State Champ Radio Lawsuit
Page: 4
Trending on Billboard
Powerhouse regional Mexican label Rancho Humilde is locked in a bitter legal dispute with one of its fastest rising acts, the California-based band Fuerza Regida.
Rancho Humilde filed a lawsuit in September accusing the band of breaching its record deal by unilaterally doing features for other artists and inking live performance contracts with Apple Music and Live Nation. Fuerza Regida countersued a month later, alleging the indie label withheld millions of dollars in royalties and tried to “sabotage” its success — including by leaving it off Latin Grammy Awards submissions.
Related
The dueling legal claims, moved from a California state courthouse to federal court on Oct. 20, reveal a stunning breakdown in the relationship between Fuerza Regida and its longtime label home. The fight comes just as Fuerza Regida’s star is on the rise; the band made history in May when 111XPANTIA debuted at No. 2 on the Billboard 200, making it the highest-charting Spanish-language album ever by a duo or group.
Fuerza Regida, a quintet of regional Mexican hitmakers from San Bernardino, signed with Jimmy Humilde’s label in 2018. The band now puts out music via a joint venture between Rancho Humilde and its own Street Mob Records, with distribution by Sony Music Latin.
Rancho Humilde’s lawsuit is focused on exclusivity language in the label’s original record deal with Fuerza Regida, which allegedly entitled the label to a seat at the table and a cut of proceeds for all recording and touring contracts. According to Rancho Humilde, Fuerza Regida violated this deal by performing unauthorized features for other artists and not sharing the royalties.
The lawsuit lists 27 offending songs, including “Qué Onda,” Fuerza Regida’s Billboard Hot 100 entry from 2023 with Calle 24 and Chino Pacas, and “Modo Capone,” the band’s 2024 collaboration with Pacas and Drake that hit No. 11 on Billboard‘s Hot Latin Songs chart.
Related
Rancho Humilde says Fuerza Regida also disregarded exclusivity by contracting directly with Apple Music this past summer for a live concert taping in Mexico City, as well as with Live Nation for U.S. tours in 2023 and 2024.
“[Rancho Humilde] has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, lost royalties, advances, fees, market-share and other compensation that should have been directed to Sony and accounted to [Rancho Humilde], lost shares of touring revenues [and] lost income from unauthorized deals such as the Apple agreement,” says the lawsuit. “The exact amount of damages is subject to proof at trial but exceeds $15 million.”
Fuerza Regida, however, tells a very different story in its countersuit. The band claims Rancho Humilde is actually the one who has breached their record deal by failing to pay millions of dollars in royalties and stonewalling audit requests.
The countersuit also says Rancho Humilde has engaged in “systematic financial malfeasance” by refusing to revert master recordings back to the band as required by the record deal, as well as by using “clandestine arrangements” with Live Nation to siphon off touring profits.
Related
“In addition to its fraudulent schemes and systematic contract breaches, Rancho and its principal Jimmy Humilde escalated to a malicious campaign of active sabotage designed to destroy [Fuerza Regida’s] professional relationships and career opportunities within the entertainment industry,” reads the countersuit.
Fuerza Regida says that as part of this campaign of “sabotage,” Rancho Humilde requested that Sony remove the band from Latin Grammy Awards submissions in 2024, even though they had been a top-selling act that year.
Additionally, the countersuit claims Jimmy Humilde sent “threatening and intimidating text messages” to Apple’s head of Latin music in an attempt to “derail” Fuerza Regida’s live concert taping. Overall, Fuerza Regida is seeking at least $25 million in damages from the label.
In a statement to Billboard on Monday (Oct. 27), the band’s attorney Kenneth D. Freundlich says, “Rancho Humilde and Jimmy Humilde have for years engaged in brazen self-dealing, enriching itself at the expense of our client Fuerza Regida.”
Related
“Rancho’s bad faith state court lawsuit against Fuerza was the last straw,” adds Freundlich. “After our removal, the disputes will air in federal court where Rancho must now respond to our detailed claims of wrongdoing.”
Reps for Rancho Humilde did not return a request for comment.
The Fuerza Regida fight is not Rancho Humilde’s only ongoing legal battle with top talent. Regional Mexican artist Codiciado, who was signed to Rancho Humilde as part of the ensemble Grupo Codiciado but has since parted ways and gone solo, sued the label in June, alleging it infringed his intellectual property by getting the rest of the band back together with a new act called Los Codicia2. Rancho Humilde has not yet responded to Codiciado’s claims.
Trending on Billboard
Muni Long’s former managers are suing the singer for refusing to pay more than $600,000 worth of promised fees, though the Grammy-winning R&B star’s team calls the claims “unfounded.”
Long (Priscilla Renea Hamilton) is facing breach of contract claims from Ebony Son Entertainment, the Atlanta-based management company run by Chaka Zulu and Jeff Dixon. The duo is best known for managing Ludacris, with whom they started the record label Disturbing Tha Peace in 1998.
Related
Ebony Son claims in a Thursday (Oct. 23) federal court complaint that Zulu and Dixon’s hard work was instrumental to Long’s success, including her win for Best R&B Performance at the Grammy Awards this year. But Long fired her managers in January and now owes hefty commissions from live shows and recording and writing gigs, according to the complaint.
“Defendant Priscilla Renea Hamilton is publicly known as the musical artist ‘Muni Long’ but her less well-known performances are as a serial grifter,” reads the lawsuit. “After taking the benefit of plaintiff’s elite and highly sought-after management services for more than a year, Muni Long shamelessly reneged on her promises to pay plaintiff the agreed-upon, customary percentage of revenue she earned, and only earned because plaintiff assisted in obtaining those engagements.”
Long’s team denies the claims as “unfounded” in a statement to Billboard on Friday (Oct. 24). The team says it’s “deeply unfortunate that the matter could not be resolved privately and professionally,” claiming Long made “good faith” settlement offers even though “no formal contract ever existed” with Ebony Son.
Related
“The situation has been particularly distressing, as it involves the same team that took possession of the artist’s phone and sought to have her involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, despite medical confirmation that she was suffering from a Lupus flare-up,” says Long’s team in the statement. “All appropriate avenues are being pursued to ensure that the truth is fully and fairly defended. The artist hopes this underscores the importance to all those in creative fields to safeguard their personal and professional boundaries and be discerning about those they trust to represent them.”
Zulu and Dixon have been battling with Long in court since July, when the managers first leveled allegations over the unpaid commissions in a California state court complaint. That state court case was withdrawn just days before Ebony Son took the claims to federal court.
Long broke onto the R&B scene in 2022 with her hit single “Hrs and Hrs,” which spent 20 weeks on the Billboard Hot 100 and peaked at No. 16 on the chart. She signed with Def Jam Recordings that year, and “Hrs and Hrs” won the Grammy for Best R&B Performance at the 2023 ceremony.
Related
According to Thursday’s lawsuit, Long had her first meeting with Zulu and Dixon at New Orleans’ ESSENCE Festival of Culture in July 2023. During this meeting, the managers say, Long allegedly agreed to pay the duo 20% of all her gross revenue and reimburse all management-related expenses.
Zulu and Dixon say they began putting in work for Long “within days of being hired,” ensuring that her 2024 album Revenge was released before the Grammys cutoff date. This made it possible for Long to win another Best R&B Performance Grammy that year for her song “Made for Me,” the lawsuit claims.
The managers allege Long paid her required commissions and reimbursements for over a year, but that she “purportedly became unhappy” with the amount of the fees and ultimately stopped all payments in October 2024. In January, they say she officially cut ties with Ebony Son.
“Plaintiff, who worked tirelessly to advance Muni Long’s career, [has] secured over $5 million in revenue for defendants to date,” says the complaint. “But as to a significant percentage of this revenue, defendants have failed to pay plaintiff the corresponding commission payments as required by the agreement.”
Related
Zulu and Dixon claim Long owes more than $600,000 worth of commissions and expenses from the money she made via live shows, a $1 million ASCAP publishing deal, songwriting agreements with Shenseea and Tiwa Savage, and features on tracks by Teddy Swims and Toosi.
The lawsuit says Long also owes fees on other sources of revenue that Zulu and Dixon have not yet been able to fully audit, including the money she made opening for Chris Brown on the 11:11 Tour in 2024.
Unrelatedly, Zulu was criminally charged with murder in 2022 for shooting a man during an altercation in Atlanta. The charges were later dropped after prosecutors determined that Zulu was acting in self-defense.
Trending on Billboard
The legal battle between A$AP Relli and A$AP Rocky is continuing on despite Rocky’s acquittal on charges of shooting his former friend and associate this past February.
On Thursday (Oct. 23), a judge in Los Angeles refused to throw out the civil defamation lawsuit brought by Relli (Terrell Ephron) stemming from the alleged altercation with Rocky (Rakim Mayers) near a Hollywood hotel in 2021.
Related
Relli alleges that Rocky fired a handgun at him twice during their argument, while Rocky maintains that the “weapon” was a prop gun filled with blanks. Prosecutors charged Rocky with two felony assault counts in 2022, but he was acquitted of both criminal charges following a sensational trial this year.
Still, Relli is continuing to claim that Rocky shot him in a civil lawsuit that he brought around the same time as his former A$AP Mob collaborator’s arrest. That case, in which Relli seeks financial damages from Rocky for assault, battery and emotional distress, is scheduled to go to trial in January.
Relli separately brought a defamation lawsuit in 2023 against both Rocky and his criminal defense lawyer, Joe Tacopina. Relli says the duo smeared his name when Tacopina gave press interviews calling Relli’s shooting claims “extortion” and a “get-rich-quick-scheme.”
Rocky and Tacopina sought to get the defamation suit thrown out under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which guards against frivolous litigation that threatens free speech. But Judge Randolph M. Hammock ruled Thursday that Relli’s slander claims don’t meet this standard for dismissal.
Related
Judge Hammock said Rocky and Tacopina cannot rely on a principle known as the litigation privilege, which provides a complete free speech shield for statements made in court proceedings, because the lawyer’s media interviews were given “to shape the public opinion” rather than advance any legal position. The judge also determined that Relli’s defamation claim is not “meritless” under the anti-SLAPP guardrails.
“For purposes of this motion, plaintiff has established all elements of his defamation claims,” wrote the judge. “Plaintiff submits evidence that Tacopina published statements to media outlets, in essence contending that plaintiff fabricated the incident with Mayers then filed the lawsuit to force a payout.”
“Plaintiff refutes this in his declaration, as he attests that Mayers fired a handgun and struck him in the hand,” continues Judge Hammock’s decision. “He establishes that Tacopina’s statements were defamatory, as they labeled Ephron a liar and extortionist. Finally, Ephron established that these statements caused him damages. For purposes of this motion, plaintiff has met his burden.”
Relli has not actually won on any defamation claims yet, but the lawsuit moved past a major obstacle in Thursday’s ruling. Now, the matter will continue forward through evidence discovery and toward a possible trial.
Relli’s lawyers declined to comment on Thursday. Reps for Rocky and Tacopina did not immediately return requests for comment.
Trending on Billboard
A Washington, D.C., man who was detained after playing the Evil Empire music from Star Wars to protest National Guard troops is suing the government for violating his constitutional rights.
In a lawsuit filed Thursday (Oct. 23), Sam O’Hara claims that he was wrongfully handcuffed and detained for playing “The Imperial March” — John Williams’ iconic villain music from the sci-fi franchise — as he recorded videos of the troops that he later posted to TikTok.
Related
The case, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), claims the brief detention violated O’Hara’s right to peacefully protest under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
“The law might have tolerated government conduct of this sort a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away,” the ACLU wrote, playing on the famed opening text from Star Wars. “But in the here and now, the First Amendment bars government officials from shutting down peaceful protests.”
“The Imperial March (Darth Vader’s Theme),” written by Williams, first appeared in The Empire Strikes Back, the 1980 sequel to the original Star Wars. The famed composer’s score for the film reached the No. 4 spot on the Billboard 200 in July 1980, eventually spending 28 weeks on the chart.
“In the Star Wars franchise, The Imperial March is the music that plays when Darth Vader or other dark forces enter a scene or succeed in their dastardly plans,” O’Hara’s lawyers write. “It is also the soundtrack of Sam O’Hara’s protest against the National Guard deployment in D.C.”
Related
President Donald Trump declared a “crime emergency” in Washington, D.C., in August and ordered the takeover of law enforcement in the city, with National Guard troops arriving in the capital shortly thereafter. The move, along with other military deployments to American cities, has been deeply controversial and led to widespread protests.
O’Hara, who was “deeply concerned about the normalization of troops patrolling D.C. neighborhoods,” began protesting their presence in his city by walking behind them as they marched through the streets — and by playing a score recognized globally as a theme for tyranny.
“Using his phone and sometimes a small speaker, he played The Imperial March as he walked, keeping the music at a volume that was audible but not blaring,” the ACLU’s lawyers write. “Mr. O’Hara recorded the encounters and posted the videos on his TikTok account, where millions of people have viewed them.”
Related
According to O’Hara, most National Guardsmen “ignored Mr. O’Hara, and a few smiled or laughed,” but one was “not amused by this satire.” The trooper, Sgt. Devon Beck, allegedly turned around and threatened to call in local police to “handle” him if he kept playing the song. When O’Hara kept going, he says Metropolitan Police Department officers quickly arrived and put him in cuffs, shutting down his protest.
O’Hara says the cuffs were placed so tightly that they left marks on his wrists, and were not loosened after he complained. He also says his detention was “needlessly” prolonged before he was eventually released 15 to 20 minutes later.
In technical terms, the lawsuit names Beck, four D.C. police officers, and the D.C. District Attorney as defendants. It accuses them of violating both the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Trending on Billboard
Country singer Jameson Rodgers allegedly hurled a “full, unopened beer can” into a concert crowd and hit a fan during a 2022 festival on the Jersey Shore – and an appeals court now says Sony Music must continue to face the resulting lawsuit filed by the injured woman.
Samantha Haws sued Rodgers, Sony and others, claiming the incident at the 2022 Barefoot Country Music Festival in Wildwood, NJ, had left her with “severe and permanent injuries.” She even sued MillerCoors because it was a can of Miller Lite that Rodgers allegedly threw.
Related
Sony wants to be dismissed from the case, arguing that it cannot be sued in New Jersey because it isn’t based in the state and didn’t operate the festival. But a lower judge denied that request last year – and a New Jersey appeals court upheld that ruling on Wednesday.
In recent years, there’s been a disturbing trend of objects being thrown at concert performers. NBA YoungBoy stopped a show earlier this month after fans threw objects, Luke Combs was hit in the face during a July concert, and Bebe Rexha needed stitches after being hit with a smartphone, leading to criminal charges against the offender.
But there’s also been multiple incidents involving objects thrown by the artists, often resulting in legal action. 50 Cent was sued last year over an incident in which he threw a microphone off-stage in frustration, allegedly hitting a stagehand. Cardi B hurled a mic at a fan who threw a drink at her at a 2023 Las Vegas concert, resulting in another lawsuit.
In her July 2024 case, Haws claims that Rodgers and/or others “threw full, unopened cans of Miller Lite beer from the stage into the crowded audience” at the Barefoot Festival. She says one struck her “violently and without warning in the head and facial area,” leaving her with “severe, painful and permanent bodily injuries.”
Sony, named as a defendant in the case because Rodgers is signed to Columbia Nashville, immediately moved to exit the case. The company argued that it didn’t organize or market the festival or pay for or provide security for it. But a judge said last year that Rodgers had potentially performed at the festival as Sony’s agent, which could legally put the company on the hook for his actions.
In Wednesday’s decision, the New Jersey appeals court rejected Sony’s appeal of that ruling. It said there was “no error” by the lower judge because Haws had established a “business relationship between Sony and Rodgers related to live performances” and the label “would be subject to specific jurisdiction if Rodgers was acting on Sony’s behalf at the time Haws was injured.”
The ruling does not mean Sony is liable to Haws, or that her allegations will ultimately be proven. Instead, it merely sets the stage for more litigation over whether Sony was sufficiently involved to face the lawsuit. Reps for Sony, and both reps and an attorney for Rodgers did not immediately return requests for comment on Thursday.
Trending on Billboard
Lizzo is facing a copyright lawsuit over her “I’m Going Til October,” a track she teased on social media to poke fun at Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle ad controversy but never actually commercially released.
The case, filed Tuesday by a group called GRC Trust, claims that Lizzo’s provocative song (also known as “Good Jeans” in reference to the Sweeney debacle) stole material from an earlier track called “Win or Lose (We Tried),” which appears to have been recorded by the soul singer Sam Dees.
Related
Obtained by Billboard, the lawsuit is light on details – claiming Lizzo’s track “incorporates, interpolates, and samples instrumental and vocal elements” without more specifics. But it pointedly says that reps for the star have “acknowledged” that the materials were used.
The case is notable because Lizzo never formally released the song in question. Though she teased a snippet on TikTok, the star has not included it on any formal release, including her June mixtape My Face Hurts From Smiling. Her long-awaited next studio album, Love in Real Life, was scheduled to drop at some point in 2025 but she said last month she’s unsure if or when it will be released.
Posting a song featuring an uncleared sample on social media would still count as copyright infringement; but the stakes would be lower, because it would be harder to prove that Lizzo made substantial profits without actually selling the allegedly infringing song. Such pre-release disputes are more typically handled with private negotiations rather than full-blown lawsuits.
In a statement to Billboard, Lizzo’s reps said: “We are surprised that The GRC Trust filed this lawsuit. To be clear, the song has never been commercially released or monetized, and no decision has been made at this time regarding any future commercial release of the song.”
Related
The American Eagle ads, launched in July under the tagline “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans,” sparked criticism that they were an allusion to eugenics and white supremacist ideals. That then prompted a right-wing backlash defending them and mocking the critiques.
In her August video on TikTok, Lizzo can be seen washing a Porsche while wearing a denim top. The clip features a snippet from “Going Til October,” in which the star raps: “No kizzy, he ain’t got no business being with me. Fat ass pretty face with the titties. Bitch, I got good jeans like I’m Sydney.”
While Tuesday’s lawsuit claims that snippet used material from “Win or Lose,” it doesn’t explicitly specify who wrote or recorded that track. But it appears to be the 1995 song recorded by Dees, which repeatedly features the lyric “win or lose we tried.” In an earlier sampling suit against Ye (formerly Kanye West), GRC Trust brought similar infringement allegations over another track by Dees.
The copyright case is the latest legal headache for Lizzo. In 2023, she was hit with a bombshell lawsuit from three former dancers (Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez) who claimed they had experienced sexual harassment and a hostile work environment while working for the superstar. The case, which also included allegations of weight-shaming, racial and religious discrimination, remains pending amid a lengthy appeal.
Trending on Billboard
Broke Records is facing a lawsuit from ATLXS, the 18-year-old Italian artist behind the hit dance track “Passo Bem Solto,” who alleges the indie label is refusing to release him from a distribution deal he signed as a minor.
Broke, co-founded by Andre Benz and Brandon De Oliveira in 2023 in partnership with Create Music Group, has carved out a niche identifying viral songs and turning them into streaming hits. This is precisely what the label did with “Passo Bem Solto,” which is currently No. 6 on Billboard‘s Hot Dance/Electronic Songs chart and has more than 450 million Spotify streams across various remixes.
Related
But the artist behind “Passo Bem Solto,” 18-year-old ATLXS (Diego Basile), is now suing Broke to get out of his contract. ATLXS’ attorney, Douglas Johnson, writes in a Monday (Oct. 20) federal complaint that he signed over the “Passo Bem Solto” masters to Broke in January, and Johnson tells Billboard that the agreement also included publishing rights.
The lawsuit alleges the deal was “predatory,” and that a provision of California’s family code allows a contract signed by a minor to be later “disaffirmed” — that is, made void. ATLXS, who was only 17 when he signed with Broke, sent a legal notice to the label terminating his contract under this provision last month.
According to the lawsuit, Broke refused to honor the termination notice and is continuing to monetize “Passo Bem Solto” on streaming platforms. ATLXS is seeking a court order requiring his masters and publishing rights to be reverted back, as well financial damages for copyright infringement.
Related
“Defendant has retained revenues, royalties and profits derived from the exploitation of the subject works after disaffirmance,” reads the complaint. “Defendant has continued to exploit the works through all of its streaming distribution channels, including continuing to stream the subject works on several streaming services, including but not limited to YouTube and Spotify.”
Speaking with Billboard on Tuesday (Oct. 21), Johnson says California law is clear that minors can rebuke their contracts and that an artist like ATLXS can regain his copyrights. “I find it to be a straightforward case,” he says.
Reps for Broke declined to comment on the lawsuit Tuesday.
Trending on Billboard
David Geffen’s estranged husband has dropped a scandalous lawsuit that leveled shocking abuse allegations against the music and film mogul while seeking lifelong financial support.
Geffen will continue to fight it out in divorce court over temporary spousal support and potential asset division with Donovan Michaels, a former exotic dancer who married the 82-year-old billionaire without a prenup in 2023. But Michaels’ lawyers filed a court notice on Friday (Oct. 17) dropping a civil lawsuit that had sought far more: “financial support commensurate with his lifestyle for the rest of his life.”
Related
Michaels’ civil case, brought in July after Geffen initiated divorce proceedings, aired years of dirty laundry and leveled shocking allegations against the Asylum Records and Geffen Records founder.
The 32-year-old (born David Armstrong) claimed that Geffen began paying him for sex after they met through the website SeekingArrangements.com in 2016. Michaels said Geffen treated him as a “sexual commodity” and plied him with drugs and alcohol as “tools of coercion” during their relationship and eventual marriage.
At the heart of the lawsuit was Michaels’ claim that Geffen promised to provide him with “lifetime support.” Michaels said he relied on this assurance when he gave up a modeling career to be a full-time husband to Geffen.
Geffen, meanwhile, fervently denied Michaels’ claims as “petty gossip and salacious lies.” The billionaire said Michaels was merely trying to extort a lucrative settlement out of him, and that he never promised any sort of lifelong financial support.
Related
Now that the civil lawsuit has been dropped, lawyers for the estranged couple will focus their attention on a more traditional marriage dissolution proceeding filed by Geffen in May. Geffen is asking in that case for a judge to declare that his only financial obligation to Michaels is $50,000 per month in spousal support for just one year.
Geffen says the judge should note that he’s already given Michaels $5 million worth of art and jewelry, and notes that the couple lived “separate lives” during the mere 23 months they were married. Geffen claims that because he was retired and making no income during the marriage, there aren’t any marital assets to share with Michaels.
“While respondent will have far less wealth than petitioner due to petitioner’s vast separate property estate when the parties’ married, respondent will certainly walk away from this brief marriage with more wealth than most Americans,” wrote Geffen’s attorney Parima Pandkhou in a Sept. 18 divorce filing.
Michaels, however, says it remains an open question whether Geffen made money through investments during their marriage that should be considered joint assets. Michaels has slammed Geffen for trying to “conceal the truth about his enormous wealth” and says the divorce cannot be finalized until he gets a chance to look at Geffen’s books.
Related
“This is quite literally a case of David and Goliath,” wrote Michael’s lawyer Samantha Spector on Oct. 2. “While David has repeatedly yet falsely attempted to portray himself as an aging ‘retiree,’ the reality is that he remains an enormously important power player in uber wealthy circles who, through a myriad of capitalist ventures, is one of the highest income earners on the planet.”
Michaels’ and Geffen’s lawyers are set to appear in Los Angeles family court for a hearing on Nov. 14. Neither side returned a request for comment from Billboard on Tuesday (Oct. 21).
Post Malone will have to defend his name in a court of law. He is being sued by a limo driver over his appearance in a music video.
As per The Daily Mail, Post Malone has been hit with a legal complaint stemming from his 2020 collaboration with Tyla Yaweh. In the accompanying visual for “Tommy Lee,” a man is seen opening a limousine door for Tyla, and throughout different quick cut scenes throughout the video.
That man is Larry Deuel, a professional limousine driver in real life. Apparently, he was hired by the two talents to drive them to the ranch where a lot of the principal photography took place. During the shoot, he was asked to participate in the music video, but claims he was never compensated for his appearance.
The lawsuit was submitted to the Fourth District Court in Utah on Friday, Oct. 17. Post Malone, Tyla, and Sony Music Entertainment are all listed as defendants.
“Absent Mr. Deuel’s presence in Tommy Lee, the theme of wealth, power, fame, privilege, and success would have been visually underwhelming, supported only by two unkempt musicians smoking blunts and riding ATVs in a dirt field,” the legal filing read.
According to Music News, Larry Deuel is suing for principal damages “in an amount not less than $2.5 million”; punitive damages “in an amount not less than $7.5 million (£5.6 million)”; legal fees “in an amount not less than $25,000 (£186,000)”; and more.
Post Malone has yet to formally respond to the matter.
—
Photo: Getty
Polo G has settled a legal dispute over a planned European tour he cancelled in 2023, ending dueling contract and intellectual property theft claims between the Chicago rapper and a Dutch concert booking agency. The rapper (Taurus Bartlett) was in the middle of exchanging evidence via the legal discovery process with booking agency J. Noah […]
