted her in 2003.
As reported by CNN, Crystal McKinney, a winner of MTV’s Model Mission series, was 22 at the time she met Diddy during a Men’s Fashion Week dinner in 2003. McKinney wrote in her complaint that Combs invited her to his nearby recording studio where she claims he allegedly drugged her with marijuana laced with a stronger narcotic.
The details of McKinney’s accounts of the events might be disturbing to some so we urge caution from this point forward. McKinney added that she was already under the influence of alcohol when she was handed the marijuana joint and says she was then led to a bathroom by Combs and forced to perform oral sex on him.
McKinney says she lost consciousness while at the studio and woke up in a cab heading to the home of a designer she was working with at the time and realized that she was sexually assaulted.
Bad Boy Records, Sean John Clothing LLC, and Universal Music Group Inc. are all named as defendants in McKinney’s lawsuit and according to CNN, none of them made any public inference to the filing. The lawsuit was filed over violations noted in the New York Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law. It is the sixth such lawsuit, all of which make mention of sexual assault
—
Photo: Stephane Cardinale – Corbis / Getty
Sean “Diddy” Combs has been accused of sexual assault in a new lawsuit filed by a woman who claims the hip-hop mogul sexually assaulted her in a recording studio bathroom in 2003.
According to the complaint, which was filed in U.S. District Court in New York by attorneys Michelle Caiola and Jonathan Goldhirsch, Crystal McKinney claims she met Combs at a Men’s Fashion Week dinner in Manhattan on the invite of a fashion designer she knew. While attending the dinner, during which she alleges that Combs came onto her “in a sexually suggestive manner,” she says he invited her to hang out at his recording studio.
After arriving at the studio, where McKinney says several other men were present, she claims she was given alcohol and a marijuana joint that she later came to believe was laced “with a narcotic or other intoxicating substance.” She says Combs then led her to a bathroom, where he began kissing her without her consent before shoving her head in his crotch and forcing her to perform oral sex over her protests.
McKinney, who was then working as a professional model, claims that she later “awakened in shock” to find herself in a taxi heading back to the apartment of the designer who had invited her to the dinner. At this point, she “realized that she had been sexually assaulted by Combs,” the complaint reads. The lawsuit adds that following the alleged assault, McKinney’s “modeling opportunities quickly began to dwindle and then evaporated entirely” after Combs allegedly “blackballed” her in the industry. After falling into “a tailspin of anxiety and depression,” she claims she attempted suicide in 2004 and later fell into drug and alcohol addiction to cope with the trauma of the alleged assault.
The new lawsuit was filed under the NYC Gender Motivated Violence Act, which created a two-year lookback window beginning in March 2023 that allows survivors of gender-motivated violence to sue their abusers for alleged incidents that occurred outside the statute of limitations.
Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are Combs’ label Bad Boy Records, its parent company Universal Music Group and Combs’ clothing company Sean John Clothing, all of which McKinney claims “enabled” the alleged assault by “actively maintaining and employing Combs in a position of power” despite the fact that they allegedly “knew or should have known that Combs posed a risk of sexual assault.”
McKinney is asking for damages for mental and emotional injury, distress, pain and suffering and injury to her reputation as well as punitive damages, among other relief.
Representatives for Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment, Sean John Clothing and Universal Music Group did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment.
Tuesday’s complaint marks the sixth sexual misconduct lawsuit to have been filed against Combs over the past several months. The torrent of lawsuits was kicked off by a November 2023 complaint filed by his former girlfriend Cassie Ventura, who alleged repeated abuse by the mogul over the course of more than a decade.
Though Ventura’s lawsuit was settled just one day later, a 2016 security video published by CNN on Friday (May 17) showed Combs physically assaulting Ventura in a hotel hallway. Though Combs denied all of Ventura’s initial allegations, in the wake of the video’s release he issued an apology calling his behavior in the clip “inexcusable.” L.A. District Attorney George Gascón later released a statement saying that Combs could not be prosecuted over the assault due to the statute of limitations.
Combs has strongly denied all allegations of sexual assault made against him. On Dec. 6, he released a statement that read: “Let me be absolutely clear: I did not do any of the awful things being alleged. I will fight for my name, my family and for the truth.”
In November, Combs stepped down as chairman of his digital media company Revolt before reportedly selling his stake in the company in March. Also in March, federal agents conducted raids of Combs’ L.A. and Miami homes “in connection” with a federal sex trafficking investigation, according to CNN.
Podcast and music streaming company LiveOne is being sued for allegedly “openly and illegally operating a commercial office, business event center, professional podcast interview studio, and music recording studio” out of a 6,000-square-foot mansion in Beverly Hills, according to a complaint filed May 10 by the property’s next-door neighbors.
Entertainment attorney Michael Kibler and his wife Ann Kibler allege LiveOne has been a “nuisance” since it moved to take over the lease for the house in 2022, leading to “noise at all hours of the day and night, increased foot and car traffic associated with commercial operations, and parking overflow, from the day-to-day commercial activity at the residence,” according to the lawsuit, which was filed by Kibler’s law partner John Fowler.
The house is located in the famed Beverly Hills Flats neighborhood, which has long struggled to balance the privacy and safety needs of its wealthy residents with the hustle and bustle of West Hollywood and Beverly Hills’ glitzy Golden Triangle corridor.
Trending on Billboard
According to the complaint, the Beverly Hills home now being used by LiveOne had been privately held and occupied by a long-time owner who passed away in 2021. The property, which includes, a pool, a swimming lap lane and a guest house, was then purchased by Siamak Khakshooy and Tanaz Koshki for $6.9 million in October 2021 and rented the following December to The Revels Group, which manages artists including rapper G-Eazy.
That’s when the problems for the Kibler family began, according to the lawsuit. The Revels Group used the space as its “creative compound,” the lawsuit reads, operating music studios on the property and promoting “all-night music industry events hosted by professional DJs” on a “nightclub-quality sound system in the backyard.” After receiving multiple complaints about the house, Beverly Hills’ Code Enforcement department launched an investigation in September 2022 and ordered the company to “permanently terminate all operations,” which led to The Revels Group not renewing its lease. After The Revels Group moved out in December 2022, LiveOne moved in around March 2023.
Since taking over the property, LiveOne “has operated its music and entertainment company by engaging in recording studio activities, hosting a pre-Grammy night party on February 3, 2024, and holding other music entertainment events,” the lawsuit reads.
The Kiblers have hired private investigators to surveil the house and issue lengthy reports identifying LiveOne staffers as they enter and exit the property, even running license plate checks on cars parked near the house to determine the identities of the drivers, according to the lawsuit. Besides the occasional late-night party, the Kibler’s biggest complaint is the “large quantities of trash overflowing from the City trash and recycling bins in the alley behind The LiveOne House.”
The Kiblers are suing LiveOne and the property’s owners for violating local zoning laws, charging both with public and private nuisance, as well as infliction of emotional distress. The Kiblers are asking a judge to order LiveOne to cease all business at the house and pay a $10,000 fine for each day it operates at the house.
Billboard reached out to LiveOne for comment but did not receive a response.
Officials with the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division plan to sue Live Nation after they wrap up a two-and-a-half-year investigation into the company, according to two high-level sources with knowledge of the matter.
The lawsuit will take aim at Ticketmaster’s use of exclusive venue contracts for its ticketing services, the sources say. Last week, Live Nation officials met with attorneys from the Department of Justice to discuss the case, including DOJ Assistant Attorney Jonathan Kanter, but neither the DOJ nor Live Nation commented on the meeting’s details. There’s no clear timeline on when the DOJ plans to officially close its investigation or file suit, and the two sides could meet again to discuss the case. Both The Wall Street Journal and Politico have previously reported that the DOJ planned to sue Live Nation in published reports earlier this year.
Live Nation officials are continuing to cooperate with the investigation, company president Joe Berchtold indicated on a May 2 earnings call. Based on the issues the DOJ has raised with Live Nation, Berchtold said he believes the lawsuit is related to “specific business practices at Live Nation” and “not the legality of the Live Nation/Ticketmaster merger.”
Trending on Billboard
That’s both good and bad for Live Nation officials. On the one hand, if the merger isn’t central to the government’s case, then ending the merger and splitting the company up probably isn’t on the table — at least according to Berchtold. Alternatively, if the government believes that the company’s use of exclusive ticketing contracts with venues is monopolistic, it could propose an even harsher penalty.
That’s because politicians like Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who chairs the anti-trust subcommittee in the Senate, have zeroed in on Ticketmaster’s 70-80% market share of the top 100 highest-grossing theaters, arenas and stadiums in North America. Klobuchar has repeatedly said she believes Ticketmaster uses exclusive contracts to lock up market share. In contrast, Ticketmaster attorneys and industry advocates have argued before that the exclusive nature of these contracts benefits venues because it simplifies the ticket-buying process for consumers and generates important revenue for venues that they would not earn without an exclusive agreement.
DOJ officials are also expected to argue that Live Nation has illegally abused its power in the concert business to drive up ticket prices over the last decade, in part through additional fees that can add as much as 30% to ticket prices.
But officials from Ticketmaster, which Live Nation controls, have long argued that artists set their ticket prices, not Ticketmaster, and that only a small percentage of the fees collected above face value go to the ticketing company, with the vast majority of those funds going to venues to help cover the costs of a concert.
The government also bears the burden of proving why its proposed remedies — like forcing Live Nation to sell its stake in Ticketmaster — would benefit consumers.
Simply being named in an antitrust lawsuit filed by Kanter has the potential to significantly damage Live Nation reputationally and financially. A detailed lawsuit against it could galvanize the company’s critics behind a narrative that alleges the concert conglomerate acts monopolistically and abuses its power, undoing the company’s efforts in recent years to improve its image and destigmatize its business model.
A lawsuit will also likely have a negative impact on the company’s share price and serve as a major distraction for Live Nation when it would otherwise be focused on strategic expansion following its most successful fiscal year ever, with revenue up 36% from the previous year and an impressive $1.8 billion in adjusted net income.
Instead, Live Nation may face the full weight of America’s top law enforcement agency, which this year has taken on companies like Apple and Google with market capitalizations that are each 100 times larger than Live Nation’s. While Kanter’s efforts against these companies have been applauded by powerful allies including Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who has vowed to “make antitrust sexy again,” Kanter’s efforts so far have been unsuccessful, with the DOJ losing the bulk of the major antitrust cases it has filed. In December 2022, a judge dismissed the DOJ’s efforts to block a merger between security firms Booze Allen Hamilton and Everwatch as well as mergers between UnitedHealth Group and Change Healthcare, U.S. Sugar Corp and Imperial Sugar, Meta and Within, and Microsoft and Activision.
Kanter also lost a major ruling in the DOJ’s antitrust case against Google earlier this year when a judge struck down a request to bar the tech giant from offering up evidence that activities the government had deemed anti-competitive also had positive qualities that improved the product and generated positive consumer feedback.
“If the government can tip the scales and prevent courts from considering pro-competitive effects, the government could win every case by default,” wrote Sean Heather, a senior vp at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a recent paper on the Google case.
The Google litigation, which deals with ongoing business practices at the company as opposed to a merger, could be a litmus test for a yet-to-be-filed Live Nation suit. In the Google case, the government alleges that the company controls 90% of the online search advertising market by paying out billions of dollars each year to companies like Apple and Samsung to be the default search engine on their computers and smartphones.
While Live Nation officials are confident they can prevail in the looming antitrust case, they will do so with far fewer resources than other companies hauled before the Justice Department in recent years. Live Nation’s market cap currently sits at $22 billion, whereas Google and Apple’s combined market cap is $6.7 trillion, making Live Nation one of the smallest companies in recent decades to be the subject of such a lawsuit.
Live Nation declined to comment for this story. The Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: YouTube / Youtube
On Tuesday, May 14, social media erupted when it was reported that DJ Akademiks had been hit with a rape and defamation lawsuit by his ex-girlfriend, Fauziya Abashe, who accused the social media personality and two of his friends of drugging and raping her.
Though Akademiks remained mum throughout most of the day, he finally took to his channel and addressed the situation. “Whatever this is it will be handled in the court room.” Proclaiming his innocence while calling the lawsuit a “civil situation” and added, “It’s a shakedown. This is a money tree situation.” DJ Akademiks didn’t seem too worried about the outcome of this lawsuit as he’s basically addressed it in the past on his channel.
He also brought up the fact that when the alleged incident occurred, he gave the security footage to the police who then decided that there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
“I’m not even hiding and ducking from a situation or ducking from the narrative that happened. I pretty much told everything, and also I told the truth,” he said. “The police came, they looked, we gave them everything. Pretty much everything is documented, caught on videotape. They got to see it with their own two eyes. We’re officially clear, we could not bring any criminal charges. [I] are not criminally liable but also anybody else in the situation was also cleared.”
He also brought up the fact that Abashe hired Tyrone Blackburn, who Akademiks had been talking about since he brought a lawsuit against P. Diddy on behalf of Lil Rod. Feeling that Blackburn had it in for him, Akademiks feels this is just more proof that the entire lawsuit is just one big money grab as they’ve been sitting on this case for months before finally pulling the trigger.
Regardless of who y’all think is telling the truth here, one thing’s for sure, DJ Akademiks doesn’t seem fazed by the lawsuit and says he’d rather pay more to clear his name than to make the case go away as it would make him seem guilty.
Check out his response to the rape allegations, and let us know your thoughts on it in the comments section below.
Universal Music Group (UMG) and CEO Lucian Grainge have been dismissed from a lawsuit claiming they “aided and abetted” Sean “Diddy” Combs in his alleged sexual abuse — a move that came after the lawyer who filed the case admitted there had been “no legal basis for the claims.”
The sudden reversal came two months after attorneys for the music giant argued that the accusations were so “offensively false” that they planned to take the unusual step of seeking legal penalties directly against the accuser’s lawyer, Tyrone Blackburn, over his decision to name them in the lawsuit.
In a sworn declaration filed in court Monday (May 13), Blackburn said that after reading UMG’s objections, he had “concluded that there is no legal basis for the claims and allegations that were made against the UMG defendants.” He asked that they be dismissed immediately and “with prejudice” — meaning he cannot refile them later.
Trending on Billboard
In his own court filing on Tuesday, UMG’s lead attorney, Donald Zakarin, agreed that the accusations against his clients should be dropped. But he once again sharply criticized Blackburn for bringing those claims in the first place.
“As we have repeatedly said from our very first communication with counsel for the plaintiff on March 4, 2024, there was no basis, not legal and not factual, for the claims and accusations that were alleged,” Zakarin wrote. “The UMG defendants should never have been named in any of these complaints and we should never have been required to make motions to dismiss the complaints in this action.”
When reached for comment by Billboard, Blackburn declined to answer specific questions about what had led him to drop the case: “I would strongly advise you not to reach out to me for any comment on any case that I have. I have no respect for you as a journalist. You are a mouth piece for [Combs’ attorney] Shawn Holley, and UMG. You should reach out to them for comment.”
Filed in late February, the lawsuit against Diddy claims that he sexually assaulted and harassed a producer named Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones while he was working as a producer on the rapper’s 2023 The Love Album. The lawsuit is one of several abuse cases filed against Combs over the past six months, in addition to an apparent federal criminal investigation. Combs has strongly denied all allegations of wrongdoing.
But the case filed by Jones went far beyond a simple sexual assault claim against Diddy. Naming Grainge, UMG and numerous others as defendants, the case alleged that they operated a sweeping conspiracy that violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act — the federal RICO statute that’s more often used in criminal cases against mobsters and drug cartels. He also accused the various defendants of violating federal sex trafficking laws.
In a scathing response to those allegations in March, attorneys for UMG and Grainge said that those claims were “entirely invented by Mr. Blackburn.”
“The [complaint] hurls accusations of criminal racketeering and criminal sex trafficking against the UMG defendants, respected individuals and companies having utterly nothing to do with plaintiff’s claims,” Zakarin wrote at the time. “These accusations are recklessly false and, but for the fact that they are embodied in a complaint, would be libelous.”
In addition to seeking to have the claims dismissed, UMG’s lawyers also took aim directly at Blackburn. They accused him of filing “knowingly false allegations” and said they would ask the judge to punish him for doing so.
“A license to practice law is a privilege,” Zakarin wrote at the time. “Mr. Blackburn, plaintiff’s lawyer, has misused that license to self-promote, gratuitously, falsely and recklessly accusing the UMG defendants of criminal behavior.”
Earth, Wind & Fire has reached a settlement with a tribute act that used the R&B group’s name without permission, avoiding a looming trial over how much the unauthorized group would have to pay in damages.
The settlement, filed in court on Tuesday (May 14), came two months after a judge ruled that the tribute group had infringed Earth, Wind & Fire’s trademark rights by calling themselves “Earth, Wind & Fire Legacy Reunion” — a name the judge called “deceptive and misleading.”
Following that ruling, a trial had been scheduled for later this month over how much Legacy Reunion would be required to pay in damages. But in a joint filing this week, attorneys for both sides said those proceedings would no longer be necessary.
Trending on Billboard
“The parties have reached a settlement in principle related to the damages issues that remain to be tried before the court in the referenced action,” the lawyers wrote. “The parties are in the process of preparing documents that reflect their agreement on the damages issues and that should fully dispose of the damages issues that remained unresolved in this action.”
The terms of the agreement, including how much Legacy Reunion will pay to Earth Wind & Fire, were not disclosed in court filings. Neither side immediately returned requests for comment.
Earth, Wind & Fire has continued to tour since founder Maurice White died in 2016, led by longtime members Philip Bailey, Ralph Johnson and White’s brother, Verdine White. The band operates under a license from an entity called Earth Wind & Fire IP, a holding company controlled by Maurice White’s sons that formally owns the rights to the name.
Last year, that company filed the current lawsuit, accusing Legacy Reunion of trying to trick consumers into thinking it was the real Earth, Wind & Fire. Though it called itself a “Reunion,” the lawsuit said the tribute band contained only a few “side musicians” who had briefly played with Earth, Wind & Fire many years ago.
“Defendants did this to benefit from the commercial magnetism and immense goodwill the public has for plaintiff’s ‘Earth, Wind & Fire’ marks and logos, thereby misleading consumers and selling more tickets at higher prices,” the group’s lawyers wrote at the time.
Tribute acts — groups that exclusively cover the music of a particular band — are legally allowed to operate, and they often adopt names that allude to the original. But they must make clear that they are only a tribute band, and they can get into legal hot water if they make it appear that they are affiliated with or endorsed by the original.
Ruling on the case last month, Judge Federico A. Moreno said the evidence pointed “overwhelmingly” in the band’s favor. In particular, the judge cited angry social media posts and emails from fans who attended the “Reunion” shows because they thought it was the original band — proof of the kind of “actual confusion” that’s crucial evidence in a trademark lawsuit.
“It is not a far cry to think that an average consumer looking for an Earth, Wind & Fire concert would believe that they could acquire that experience from either plaintiff or defendants,” the judge wrote.