Lawsuit
Page: 26
Billy McFarland, the creator of the infamous Fyre Festival who served nearly four years in prison for fraud and lying to the FBI, is facing a new civil lawsuit claiming he ripped off an investor who gave him $740,000 for his new PYRT venture.
In a summons filed in New York Supreme Court on Tuesday (Oct. 17), an attorney for 54-year-old Jonathan Taylor of New York — who met McFarland while both were serving prison sentences at Elkton Federal Correctional Institute in Ohio, as reported previously by Billboard – states that McFarland needs to appear in court and agree to repay Taylor or face legal action for civil fraud, conversion, civil conspiracy, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
According to the summons, Taylor struck an agreement with McFarland and his business partner, Michael Falb (also named as a defendant), in which they allegedly offered him one-third equity in the venture, PYRT Technologies, in exchange for a $740,000 investment. Taylor claims McFarland and Falb then reneged on the deal by refusing to grant him the equity they promised or to return the money despite his demands that they do so.
Taylor is asking for monetary damages in the amount of $740,000, along with statutory damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
Notably, the $740,000 figure is $100,000 more than what Taylor had said he was owed last October, in emails between McFarland’s lawyer and Taylor’s lawyer that were obtained by Billboard. Taylor now says that the increase is the result of an investigation conducted by Taylor’s attorney, which found $100,000 in new charges using Taylor’s money since the men first began settlement talks in September 2022.
McFarland did not respond to requests for comment on the summons.
In 2016, Taylor landed at Elkton Federal Correctional Institute after pleading guilty to a single count of child sex trafficking stemming from his relationship with a 15-year-old prostitute in Florida. Taylor, who is 23 years older than McFarland, struck up a friendship with the festival founder shortly after McFarland arrived at the low-security prison following his expulsion from a minimum-security prison in Otisville, N.Y., for contraband violations.
Taylor and McFarland shared an affinity for entrepreneurship and stayed in touch after Taylor was released from prison in 2020 with plans to work together. Their first project — a podcast about McFarland’s life in prison recorded from behind bars — landed McFarland in solitary confinement for six months. It was during that half-year stretch in “the hole” that McFarland wrote out a 50-page investor deck — obtained by Billboard — of how he would harness continued interest in Fyre Fest and launch PYRT, a post-prison project to repair his image and “make the impossible happen.”
The PYRT document indicates that McFarland planned to officially launch the project with a treasure hunt revealed through hidden clues in a memoir he would publish telling his side of the Fyre Fest story. The global treasure hunt was intended to draw people to the Bahamas, to be followed by the building of the physical and digital architecture for a 24-villa PYRT Cay development. Eventually, he wrote, a metaverse would be built around PYRT allowing millions of “elevated people” to digitally interact with the island paradise, “changing how the virtual interacts with and affects the real world.”
After McFarland was released from solitary confinement in April 2021, he sent the plan to Taylor, who transferred money to McFarland and Falb and gave McFarland access to debit cards and accounts.
But on Sept. 20, 2022, McFarland wrote to his attorney, Harlan Protass, alleging that Taylor had misrepresented his criminal charges to McFarland when the men became friends in prison and alleged that McFarland had only recently learned about the true nature of Taylor’s crimes.
“I am uncomfortable having any association with Mr. Taylor,” McFarland wrote in the email, obtained by Billboard. “After receiving the documents from his attorneys on Saturday, I acted swiftly and scheduled a meeting with Mr. Taylor on Monday. I proceeded to meet with him yesterday (Monday) and I notified him that we must sever ties.”
At the end of the meeting, Taylor demanded the repayment of the money he had paid to McFarland, but McFarland explained that the money had already been spent, according to an email from Taylor to his attorney obtained by Billboard.
In the same email exchange, Taylor revealed that the payment made to McFarland was tied to a number of unfinished projects McFarland had offered as collateral for the loan, including a memoir of McFarland’s life, a documentary on McFarland’s efforts to launch PYRT and a proposed celebrity boxing match between McFarland and his former business partner, Ja Rule.
On Oct. 27, lawyers for McFarland offered to pay Taylor $1 million to buy out his equity interest in PYRT by making “payments in the amount of 5% of its gross revenues up to $1 million,” wrote McFarland attorney Craig Effrain in a document obtained by Billboard.
Taylor rejected the offer and demanded the immediate repayment of what he then said was a $640,000 loan plus $5 million paid out over a two-year period, according to copies of email communications.
McFarland didn’t respond to the counteroffer and stopped responding to communications from Taylor’s attorneys, emails from Taylor to his attorney show.
In July, McFarland took to TikTok to announce that he was pausing the PYRT concept to form a new LLC, Fyre Holdings, for Fyre Fest 2. In July, he emailed potential investors announcing that he was looking to raise $2 million.
“I’m a master at raising the tide, and I’ve already created a tidal wave,” he wrote in the July 6 email obtained by Billboard. “As demonstrated throughout history, the business opportunity is to steer our ship dead center into the wave and use its push to conquer the market.”
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing The Rolling Stones members Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of copying their 2020 single “Living in a Ghost Town” from a pair of little-known songs, ruling that the case was clearly filed in the wrong court.
Filed in March by songwriter Sergio Garcia Fernandez (stage name Angelslang), the copyright infringement lawsuit claimed that Jagger and Richards “misappropriated many of the recognizable and key protected elements” from his 2006 song “So Sorry” as well as his 2007 tune “Seed of God.”
But in a decision Wednesday (Oct. 18), Judge Eldon E. Fallon ruled that his Louisiana federal court lacked jurisdiction over Fernandez’s case. In doing so, he pointed out that Jagger and Richards are Brits, Fernandez lives in Spain, and The Rolling Stones have “only performed in New Orleans four times.”
“The mere fact that people in this district listen to the Rolling Stones or the alleged work does not permit this court to wield specific jurisdiction over the defendants,” Judge Fallon wrote in dismissing the case.
The judge only tossed the case “without prejudice” — meaning Fernandez is free to re-file the lawsuit in a more appropriate location. In the lead-up to Wednesday’s ruling, lawyers for The Rolling Stones argued that the case should have been filed somewhere in Europe.
In a statement to Billboard, Fernandez’s lawyer said he’s “disappointed and stunned by the court’s ruling.” But he vowed to “refile the lawsuit in a different venue in addition to reviewing other legal options.”
Released at the peak of the COVID-19 shutdowns in April 2020, “Living in a Ghost Town” was the first original material released by the Stones since 2012. The song, a blues-rock tune with reggae influences accompanied by a COVID-themed video, reached No. 3 on the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart in May 2020.
In his lawsuit, Fernandez alleged that the new track was created by borrowing key features from his two earlier songs, including vocal melodies, chord progressions and other elements. “Defendants never paid plaintiff, nor secured the authorization for the use of ‘So Sorry’ and ‘Seed of God,’” his lawyers wrote at the time.
How would members of the iconic band have heard those songs, which have less than 1,000 spins on Spotify? Fernandez claims he gave a demo CD to “an immediate family member” of Jagger.
“The immediate family member … confirmed receipt … to the plaintiff via e-mail, and expressed that the musical works of the plaintiff and its style was a sound The Rolling Stones would be interested in using,” Fernandez’s lawyers wrote.
When the case was first filed, experts told Billboard that it was unlikely to succeed. Joe Bennett, a forensic musicologist and a professor at Berklee College of Music, said the songs shared only an overall vibe — based on mid-tempo rock grooves in the key of A minor — that’s been ubiquitous in rock and blues since the beginning.
“The Stones didn’t copy from Fernandez, because they didn’t need to,” Bennett said. “They’ve been playing grooves like this for a very long time, as have many others.”
HipHopWired Featured Video
Mass Appeal, the company founded by legendary Queens rapper Nas, is the target of a lawsuit from a former white executive alleging racial discrimination among other issues. Melissa Cooper filed suit against Mass Appeal on Tuesday and added that a fellow white executive was also responsible for creating a hostile work environment.
The Daily Beast reports that Melissa Cooper, a longtime documentary producer whose credits include the upcoming Freaknik: The Wildest Party Never Told, says that she faced racial discrimination and other hostilities while working at Mass Appeal as its head of development.
According to Cooper’s lawsuit, Peter Bittenbender, Mass Appeal’s chief executive and is a white man, and Jenya Meggs, the company’s senior VP for partnerships & content acquisition and a Black woman, “discriminated against her by removing her from several high value projects, creating a hostile work environment, and terminating her employment.”
As the outlet adds, terms like “White folks” and “crackers” rankled Cooper and there was evidence of tension between Cooper and Meggs in relation to the aforementioned Freaknik documentary.
From The Daily Beast:
In a series of these back-and-forth messages between Meggs and Terry Ross, a Freaknik executive producer who is Black and does not work for Mass Appeal, they discuss Meggs’ frustration at Cooper being brought on the project instead of her. Meggs texts, “I blame Alex for Freaknik,” referring to Alex Avant, an executive producer on Freaknik, who is Black and with whom Cooper had a long professional relationship. “Meggs was upset that Avant had decided to pitch the Freaknik project to Cooper and not Meggs, since Avant knew that Meggs was at Mass Appeal as well,” the complaint says. “Ross responded with surprise and said that this was ‘terrible.’ Meggs then texted that there were no hard feelings before qualifying Cooper’s selection for the Freaknik project as ‘Usual white folk behavior.’” In later messages, Meggs complains about Bittenbender’s decision not to hire a candidate she referred to Mass Appeal. Ross responded: “These white folk something else.”
Nas is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit despite his ownership.
—
Photo: Johnny Nunez / Getty
Two years after Cardi B won a nearly $4 million defamation verdict against a YouTube host named Tasha K over her salacious lies about drug use, STDs and prostitution, a federal judge has ruled that the gossip blogger cannot avoid paying most of the judgment through Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Tasha, who filed for bankruptcy in a May petition that said she had less than $60,000 in assets, will not be able to “discharge” $3.4 million owed to Cardi via the Chapter 11 process, Judge Scott M. Grossman ruled Thursday (Oct. 5) — meaning she’ll continue to be on the hook even after she exits bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy law allows insolvent people to escape certain debts, but it doesn’t shield them from paying money they owe because of “willful and malicious injury” they caused to others. After Tasha filed for bankruptcy, Cardi’s lawyers said that exception clearly applied to the huge judgment — a debt they said Tasha had incurred by “spreading false and defamatory statements” that were intended to cause harm.
After Cardi’s attorneys made those arguments, Tasha’s lawyers didn’t really fight back, essentially agreeing that $3.4 million of the $3.9 million judgment wasn’t going to be erased by the bankruptcy. And on Friday, Judge Grossman made it official: “The award of damages [and] interest thereon pursuant … are excepted from discharge.”
The ruling leaves only $500,000 of Cardi’s judgment in doubt. That money is technically owed solely by Tasha’s company Kebe Studios LLC. Whether or not Tasha herself is required to pay it will be the subject of future proceedings before the bankruptcy court.
Tasha’s bankruptcy attorney did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday.
Cardi (real name Belcalis Marlenis Almanzar) sued Tasha (Latasha Kebe) 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.” Other 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 ordered her and her company to pay more than $2.5 million in damages and another $1.3 million in legal fees incurred by Cardi. Tasha appealed the verdict last summer, but a federal appeals court easily rejected that request in March.
Cardi B has repeatedly vowed to recover the money. Shortly after she won the jury verdict, she tweeted “imma come for everything” along with the acronym BBHMM — “bitch better have my money.” And her lawyers spent months legally pursuing the money, including garnishing her YouTube monetization account.
But in May, Tasha said there was barely any money for Cardi to take. In her bankruptcy petition, she listed just $58,595 in total assets to her name, the vast majority of which came from a truck that’s tied as collateral to an unpaid auto loan. She listed only $11,750 in other properties, including two Louis Vuitton purses and just $95 in actual cash in her bank account. She counted the trademark to her “UnWineWithTashaK” YouTube channel as an asset, but says the value of the brand is “unknown.”
Lawyers for Cardi quickly filed a so-called adversary proceeding — a lawsuit-like process that takes place within a larger bankruptcy case — to ensure that Tasha couldn’t dodge the damages she owes. It was that case that led to Friday’s decision.
Jason Derulo has spoken out about the lawsuit filed Thursday (Oct. 5) by a woman who claims the superstar sexually harassed her after signing her to his record label.
“I wouldn’t normally comment but these claims are completely false and hurtful,” said Derulo in a video and written statement posted to Instagram Thursday night. “I stand against all forms of harassment and I remain supportive of anybody following their dreams. I’ve always strived to live my life in a positively impactful way, and that’s why I sit here before you deeply offended, by these defamatory claims. God bless.”
In the complaint, the woman, Emaza Gibson, said that she signed with Derulo’s record label, Future History, after Derulo allegedly reached out about working with her in August 2021. But she claimed the relationship quickly soured, with Derulo continually pressuring her to have sex with him despite her persistent refusals to do so. Among other accusations, Gibson said the singer told her that if she wanted success in the music industry, she “would be required to partake in ‘goat skin and fish scales,’ which is a Haitian reference referring to conducting sex rituals, sacrificing a goat, goat blood and doing cocaine.’”
After allegedly rebuffing all of Derulo’s advances, Gibson claimed that the star became increasingly dismissive of and aggressive toward her. She further accused Derulo’s manager, Frank Harris, and human resources executives at Future History’s label partner, Atlantic Records, of defending Derulo or ignoring her complaints. In September 2022, she said she was informed that her “employment” with Future History and Atlantic had been terminated.
Since her alleged experiences with Derulo, Gibson claimed she’s required medical intervention for “breakdowns, weight loss, insomnia, mood swings, hopelessness, loss of motivation…[and] feelings of betrayal and deception” and was subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Gibson is suing for sexual harassment, failure to prevent and/or remedy harassment, retaliation, intimidation and violence, breach of contract and more. Harris, Atlantic and RCA Records are also named as defendants. It’s unclear why RCA Records is listed, as the label has never done business with Derulo or Future History.
On Friday, Gibson’s attorney, Ron Zambrano, responded to Derulo’s statement by putting out his own. “If Derulo truly remained supportive of anyone following their dreams, he would acknowledge the pain and suffering he caused Emaza and aim to be a better person,” the statement reads. “He should be offended by these allegations, as should everyone, including his fans. Emaza is certainly offended by his dismissive attitude. The entire music industry is due for a #MeToo movement. This sort of conduct is pervasive but it takes brave people like Emaza to come out of the shadows and share their stories to finally bring an end to this shameful behavior.”
Singer Jason Derulo is being sued by a woman who claims the singer sexually harassed her and then dropped her from a deal with his record label after she rebuffed his advances, according to documents filed in Los Angeles County court Thursday (Oct. 5).
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In the complaint — filed by attorney Ron Zambrano — the woman, Emaza Gibson, accuses Derulo of pressuring her to drink and have sex with him despite her persistent refusals to do so. In one bizarre claim, Gibson says the singer told her that if she wanted success in the music industry, she “would be required to partake in ‘goat skin and fish scales,’ which is a Haitian reference referring to conducting sex rituals, sacrificing a goat, goat blood and doing cocaine.’”
The complaint additionally lists as defendants Derulo’s record label, Future History; Atlantic Records, which has a joint venture with Future History; Derulo’s manager, Frank Harris; and Radio Corporation of America, dba RCA Records. It’s unclear why RCA Records is listed, as the label has never done business with Derulo or Future History.
According to the lawsuit, Derulo contacted Gibson in August 2021 stating he wanted to sign her to Future History, his new joint-venture label with Atlantic. After allegedly signing contracts with Derulo, Future History and Atlantic, Gibson states that work began on her debut album that same November, with Derulo acting “as her mentor, supervisor and agent for Atlantic and Future.”
Gibson goes on to claim that she regularly communicated with Derulo via text message to schedule recording sessions but that the singer instead “repeatedly” invited her to drinks and dinner — meetings she says she declined in an effort to keep the relationship professional. During a meeting in New York with Atlantic executives to discuss her career, Gibson claims she met another female artist who informed her that she was there because Derulo was also trying to have sex with her.
Gibson claims that after that alleged meeting, upon confronting Derulo about what the woman had said, he “immediately lost control and began aggressively hitting his arm rests screaming, ‘What does she have to do with you!? We weren’t going to tell you anything! We don’t have to tell you anything!’” Stating that she was rattled by the outburst, Gibson says she later insisted that her mother, who also served as her manager, be present at any future meetings of recording sessions with Derulo “out of concern for her own safety.” It was at that point, she claims, that Derulo stopped responding to her text messages.
The two allegedly didn’t meet again until June 2, 2022, when Gibson says she asked Derulo about the budget to pay for her recording sessions. She says Derulo snapped at her and ignored her questions but ultimately arranged for a recording session roughly a week later. Gibson says that due to traffic, she and her mother were approximately one hour late to the session, and that when they arrived, Derulo “immediately charged” and “lunged at her, causing her to step back and clutched [sic] her chest to brace herself for DERULO to physically assault her” before running to the bathroom in tears.
Gibson claims that when complaining to Harris about Derulo’s behavior, the manager defended Derulo and told her that the star “had the right to yell” at her. Derulo allegedly never responded to a follow-up text from Gibson about arranging another recording session, and on Sept. 6, 2022, she says she was informed that her “employment” with Atlantic and Future History had been terminated. She claims she then took her complaints about Derulo’s “sexually, emotionally and physically inappropriate behavior” to Atlantic executives and the label’s human resources department but that she was directed to take up her concerns with Future History. “No one has ever reached out to address” her concerns since, she claims.
Since her alleged experiences with Derulo, Gibson says she’s required medical intervention for “breakdowns, weight loss, insomnia, mood swings, hopelessness, loss of motivation…[and] feelings of betrayal and deception” and was subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Gibson is suing for sexual harassment, failure to prevent and/or remedy harassment, retaliation, intimidation and violence, and breach of contract, among other causes of action. She’s requesting damages for unpaid wages, loss of earnings and deferred compensation; general damages for emotional distress; special damages for medical expenses; and punitive damages.
Representatives for Derulo, Harris, Atlantic and RCA Records did not respond to Billboard‘s request for comment at time of publishing.
Ed Sheeran’s years-long copyright battle — over whether he copied “Thinking Out Loud” from Marvin Gaye’s iconic “Let’s Get It On” — isn’t over just yet.
Although one of Sheeran’s accusers dropped their case last month, a separate set of plaintiffs filed their opening salvo at a federal appeals court on Friday (Sept. 29), setting the stage for years more litigation and a ruling that could revive the case against the pop star.
“The district court’s erroneous decisions should be reversed, and appellant’s case restored so that it can proceed to trial,” Sheeran’s accusers wrote in their opening brief to the appeals court.
Sheeran was first sued over “Thinking Out Loud” by the daughter of Ed Townsend, who co-wrote the famed 1973 tune with Gaye. It was that long-running case that culminated in a May jury verdict that cleared Sheeran of any wrongdoing. Last week, Kathryn Griffin Townsend’s lawyers dropped their efforts to overturn that verdict, ending that leg of the legal battle.
But Sheeran has long faced a separate, closely related case filed by an entity called Structured Asset Sales (owned by industry executive David Pullman) that controls a different one-third stake in Townsend’s copyrights. In May, weeks after the big jury verdict, a federal judge tossed out that case, too, ruling that it was seeking an “impermissible monopoly over a basic musical building block.”
Unlike Griffin, however, Structured Asset Sales seems ready for a long appellate battle.
In their opening brief Friday at the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, Structure Asset Sales’ lawyers cited a wide range of supposed errors by Judge Louis Stanton in that May ruling dismissing the case, including his decision about “musical building blocks.”
But they mostly focused on what they said was a far more basic error: that Judge Stanton refused to let them cite the famous recorded version of “Let’s Get It On” in making their case. Instead, the judge ruled that Structured Asset Sales owned only the rights to a “deposit copy” — the basic notation filed at the Copyright Office decades ago to secure a copyright registration. That erroneous holding, the company’s lawyers said, “severely” limited their rights and unfairly hurt their ability to win the case.
“Musical notation is a way of trying to capture the ephemeral in the physical, but it is and has always been limited in its ability to capture every nuance of the work,” Structured Asset Sales’ lawyers wrote. “Deposit copies do not, and were never meant to be, a limitation on the scope of the copyright they represent.”
Structure Asset Sales’ lawyers also called into question the timing of Judge Stanton’s ruling, which came just weeks after the jury verdict in the Griffin case and seemingly reversed his own previous decision that the case would need to go to trial. In an unusual flourish, the company’s lawyers said the judge’s logic was “a mystery.”
An attorney for Sheeran did not immediately return a request for comment. Sheeran’s legal team will file their own appellate brief in the months to come.
Lizzo has lodged her first legal response to the lawsuit brought by three of her former dancers in August.
In what amounts to a 31-point rebuttal against claims that the dancers were subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment while on tour with the singer, Lizzo and her Big Grrrl Big Touring company are requesting that the court dismiss the case with prejudice (meaning it cannot be refiled). In the event the court declines to dismiss it, the defendants are requesting a jury trial.
In the original complaint, filed Aug. 1 in Los Angeles court, dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez accused Lizzo (real name Melissa Jefferson) and Big Grrrl Big Touring of several allegations. Among them: that Lizzo pressured dancers to attend a sex show in Amsterdam and interact with the nude performers; that dance team captain Shirlene Quigley repeatedly engaged in behavior that made them feel uncomfortable; that Lizzo “called attention” to a dancer’s weight gain following a performance; that employees of the touring company singled out Black dancers by accusing them of “being lazy, unprofessional and having bad attitudes”; and that Lizzo denied dancers bathroom breaks during an “excruciating re-audition” process.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The new document — filed Wednesday by Lizzo’s lawyers, Martin Singer, Michael Weinsten and Melissa Lerner — offers more than 30 wide-ranging defenses to the dancers’ complaint. They include:
That the plaintiffs “ratified, acquiesced, condoned, and/or approved of the acts or omissions of Defendants, in whole or in part, about which Plaintiffs now complain”;
That the defendants’ alleged conduct “was undertaken in good faith and with good cause” and “undertaken for legitimate reasons reasonably related to one or more lawful business purposes”;
That the plaintiffs are “guilty of unclean hands,” which in legal terms means they have done something unethical and should therefore be denied relief;
That the plaintiffs should be barred from pursuing the case based on the doctrine of estoppel, meaning they have acted unfairly or made false representations in bringing the lawsuit;
That the plaintiffs failed to “mediate in good faith pursuant” to their contract terms with Big Grrrl Big Touring and are subject to arbitration under those terms;
That the claims are preempted by California’s Workers’ Compensation Act and should therefore be decided by the workers’ compensation appeals board as opposed to the court;
That if the plaintiffs were harmed as alleged, the plaintiffs and/or others who are not listed as defendants “contributed, in whole or in part,” to that harm;
That the defendants’ alleged actions arose from the exercise of their rights of free speech and/or religion;
That plaintiffs failed to “avail themselves” of internal anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies and complaint procedures while employed on the tour;
That plaintiffs’ claims regarding discrimination or retaliation should be barred because any employment decisions were made “for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-pretextual reasons and Defendants acted out of business necessity”;
That the plaintiffs “have failed to plead and cannot establish facts sufficient to support allegations of malice, oppression or fraud”;
That defendants are not liable for punitive damages because they did not “engage in wrongful conduct,” “authorize or ratify any wrongful conduct,” or “have advance knowledge of the unfitness of any employee and employ that employee with a conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others.”
“This is the first step of a legal process in which Lizzo and her team will demonstrate that they have always practiced what they’ve preached — whether it comes to promoting body positivity, leading a safe and supportive workplace or protecting individuals from any kind of harassment,” said Lizzo spokesperson Stefan Friedman in a statement. “Any and all claims to the contrary are ridiculous, and we look forward to proving so in a court of law.”
In response to the new filing, the dancers’ attorney, Neama Rahmani, released the following statement: “Lizzo’s answer merely consists of boilerplate objections that have nothing to do with the case. That said, the key takeaway is that Lizzo is agreeing to our clients’ demand for a jury trial. We look forward to presenting our case in court and letting a panel of her peers decide who is telling the truth, Lizzo and her team who continue to shame the victims or the plaintiffs and so many others who have come forward sharing similar stories of abuse and harassment.”
Though this is Lizzo’s first legal response to the lawsuit, the singer categorically denied the dancers’ claims two days after it was filed, stating on social media that the allegations were as “unbelievable as they sound and too outrageous to not be addressed.”
“These sensationalized stories are coming from former employees who have already publicly admitted that they were told their behavior on tour was inappropriate and unprofessional,” she added. Later that day, the dancers appeared on CNN This Morning to rehash their allegations and called Lizzo’s statement “disheartening” and “incredibly frustrating.”
Two weeks later, Lizzo’s Big Grrrls dance team released a statement in support of the singer, saying they “had the time of our lives” on the tour and continuing, “The commitment to character and culture taking precedence over every movement and moment has been one of the Greatest lessons and Blessings that we could possibly could ask for.”
The Aug. 1 lawsuit is the first of two that have been brought against Lizzo. Earlier this month, the singer — along with her wardrobe manager Amanda Nomura, tour manager Carlina Gugliotta and Big Grrrl Big Touring — were sued by clothing designer Asha Daniels, who alleged sexual and racial harassment, disability discrimination, assault, illegal retaliatory termination and more while working on Lizzo’s Special tour.
The second lawsuit dropped the same day Lizzo was due to receive the Black Music Action Coalition’s Quincy Jones Humanitarian Award at the organization’s 2023 gala.
While accepting the honor that evening, Lizzo — who was introduced by cast members from her Emmy-winning reality show, Watch Out For the Big Grrrls — gave an emotional speech in which she said, “I’m going to continue to be who I am, no matter who’s watching. I’m going to continue to amplify the voices of marginalized people because I have a microphone and I know how to use it. And I’m going to continue to put on, represent and create safe spaces for Black fat women because that’s what the f— I do!”
She continued, “This support right now means the world to me.”
On Tuesday (Sept. 26), singer-songwriter Rick Astley settled the vocal impersonation lawsuit he filed in January against meme rapper Yung Gravy and his collaborators for an undisclosed sum.
Filed in Los Angeles court, the lawsuit had claimed that while Yung Gravy and his collaborators secured rights to re-record the melody and lyrics of his 1987 hit “Never Gonna Give You Up” for their track “Betty (Get Money),” they “flagrantly impersonated” Astley’s distinctive vocals from the original track, thereby infringing his so-called right of publicity. “Betty (Get Money)” peaked at No. 39 on the Billboard Hot 100 and No. 9 on Billboard‘s Hot Rap Songs chart.
Rights of publicity laws, which vary state by state, protect public figures from the commercial exploitation of their names, voices and likenesses without their authorization. Astley argued that by mimicking Astley’s voice in a “nearly indistinguishable” way, Gravy’s team “obliterated” Astley’s chance to “collaborate with another artist and/or producer to create something new with his voice from ‘Never Gonna Give You Up’” and take advantage of other commercial opportunities.
The lawsuit arrived just as emerging artificial intelligence (AI) tools had sparked new conversations around right of publicity protections for artists. The debate hit a fever pitch in April when an anonymous TikTok creator named Ghostwriter made headlines with his song “Heart On My Sleeve,” which employed an AI voice filter to deepfake the voices of Drake and The Weeknd without their knowledge or consent. Since then, some leaders, including Universal Music Group’s general counsel/executive vp of business and legal affairs, Jeffery Harleston, have called for a federalized right of publicity to protect artists against the seemingly growing issue.
Notably, Gravy’s song did not employ AI to mimic Astley’s trademark tone. Instead, “Betty (Get Money)” producer Nick “PopNick” Seeley recreated Astley’s voice the old-fashioned way: through trial and error in the studio. In a previous interview with Billboard, Seeley said he has “a knack for vintage stuff” and has also helped recreate older recordings for other songs, including “I Like It” by Cardi B and “Dirty Iyanna” by YoungBoy Never Broke Again.
In a previous interview with Billboard, producer Marc “Fresh2Def” Soto — half of the duo ClickNPress –said it’s common for producers to be asked to recreate older songs as closely as possible. “A record label will be like, ‘Hey we can’t get the clearance for the sample, but we can get an interpolation, would you be able to replay XYZ thing?’ I’ve been through that on several records with different labels,” Soto says. However, most of these so-called “replays” of old songs don’t end up being quite as exact as the one in Astley’s case.
Astley was represented by attorney Richard S. Busch, the same lawyer who represented Marvin Gaye’s family in the controversial “Blurred Lines” trial. Gravy and the other defendants were represented by attorney Michael J. Niborski.
Busch and Niborski did not immediately respond to Billboard’s requests for comment.
In its first legal response to a SoundExchange lawsuit alleging underpayment of $150 million in artist royalties, SiriusXM claimed in a court filing Friday (Sept. 22) that SoundExchange’s numbers rely on a “so-called audit” that was a “flawed and biased examination” and insists the satellite-radio giant “properly calculated its royalty payments to SoundExchange in all material respects.”
The filing, which demands a change of U.S. court venue from Virginia to New York or Washington, D.C., also bashes the royalty collection and distribution service for trying to “justify its existence, lofty executive salaries and luxurious operating style through repeated litigation against its biggest contributor.”
In a phone interview before the filing, George White, SiriusXM’s senior vp of music licensing and royalties, says the SoundExchange lawsuit, filed in August, caught his company by surprise. “We were discussing settlement with them,” adds White, a former longtime major-label executive. “We really took some time to review it.”
White says the lawsuit comes down to a difference of opinion over SoundExchange’s “method of calculating their deduction.” He argues that SiriusXM has paid SoundExchange $5 billion in performance royalties for sound recordings over the last 10 years, and contributed “the vast majority” of the $805 million the service collected last year. “The rhetoric in the suit itself and the press release around the suit seems really unfair and wholly inappropriate,” White says. “In fact, we want to make every effort to ensure everyone is compensated fairly.”
SoundExchange, which collects royalties from webcasters and non-terrestrial radio services on behalf of artists and labels, argued in its Aug. 16 lawsuit that Sirius XM was bundling its satellite radio and streaming service, mixing the revenue in order to improperly reduce its royalty bill. The U.S. government mandates different royalty rates for satellite-transmitted services (like SiriusXM’s traditional satellite radio) and webcasting under so-called statutory licenses, but SoundExchange’s lawsuit declared that “Sirius XM has unjustly enriched itself to the detriment of recording artists and copyright owners upon whose music Sirius XM has built its business.”
In its response, SiriusXM accused SoundExchange of “misguided allegations” and argued a “proper audit” would conclude the company “properly calculated its royalty payments to SoundExchange.” The company also criticized SoundExchange for taking advantage of what it called the Virginia court’s “rocket docket,” which, regional lawyers have said, results in fast-moving cases, little time for discovery and quick resolution.
“We’re very hopeful that we can proceed down the lines of having a productive settlement discussion,” White says. “I would far rather that we had a close relationship with SoundExchange that was about working to grow SiriusXM’s contributions to SoundExchange.”
SoundExchange didn’t immediately respond to Billboard‘s request for comment.