Lawsuit
Page: 6
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Slaven Vlasic / Getty
Elon Musk & X have filed a lawsuit against advertisers he claimed colluded to boycott the social media platform.
According to reports, tech billionaire Elon Musk and the parent company of the social media platform X, formerly Twitter filed a lawsuit in a Texas federal court against the World Federation of Advertisers claiming these companies colluded to boycott the platform. The suit also names other companies such as Mars, Unilever, CVS, and Dutch clean energy firm Orsted. “This is an antitrust action relating to a group boycott by competing advertisers of one of the most popular social media platforms in the United States,” the suit reads.
X CEO Linda Yaccarino informed subscribers of the lawsuit in a video and letter posted to X, formerly Twitter, stating that the advertisers were harming “the marketplace of ideas” with their actions. The suit also named the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, or GARM as a defendant claiming they were “discontinuing entirely or substantially reducing their previously substantial advertising purchases.” The company seeks a jury trial and unspecified damages, alleging the boycott is still ongoing. “By sharply curtailing its revenues, the boycott has reduced X’s ability to invest in new or improved functionality, thus harming the consumers who use X’s platform.”
The lawsuit comes after an investigation was initiated by the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee last month, which heard testimony from those companies involved. “The extent to which GARM has organized its trade association and coordinates actions that rob consumers of choices is likely illegal under the antitrust laws and threatens fundamental American freedoms,” its report read. Musk infamously told advertisers at the DealBook Summit last November who had begun to withdraw after his acquisition of X in 2022 to leave, saying: “Somebody’s going to try to blackmail me with advertising?! Blackmail me with money? Go f–k yourself. Go. F–k. Yourself. Is that clear? I hope it is.” Companies cited the rise of racist and anti-Semitic content on the platform as a major reason for their exit.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson is mostly known these days for his work as a leading power player in the entertainment industry, but he hasn’t lost his sharp sense of humor. After a judge dismissed a lawsuit brought against him by a former drug lord alleging that his story was lifted, 50 Cent taunted the man in his typical sarcastic fashion.
As exclusively reported by AllHipHop, Cory “Ghost” Holland launched a lawsuit back in 2021 against 50 Cent, Courtney Kemp, Starz, and Lionsgate for allegedly stealing his life story for the Power series.
Holland asserted in his lawsuit that the character of Ghost on Power modeled his own life, and retold his time on the street on a 2007 musical release. Holland claims he sent a CD of the album, titled Blasphemy, to the father of Kemp in order to find his way out of the drug game. Holland accused 50 Cent and the show’s co-creators of stealing his life story for the show.
New York District Judge Hon. Analisa Torres dismissed Holland’s claims within the three-count lawsuit. Judge Torres ruled in the first matter that the character of Ghost in the Power series never directly referenced Holland so the defamation claim was tossed.
In a second lawsuit, Holland claimed that 50 Cent sent people to harass and threaten him while showing up in his neighborhood. On the third matter, Holland said that people connected to 50 played a song that suggested a threat near his home.
Holland left behind a paper trail towards 50 and his camp, clearly illustrated in a letter obtained by AllHipHop with Holland explicitly stating there would be violent consequences.
50 Cent, never one to let a moment pass, took to Instagram and shared an image of a report regarding the tossed lawsuit and wrote in the caption, “Fool thought he was GHOST [laughing emoji] da fvck wrong wit these [Ninja emoji]’s man LOL @bransoncognac @lecheminduroi.”
—
Photo: Getty
The Justice Department sued TikTok on Friday, accusing the company of violating children’s online privacy law and running afoul of a settlement it had reached with another federal agency.
The complaint, filed together with the Federal Trade Commission in a California federal court, comes as the U.S. and the prominent social media company are embroiled in yet another legal battle that will determine if – or how – TikTok will continue to operate in the country.
The latest lawsuit focuses on allegations that TikTok, a trend-setting platform popular among young users, and its China-based parent company ByteDance violated a federal law that requires kid-oriented apps and websites to get parental consent before collecting personal information of children under 13. It also says the companies failed to honor requests from parents who wanted their children’s accounts deleted, and chose not to delete accounts even when the firms knew they belonged to kids under 13.
“This action is necessary to prevent the defendants, who are repeat offenders and operate on a massive scale, from collecting and using young children’s private information without any parental consent or control,” Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, said in a statement.
Trending on Billboard
TikTok said it disagreed with the allegations, “many of which relate to past events and practices that are factually inaccurate or have been addressed.”
“We offer age-appropriate experiences with stringent safeguards, proactively remove suspected underage users and have voluntarily launched features such as default screentime limits, Family Pairing, and additional privacy protections for minors,” the company said in a statement.
The U.S. decided to file the lawsuit following an investigation by the FTC that looked into whether the companies were complying with a previous settlement involving TikTok’s predecessor, Musical.ly.
In 2019, the federal government sued Musical.ly, alleging it violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, by failing to notify parents about its collection and use of personal information for kids under 13.
That same year, Musical.ly — acquired by ByteDance in 2017 and merged with TikTok — agreed to pay $5.7 million to resolve those allegations. The two companies were also subject to a court order requiring them to comply with COPPA, which the government says hasn’t happened.
In the complaint, the Justice Department and the FTC allege TikTok has knowingly allowed children to create accounts and retained their personal information without notifying their parents. This practice extends to accounts created in “Kids Mode,” a version of TikTok for children under 13. The feature allows users to view videos but bars them from uploading content.
The two agencies allege the information collected included activities on the app and other identifiers used to build user profiles. They also accuse TikTok of sharing the data with other companies – such as Meta’s Facebook and an analytics company called AppsFlyer – to persuade “Kids Mode” users to be on the platform more, a practice TikTok called “re-targeting less active users.”
The complaint says TikTok also allowed children to create accounts without having to provide their age, or obtain parental approval, by using credentials from third-party services. It classified these as “age unknown” accounts, which the agencies say have grown into millions.
After parents discovered some of their children’s accounts and asked for them to be deleted, federal officials said TikTok asked them to go through a convoluted process to deactivate them and frequently did not honor their requests.
Overall, the government said TikTok employed deficient policies that were unable to prevent children’s accounts from proliferating on its app and suggested the company was not taking the issue seriously. In at least some periods since 2019, the complaint said TikTok’s human moderators spent an average of five to seven seconds reviewing accounts flagged as potentially belonging to a child. It also said TikTok and ByteDance have technology they can use to identify and remove children’s accounts, but do not use them for that reason.
The alleged violations have resulted in millions of children under 13 using the regular TikTok app, allowing them to interact with adults and access adult content, the complaint said.
In March, a person with the matter had told the AP the FTC’s investigation was also looking into whether TikTok violated a portion of federal law that prohibits “unfair and deceptive” business practices by denying that individuals in China had access to U.S. user data.
Those allegations were not included in the complaint, which is asking the court to fine the companies and enter a preliminary injunction to prevent future violations.
Other social media companies have also come under fire for how they’ve handled children’s data.
In 2019, Google and YouTube agreed to pay a $170 million fine to settle allegations that the popular video site had illegally collected personal information on children without their parents’ consent.
And last fall, dozens of U.S. states sued Meta Platforms Inc., which owns Facebook and Instagram, for harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by knowingly and deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. A lawsuit filed by 33 states claims that Meta routinely collects data on children under 13 without their parents’ consent, in violation of COPPA. Nine attorneys general are also filing lawsuits in their respective states, bringing the total number of states taking action to 41 plus Washington, D.C.
This story was originally published by the Associated Press.
The never-ending legal battle between Journey members Jonathan Cain and Neal Schon erupted again this week, with Cain filing a new lawsuit against Schon over claims that his “exorbitant” spending is threatening to cripple the band’s touring operations.
In a complaint made public in Delaware court on Tuesday (July 30), Cain claimed that Schon’s alleged spending — including unilaterally chartering private jets and charging personal expenses to their shared American Express card — has led to a “deadlock” that must be resolved.
“The deadlock between the company’s directors is now interfering with the company’s ability to take even the most basic actions and is causing significant disruptions in the smooth operation of the company,” Cain’s lawyers write, adding that the problems “pose a severe threat of harm to the company and to Journey’s storied history of musical greatness.”
Trending on Billboard
Legal battles are nothing new for Schon and Cain, the two key remaining members of an iconic rock band that’s still printing money decades after its “Don’t Stop Believin’” heyday.
Back in 2022, Schon sued Cain over allegations that his bandmate had unfairly blocked his access to the Amex account, “interfering” with the band’s activities and delaying payments to crew members and vendors. A few months later, Cain sued him back — claiming he had placed those restrictions on the Amex to stop Schon from “misusing” the company card, including spending $400,000 in a single month.
The new case, filed in Delaware’s Chancery Court, largely rehashes those same disagreements over spending — like Cain claiming that Schon has “spent up to $10,000 per night for hotel rooms for him and his wife” during their most recent tour.
But in technical terms, the new case focuses narrowly on the governance of Freedom 2020 Inc., a Delaware-based corporate entity they created to operate Journey’s touring. Since Cain and Schon each control exactly 50% of the company, the lawsuit says the two have reached an impasse that has spilled into other aspects of the band’s operations, like managing their staffers.
“Petitioner and respondent are deadlocked with regard to issues concerning the hiring and firing of company employees and Band crew members,” Cain’s lawyers write in the lawsuit. “It is common that one director will terminate an employee or crew member, and hours or days later, the other director will rehire that same individual.”
The lawsuit claims the strife between Cain and Schon has also led to other problems, including disagreements about whether to accept an advance from AEG for their most recent tour, the purchase of cancellation insurance and other problems.
“The deadlock between petitioner and respondent has created a toxic internal environment,” Cain’s lawyers write. “Rather than focusing on the band’s performances during a major international tour, the band’s [members and crew] now find themselves caught in the middle of the directors’ disputes, afraid of performing their job responsibilities, and pressured to align with one director or another.”
As a solution, Cain is asking the court to appoint a neutral third director of the company, who will be able to “issue the tie-breaking vote” during disputes over key issues.
In a statement to Billboard, Cain’s attorney Sid Liebesman stressed that his client was not seeking damages and only wanted to to resolve the impasse: “It is expected that the third director will provide resolution to the issues between Jon and Neal,” Liebesman said. “It is Jon’s intent for Journey to continue providing great live music throughout the current tour.”
An attorney who has represented Schon in his previous litigation with Cain did not return a request for comment on Friday (Aug. 2).
Even before Schon and Cain came to blows, members of Journey had been sparring in court for years. Back in 2020, the two men teamed up to file a lawsuit against former drummer Steven Smith and former bassist Ross Valory over the band’s name. And in 2022, former lead singer Steve Perry took legal action to stop Schon and Cain from registering federal trademarks on the names of many of the band’s biggest hits.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Arturo Holmes / Getty
Former CNN host Don Lemon is suing Elon Musk and his social media platform X for a breach of contract after their content partnership deal was nixed by the tech mogul.
According to reports, the former CNN host Don Lemon has officially filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk, the owner of the social media platform X, formerly Twitter. The suit, filed in a San Francisco county court on Thursday (Aug. 1), alleges that Musk committed a breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, misappropriation of Lemon’s name and likeness, and fraud. It comes five months after his partnership deal with Musk to provide exclusive journalistic content was nixed when Musk backed out of the deal after an interview with Lemon in March via text message. Lemon is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages, claiming he wasn’t paid by Musk.
“This case is straightforward. X executives used Don to prop up their advertising sales pitch, then canceled their partnership and dragged Don’s name through the mud,” said Don Lemon’s attorney Carney R. Shergerian in a statement. The lawsuit alleges that Musk agreed to pay Lemon $1.5 million under the partnership, with $200,000 paid up-front and incentives including bonus payments for reaching performance thresholds and an option to renew the one-year deal twice with the same terms.
However, there was no signed agreement paperwork. In the filing, Lemon stated that he had reservations about entering into the partnership but “Musk represented to Lemon that he would have full authority and control over the work he produced even if disliked by Defendants, and that there would be no need for a formal written agreement or to ‘fill out paperwork.’” After the split, Lemon spoke out about the interview: “Throughout our conversation, I kept reiterating to him that although it was tense at times, I thought it was good for people to see and hear our exchange, and that they would learn from our conversation. … But apparently, free speech absolutism doesn’t apply when it comes to questions about him from people like me.”
Lemon also claims that Musk “tweeted negatively about Lemon repeatedly” after the deal’s cancellation to his more than 192 million followers on X. Musk said in a post in March that Lemon “is welcome to monetize on this platform, just like everyone else. What we aren’t going to do is guarantee minimum payments to him, as he was demanding, which would be going beyond everyone else!”
French Montana has reached a settlement to end a lawsuit claiming his 2022 song “Blue Chills” features an unlicensed sample, resolving allegations that he’d tentatively agreed to pay for the clip but never actually did so.
Skylar Gudasz’s 2020 song “Femme Fatale” can be heard playing throughout French’s track — and in a lawsuit filed last year, she claimed the rapper’s reps initially offered to pay her for the sample. But she said French (Karim Kharbouch) then dropped “Blue Chills” without ever actually signing that deal.
In court filings on Wednesday (July 31), attorneys for both sides asked a federal judge to dismiss the case. Each side will pay their own costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses, but any of terms of the agreement were not disclosed in court filings.
Trending on Billboard
Neither side immediately returned requests for comment.
Gudasz claimed in her August 2023 lawsuit she had first been contacted about French using “Femme Fatale” in May 2022 by Deborah Mannis-Gardner, a well-known industry executive who has been called the “queen” of sample clearance. Gudasz said she and her lawyer then negotiated a deal in which she would receive more than $7,000 in upfront fees, an .08% cut on master royalties, and a 50% share of the copyright for French’s new composition.
But a month later, she claims that French, without notice, released the song “prior to finalizing and signing a licensing agreement.” Gudasz says that her lawyer quickly alerted Mannis-Gardner about the problem.
“Oh jeez,” Mannis-Gardner allegedly wrote in a response email, saying she would reach out to French’s attorney about the issue. But Gudasz says the situation was never resolved, claiming Mannis-Gardner “continued to maintain there would be a final agreement, sent emails finalizing the licensing agreement and requested invoices from plaintiff, which plaintiff timely sent … and even sent plaintiff a congratulatory email.”
“Despite repeated promises from defendants …. no signed agreement, fees, royalties, licensing agreements or monies have ever been sent to plaintiff,” Gudasz’s lawyers wrote in the lawsuit.
Gudasz says the aborted negotiations prove that French “knowingly infringed” the earlier song because they show that he was aware that he needed a license but chose to proceed without one. She claims that French even posted comments to Instagram congratulating her and acknowledged her role in “Blue Chills” on an episode of Apple Music’s Rap Life Radio.
In addition to French Montana, the lawsuit also named producer Harry Fraud (real name Rory William Quigley) as a defendant, as well Sony Music Entertainment and several other companies involved in French’s song. Mannis-Gardner was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit and was not accused of any wrongdoing.
Wednesday’s settlement resolves the lawsuit’s allegations against all defendants.
The estate of the late rapper Juice WRLD is being sued by a music producer named Joshua Jaramillo, who claims he’s owed royalties from the late rapper’s 2021 collab with Suga of BTS.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday (July 31) in Los Angeles court, Jaramillo says he served as a producer on “Girl of My Dreams,” a 2021 hit that debuted at No. 29 on the Hot 100, and that he was promised a 5% ownership stake and an additional 1% producer royalty.
But “despite repeated requests by plaintiff,” Jaramillo says the estate has not paid him everything he’s owed.
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiff has performed all services under the contract. ‘Girl of My Dreams’ became a nationwide hit,” Jaramillo’s lawyers write. “Defendant has failed to pay plaintiff the full amount of agreed upon royalties.”
The lawsuit, which is short on details, also claims that the estate has refused to provide a legally-required accounting “to verify that all royalties were paid.”
A rep for the estate could not immediately be reached for comment.
Juice WRLD (Jarad Anthony Higgins), a pioneering voice in emo rap and SoundCloud rap, died of a drug overdose in December 2019 while onboard a private jet flying from Los Angeles to Chicago. Citing law enforcement sources, TMZ reported days later that the rapper swallowed a large number of pills to hide them from federal agents who were waiting for the plane to land.
Released as a promotional single for his posthumous 2021 album, Fighting Demons, “Girl of My Dreams” was a collaboration with South Korean rapper Suga and features lyrics in both English and Korean. Though the track spent just a week on the Billboard Hot 100, Fighting Demons was a bigger hit, spending 72 weeks on the Billboard 200 and peaking at No. 2.
The new case is the second time Juice’s estate has been sued over the past year. In October, an artist named PD Beats filed his own lawsuit claiming he’d served as one of the co-writers of the rapper’s 2021 track “Not Enough” but had not been paid his proper royalties.
That case, which also named “Not Enough” producer Dr. Luke (Lukasz Sebastian Gottwald) as a defendant, remains pending.
The 1975 and frontman Matty Healy are facing a lawsuit from the organizers of Malaysia’s Good Vibes Festival, according to a report by Variety, filed over accusations that Healy’s on-stage protest of the country’s anti-LGBTQ laws resulted in the festival being shut down.
In a case filed in the UK’s High Court, Future Sound Asia is demanding $2.4 million over the July 2023 incident in Kuala Lumpur, during which Healy gave a profanity-laden speech criticizing Malaysia’s anti-LGBTQ laws and then kissed bandmate Ross MacDonald.
Following the incident, local authorities revoked the festival’s license and canceled the final two nights of shows. As reported by Billboard last year, sources within Future Sound said that the incident left the festival in financial ruin and could limit future concerts in Malaysia for years.
Trending on Billboard
In its lawsuit, Future Sound claims that Healy and The 1975 breached their contract with the festival, which stipulated that they would abide by local guidelines. Those rules included kissing, swearing, smoking and drinking on stage, taking off clothes, and talking about politics or religion.
The case claims that local authorities initially refused to let The 1975 play at all, citing Healy’s drug problems. But Future Sound claims that the band appealed and promised that Healy would adhere to “all local guidelines and regulations” in order to secure approval.
A rep for the band did not immediately return a request for comment on the accusations.
Healy’s kiss and statements — he said, among other things, that it was “f—ing ridiculous to tell people what they can do with that and that” — were meant as a protest against Malaysia’s strict anti-LGBTQ+ laws, which make homosexuality a crime.
But local activists have since criticized him, calling it a “publicity stunt” by a Western rock star with a “white savior complex.” He also took light criticism from Julian Casablancas of The Strokes, who had been scheduled to play before the festival was canceled, who said that people “should be knowledgable and respectful toward the culture you’re not familiar with.”
Healy addressed those critiques in October, saying he was “pissed off” about the “liberal outrage against our band for remaining consistent with our pro-LGBTQ stage show.”
Chris Brown and several members of his entourage, along with Brown’s 11:11 Tour promoter Live Nation, are facing a lawsuit over an alleged assault that took place following Brown’s concert in Fort Worth, Texas, on Friday night.
Filed Monday (July 22) in Harris County district court by attorneys Tony Buzbee and Caroline Adams, the lawsuit claims that Brown and several accomplices “brutally and severely beat” four men — Larry Parker, Joseph Lewis, Charles Bush and Damarcus Powell — backstage at Dickies Arena in an unprovoked attack following the show.
“The violence included Brown and his entourage surrounding the Plaintiffs, throwing chairs at them, and repeatedly kicking, stomping, and beating them,” the complaint reads. “The unprovoked violence included multiple strikes to the Plaintiffs’ heads and chests, and ultimately involved stomping them while they were down. The brutal, violent assault participated in and directed by Brown, severely injured all Plaintiffs.”
Trending on Billboard
According to the complaint, the attack occurred after the four men were invited to the backstage VIP area following the show, where they allegedly waited 30 minutes for Brown to arrive. “Having grown tired of waiting,” the complaint reads, the men began making their way to the exit, at which point Bush says he approached Brown to shake his hand and congratulate him on the concert. After exchanging pleasantries, a member of Brown’s crew then allegedly shouted to Brown, “Man, you don’t remember you two were beefing?” The lawsuit claims that Brown then replied, “Oh yeah, we were…I don’t forget sh–” before instructing his entourage to “f—” Bush up.
At that point, the plaintiffs claim that Brown, along with “seven to ten members” of his crew, followed them into a hallway as they were attempting to leave and attacked them. “One of Brown’s entourage, known by the alias Sinko, ran to the left side of the crowd and punched Bush in the chest,” the complaint reads. “Simultaneously, another of Brown’s entourage, stage alias Hood Boss, picked up a chair and threw it at Bush’s head.”
The complaint says that Parker was also badly beaten after Brown allegedly instructed another member of his entourage, Markies Deandre Conway (a.k.a. Yella Beezy), and several others to “f—” him up. After fleeing into a stairwell, the lawsuit claims Parker became trapped by a locked door at the bottom of the stairs, where he was subsequently attacked by Brown and several other men.
“Upon instruction by Brown, Parker was then punched in the face and chest, kicked in the head for over ten minutes, and stomped on by Defendant Brown and his associates,” the complaint alleges. “Brown encouraged his companions to join in the assault simultaneously. Brown and his entourage then continued to beat Plaintiff Parker closed fisted for almost minutes, repeatedly stomping on Defendant Parker’s head, kicking his face and ribs, and causing severe bodily injury.”
Brown and his crew are also accused of punching Powell in the shoulder and punching Lewis in the shoulder and chest.
The complaint claims that all four men required medical treatment and that Parker was hospitalized and “will need to undergo extensive medical treatment for the damages he suffered in the attack, including head injuries.”
In addition to Brown, the lawsuit names three members of his entourage — Conway, Hood Boss (a.k.a. Omololu Omari Akinlolu) and Sinko Ceej — as defendants. As for Live Nation, the complaint alleges that the concert promoter continued working with Brown despite his history of “bad conduct and violent conduct.” According to the lawsuit, the company “shamelessly profits and promotes Brown’s The 11:11 Tour and brought Brown to Texas for financial gain. Live Nation failed to insure that the [participants] of the concert who may be around Brown, and his associates, were safe.”
The plaintiffs are asking for compensatory and punitive damages “in excess [of] $50 million,” along with actual damages for “pecuniary losses, pain and suffering, disfigurement, mental anguish, and past, present, and future medical expenses,” among other relief.
In making its case, the plaintiffs’ attorneys make note of several of the defendants’ criminal histories, alleging that Ceej was a member of “the blood gang” and spent “at least eight years in prison” and that Conway, “a former Crip gang member,” has been arrested multiple times for firearm possession and sexual assault.
The lawsuit additionally recounts Brown’s well-publicized brushes with the law, including the singer’s guilty plea for beating his then-girlfriend Rihanna in 2009, for which he was sentenced to five years’ probation and community service and forced to undergo domestic violence counseling. Brown has been arrested and/or sued multiple times for various instances of alleged physical and sexual assault, including by multiple women and his former manager, Michael Guirguis. In 2014, Brown pleaded guilty to simple assault for punching a man in the face the previous year.
Representatives for Brown, Live Nation and Conway did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment. Representatives for Akinlolu and Ceej could not be located for comment.
Attorneys for Priscilla Presley are suing four of her former business partners over allegations of elder abuse and fraud, accusing them of a “meticulously planned” scheme to drain Elvis Presley’s ex-wife of “every last penny she had.”
In a complaint filed Thursday (July 18) in Los Angeles court, lawyers for Presley, 79, accuse Brigitte Kruse, Kevin Fialko, Vahe Sislyan and Lynn Walker Wright of fraudulently convincing her to give them power over nearly every aspect of her life — and then abusing that control to steal her money.
“This action arises out of a meticulously planned and abhorrent scheme by the defendants in this action to prey on an older woman by gaining her trust, isolating her from the most important people in her life, and duping her into believing that they would take care of her (personally and financially), while their real goal was to drain her of every last penny she had,” writes high-profile attorney Martin Singer, who now represents Presley.
Trending on Billboard
Calling Kruse a “con-artist and pathological liar,” Singer says the defendants took more than $1 million from Presley and convinced her to sign a deal that would give them 80% of her future income.
“The fact that the plaintiff in this case is internationally recognized actress, author, and cultural icon … demonstrates both how effective the defendants’ plan was (and needed to be), and how anyone can be a victim of elder abuse and fraud,” Singer writes.
The new case comes eight months after Kruse’s company, Priscilla Presley Partners, filed its own lawsuit against Priscilla in Florida. That case claimed that Presley illegally turned her back on Kruse and Fialko after they had helped her “dig herself out of impending financial ruin,” including negotiating the deal that led to last year’s Priscilla biopic.
But in Thursday’s new lawsuit, Singer argues that the earlier case was merely a cover for Kruse and Fialko’s alleged misdeeds.
“When it became clear to the defendants that their scheme had been uncovered, they attempted to falsely portray themselves as the victims by filing a lawsuit against Presley in Florida in the name of several of the sham companies they established, alleging that Presley breached the fraudulently-induced operating agreements,” her legal team writes.
According to the complaint, Sislyan is Kruse’s husband and participated in the scheme; and Walker-Wright is an Orlando-area attorney who allegedly helped the others carry it out.
Singer and Priscilla’s other attorneys say that Kruse and the others “established a personal relationship” with her and then used it to “isolate her from her long-time business and financial advisors,” whom they argued were “deceitful or incompetent” and causing her to lose money. Once they had isolated her, the lawsuit says, Kruse and the others took steps to “fraudulently induce” Presley into signing over power of attorney, giving them control over her trusts and bank accounts, and signing deals with “sham” companies like Priscilla Presley Partners.
One of those deals, the lawsuit says, gave the defendants “an exclusive license to exploit and profit off of her name, image, and likeness, and to control and receive virtually all of her income from any of her professional ventures.”
“Dissatisfied with what existing resources they could siphon from her, the defendants’ plan involved usurping control over her ability to control her finances going forward and forcing her into a form of indentured servitude, where plaintiff was forced to work so that they could receive the lion’s share of any revenue that she was able to earn in the future,” Singer writes.
An attorney for Kruse and Priscilla Presley Partners did not immediately return a request for comment on the allegations. Walker-Wright also did not return a request for comment.