Lawsuits
Page: 3
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: MEGA / Getty
Ye’s lawyers stay busy. Kanye West is being sued by the photographer whose phone he evidently grabbed and hurled back in January.
TMZ reports that Nichol Lechmanik is suing West for assault, battery and negligence.
In January, Ye got into a heated confrontation with paparazzi as he was driving away from his daughter North West’s basketball game, along with his new wife Bianca Censori. Apparently, Ye noticed he was being followed and stopped to confront the photographers.
Lechmanik wasn’t even the first photographer Ye argued with, but soon enough his attention turned to her.
Reports TMZ:
According to one of the photogs, Nichol Lechmanik, Ye was angrily confronting a different paparazzo, going through the man’s pockets … and she claims she feared the rapper might have had a weapon on him.
In the lawsuit, obtained by TMZ, Lechmanik says she was terrified he would come after her next … and he did. Video shows Ye approaching her as she sat in the driver’s seat of her car, recording him with her phone and yelling, “You all ain’t gonna run up on me like that!”
Ye told her, “If I say stop, stop with your cameras.” Then he ripped her phone out of her hands and tossed it — she says it landed in oncoming traffic.
We are going to point out the whole scary Black man trope that’s being insinuated here, but Ye didn’t do himself any favors in that regard. And she thought Ye might have a weapon, really?
Regardless, the incident was caught on video, so expect a settlement. Although Ye was named a suspect in local law enforcement’s battery investigation—and despite a long history of beefing with photographers—he was never charged.
HipHopWired Radio
Our staff has picked their favorite stations, take a listen…
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Shareif Ziyadat / Getty
A bitter taste over failed promises over a tequila brand has led Diddy to file a lawsuit against his partner in the brand, Diageo.
According to reports, the entertainment mogul filed a lawsuit on Wednesday (May 31st) against the multinational spirits company, citing their neglect of the DeLeón tequila brand he co-owns with them. The lawsuit was filed by Combs Wines and Spirits in New York State Supreme Court against Diageo’s North American entity, with the expressed aim of compelling Diageo to comply with the joint-venture agreement both signed in 2013 and other written agreements crafted to resolve complaints.
Diddy, also known as Sean Combs, has also alleged that Diageo engaged in a pattern of racial discrimination when it came to the DeLeón brand, describing it as a “Black brand” and “urban”. He also accused Diageo of neglecting his brand while investing heavily into two other tequila brands including Casamigos, the brand backed by actor George Clooney which Diageo purchased for $1 billion in 2017. Don Julio is the other brand.
Other examples Combs presented in the documents of the lawsuit include confusion on the pricing of DeLeón bottles and his dismay at the decision by Diageo to not provide available agave to DeLeón during a shortage of the key tequila ingredient in 2020 and 2021. Another example cited was a bottle redesign that “was prone to bubbling, which made the product look cheap,” according to the filing.
According to retail data from last year, DeLeón’s availability on shelves in retail outlets is outpaced by a vast margin. It was estimated to have been found in 3.3% of retail outlets nationwide, while Casamigos and Don Julio were available at 34.4% and 36% of retail outlets nationwide, respectively.
“This is a business dispute, and we are saddened that Mr. Combs has chosen to recast this matter as anything other than that,” a spokeswoman for Diageo said to initial press inquiries. “Our steadfast commitment to diversity within our company and the communities we serve is something we take very seriously. We are disappointed our efforts to resolve this business dispute amicably have been ignored, and that Mr. Combs has chosen to damage a productive and valued partnership.”
Diddy recently launched his Diddy Direct platform, a portal whose aim is to help consumers and retailers locate his spirit brands.
Social media company TikTok Inc. filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to overturn Montana’s first-in-the-nation ban on the video sharing app, arguing the law is an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights and is based on “unfounded speculation” that the Chinese government could access users’ data. The lawsuit by TikTok itself follows one filed last week by five content […]
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Justin Sullivan / Getty
For more than a decade, tens of thousands of people have been involved in a legal battle against Johnson & Johnson, which has been accused of manufacturing and selling talcum powder products that cause cancer. On Tuesday, the company agreed to pay $8.9 billion to the plaintiffs bringing them a huge step closer to settling the years-long litigation drama.
But there’s still much that needs to be done before nearly 70,000 people start getting paid.
From the New York Times:
The proposed settlement would be paid out over 25 years through a subsidiary, which filed for bankruptcy to enable the $8.9 billion trust, Johnson & Johnson said in a court filing. If a bankruptcy court approves it, the agreement will resolve all current and future claims involving Johnson & Johnson products that contain talc, such as baby powder, the company said.
For the deal to become final, the court would first have to accept a new bankruptcy filing by the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, LTL Management, and the settlement itself; the company also needs to persuade enough claimants to support the settlement plan. Johnson & Johnson created LTL in 2021 in a maneuver to shield itself from the talc litigation, but an earlier bankruptcy filing by the unit was challenged by the plaintiffs and dismissed this year by a U.S. appeals court, which ruled that a bankruptcy wasn’t the right way to resolve the matter.
Despite the fact that dotting all of the “i”s and crossing all the “t”s to make this proposed settlement happen looks like it could end up being quite the uphill battle, lawyers for many of the plaintiffs, including family members of people who died of ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, described the proposal as a “significant victory for the tens of thousands of women suffering from gynecological cancers caused by J.&J.’s talc-based products.”
But not all of the claimants are on board with the agreement.
More from the Times:
Jason Itkin, whose law firm is handling 10,000 cases involving women claiming that talc-based powders made by Johnson & Johnson caused their ovarian cancer, said the settlement was “bad for victims” and would be blocked in court. Even if the company succeeds with its filing, Mr. Itkin said, it will have to persuade enough claimants to vote in favor of the settlement plan.
“Even though $8.9 billion sounds like a lot of money, when you spread it out it comes out to not very much at all for the people who suffered,” he said.
And to think, LTL’s initial bankruptcy filing had only set aside a paltry $2 billion for payouts to plaintiffs before the subsidiary ultimately agreed to add the other $6.9 billion to that figure.
It’s worth noting that Johnson & Johnson stated that its settlement proposal is not an admission of wrongdoing, and, in fact, the company denies all claims that the talc used in its products contained cancer-causing asbestos “are specious and lack scientific merit.”
“Resolving this matter through the proposed reorganization plan is both more equitable and more efficient, allows claimants to be compensated in a timely manner and enables the company to remain focused on our commitment to profoundly and positively impact health for humanity,” said Erik Haas, Johnson & Johnson’s worldwide vice president of litigation.
For the record, the company pledged in 2020 that it would discontinue its talc-based baby powder in the United States, and, this year, it said it would stop selling the product globally.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Prince Williams / ATLPics.Net
Offset is still not on good terms with his label. The Atlanta rapper and Quality Control are in a legal battle over his master recordings.
As spotted on TMZ the Migos band mate is trying his best to obtain ownership of his solo efforts. The celebrity gossip website is reporting that in 2013 he signed an agreement with the company to produce solo projects. Fast forward to 2015 to QC signing a distribution deal with Capital Records that in turn landed the Rap record label the rights to all of his solo works the Georgia native created from 2018 to 2023.
His lawyer Bryan Freedman claims things changed in 2021 when the MC and the label parted ways and eventually inked a new deal that gave the master recordings back to Offset. But Quality Control says that the new contract only applies to the music he has created since the move to Capital Records but not the records prior.
On Monday, April 3 he took to social media to preview a new “untitled song which seems to address his challenges with his recording home. “They can’t be too upset / I could of kept it to myself, they can’t be too upset / I done broke bread, cut checks, they can’t be too upset / I took that rope off my neck, they couldn’t be too upset / N****s still bite my style, they can’t be too upset / I done laid low for a while, they can’t be that upset / N****s lost all my respect, they can’t be that upset” he raps.
Quality Control has asked that the suit be dismissed.
Photo: Prince Williams
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Taylor Hill / Getty
Ye aka Kanye West and his brand Yeezy brand are being sued for nearly 300 racks by a former employee who claims she’s owed as much in severance pay after she was allegedly fired without cause in 2021.
According to court documents obtained by TMZ, the ex-Yeezy employee in question, Dora Szilagyi, claimed the Donda rapper and producer convinced her to quit her job at Addidas—which ended its partnership with Ye last October—so that she could come work for his brand as Yeezy’s “Director of Product Innovation.” She was hired in June 2021 but by December of that year, she was let go for no discernable reason, her lawsuit claims.
From TMZ:
Dora claims she was promised a $275,000 severance payment if she was fired without cause after September 1, 2021 — but she claims it was never paid to her when she was let go in mid-December 2021.
In the suit, Dora says she doesn’t believe Kanye or his company ever intended to follow through on the severance package, and only dangled it to lure her from Adidas.
If what Szilagyi claims is true, that’s a pretty deplorable way for Ye to mess with someone’s livelihood. It’s one thing for the “Jesus Walks” rapper to fumble his own bag by going full YeDolf and alienating brands through antisemitic and pro-Nazi remarks (which his ex-employees have even accused him of making). But now he’s out here getting folks to quit good jobs to come work for him just to be fired shortly after and denied severance? Again, if it’s true, the plaintiff should get all her coins.
Also, maaaaybe it’s time for people to consider the possibility that Ye is not the employer they want.
A Manhattan federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing Donald Glover of ripping off his chart-topping Childish Gambino hit “This Is America” from an earlier song, ruling that the two tracks are “entirely different.”
A rapper named Kidd Wes (real name Emelike Nwosuocha) sued in 2021, claiming Glover’s 2018 song was “practically identical” to his own 2016 called “Made In America.” But in a decision issued Friday (March 24), U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said they were anything but.
“A cursory comparison with the challenged composition reveals that the content of the choruses is entirely different and not substantially similar,” the judge wrote.
In reaching that conclusion, Judge Marrero briefly explained how Nwosuocha’s lyrics were a “short, simple, self-aggrandizing proclamation,” while Glover’s song was about “what America means and how it is perceived.”
“More could be said on the ways these songs differ, but no more airtime is needed to resolve this case,” the judge wrote.
Released in 2018, “This Is America” spent two weeks atop the Hot 100 and eventually won record of the year and song of the year at the 61st Annual Grammy Awards. It was accompanied by a critically acclaimed music video, directed by Hiro Murai, that touched on issues of race, mass shootings and police violence.
Nwosuocha sued in May 2021, claiming there were “unmissable” similarities between the song and his own “Made In America,” including the “flow” — the cadence, rhyming schemes, rhythm and other characteristics of hip hop lyrics.
“The distinctive flow employed in defendant Glover’s recorded performance of the infringing work’s chorus … is unmistakably substantially similar, if not practically identical, to the distinct and unique flow that was employed by Nwosuocha,” his lawyers wrote at the time.
But in Friday’s decision, Judge Marrero said the “flow” and other similar characteristics “lack sufficient originality” to be protected by copyrights. And “no reasonable jury” could find that the lyrics themselves were similar enough to constitute copyright infringement, the judge said.
The judge also ruled that the case failed for an even simpler reason: That Nwosuocha had failed to secure a federal copyright registration for the underlying composition to his song. “Accordingly, dismissal of Nwosuocha’s complaint is warranted.”
In a statement to Billboard, Nwosuocha’s attorneys Imran H. Ansari and La’Shawn N. Thomas said their client was “understandably disappointed” and considering appealing the ruling. “He stands by his music, creativity, and the independence of grassroots artists to create their own music, and receive credit where credit is due, without the fear of it being apportioned by another.”
An attorney for Glover did not immediately return a request for comment on the decision.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Jean Catuffe / Getty
Tiger Woods is once again in some messy relationship drama. The iconic golf pro is denying his ex-girlfriend’s claim that they had an oral agreement that she could stick around for years after he cut her off.
By now, you may have learned that their “break up” is the stuff of legend. The ex in question, Erica Herman, was allegedly and infamously instructed to get ready for a short vacation, only to be dropped off at an airport and told the relationship was kaput. Upon trying to return to the home they shared for the past five years, the locks had been changed.
Cold world.
Per current celebrity relationship standards, and despite a signed NDA, she is suing Tiger Woods for a cool $30 million and insists she is supposed to be allowed to stay another five years in the crib she was unceremoniously booted from.
However, Woods is insisting there was never any such agreement in place.
Reports TMZ:
Tiger’s lawyers are challenging Erica Herman, who claimed in her lawsuit Tiger promised to support her and let her live in his house for at least 5 more years in return for services (she did not specify) — this before he broke up with her a few months back.
According to legal docs, Tiger’s lawyers said (BTW the house is partly owned by a trust) … “During their relationship, Mr. Woods invited Ms. Herman to live with him as his guest in the Residence. Mr. Woods never negotiated an oral tenancy agreement with Ms. Herman. Nor was there ever a written tenancy agreement between Mr. Woods or the Trust, on the one hand, and Ms. Herman, on the other hand. Mr. Woods never transferred to Ms. Herman any ownership interest in or rights of possession to the Residence.”
That sounds like lawyer speak for “GTFOH.”
Tiger’s lawyers also assert that Herman’s story that she was driven to an airport was also a tall tale. They say that Tiger actually hooked her up with a stay at a luxury resort and enough cash to get her own place.
Herman is also claiming the NDA isn’t valid due to a sexual assault. That allegation is a separate case that Woods’ lawyers have yet to address.
Expect this to only get uglier.
TikTok is facing a slew of class action lawsuits alleging it tracks and harvests troves of personal information on users through its in-app browser.
In the most recent suit filed on Wednesday, users allege TikTok has “secretly amassed massive amounts of highly invasive information and data by tracking their activities on third-party websites.” At least a dozen class actions have been filed since November alleging violations of the federal wiretap act, among other claims.
TikTok remains under fire by the government due to concerns that data it collects on American users can be leveraged by the Chinese government to advance its interests. The company could, for example, be forced to tweak its algorithm to boost content that undermines U.S. democratic institutions or muffles criticism of China and its allies, according to lawmakers. A bipartisan bill backed by the White House was introduced on Tuesday that would establish a unified process for reviewing and addressing technology that could be subject to foreign influence. Under the measure, Chinese parent company ByteDance could be forced to sell TikTok or the platform could be completely banned, though that would face significant hurdles.
The first suit, known as Recht v. TikTok, was filed in November. It was based on a report from Felix Krause, a software researcher who found that the company injects lines of code that commands the platform to copy user activity on external websites. Of the seven popular apps he tested — including Instagram, Snapchat, Amazon — he found that only TikTok monitored keystrokes.
The named plaintiff in the complaint, California resident Austin Recht, says he clicked on an ad to a third-party website, where he bought merchandise after he entered private data that included his credit card information. Tiktok “surreptitiously collected data associated” with his activity on the third-party site accessed through the platform’s in-app browser, according to the complaint.
The class actions detail how TikTok intercepts and harvests data. The in-app browser inserts code into the websites visited by users with the purpose of tracking “every detail about [their] activity,” Recht claims.
“In the case of online purchase transactions, this would include all of the details of the purchase, the name of the purchaser, their address, telephone number, credit card or bank information, usernames, passwords, dates of birth,” reads the complaint filed in California federal court.
The data isn’t limited to purchase information and extends to private information about users’ health, the suit alleges. When users click on a link to Planned Parenthood on TikTok, for example, their activity on the site is tracked and harvested. This could identify users looking for abortion services or those looking for information about gender identity, according to the suit.
TikTok has faced legal action for illegally harvesting user data. In 2020, it was sued for alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, a state statute that prohibits private companies from collecting users biometric identifiers without first obtaining consent. It settled the litigation for $92 million.
In response to suits alleging violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, Tiktok has said that the purported class members are covered under the settlement for those who sued for violations of the Illinois privacy law because it “addressed all user data collected through the app.”
Though the plaintiffs in the suit don’t allege any injury, the Federal Wiretap Act doesn’t require proof of actual harm to recover monetary damages. The law prohibits the intentional interception of communications, which includes personal information.
Some of the suits also allege violations of state invasion of privacy and competition laws. A hearing has been set for March 30 on whether the litigation should be consolidated.
In California, TikTok could face massive damages if there’s a data leak. Under the California Consumer Privacy Act, companies that mishandle personal data face statutory damages ranging from $100 to $750 for each consumer per incident.
TikTok didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
This article originally appeared on THR.com.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Michael Owens / Getty
Brett Favre is adding more credentials to his personal “This guy is thee absolute worst,” allegedly, file. The former NFL quarterback is suing Shannon Sharpe and others for their commentary on the allegations that he intercepted funds that should have gone to welfare recipients.
Buy now you may have heard about Favre allegedly finessed funds intended for the poor and used them instead to build a new volleyball gym for his daughter’s college team at the University of Southern Mississippi, his alma mater.
Reports TMZ:
Favre filed the lawsuits earlier this week in Mississippi — naming state auditor Shad White as a defendant in one of the suits as well.
The Green Bay Packers legend claims in the suits all three defamed him when talking about his alleged role in a welfare funds scandal in Mississippi.
Favre said McAfee made some of the remarks on his podcast, alleging the former NFL punter said the ex-QB was “stealing from poor people in Mississippi.”
The Hall of Famer claimed Sharpe muttered defamatory comments on his FS1 show — when he said Sharpe called Favre a “sorry mofo to steal from the lowest of the low.”
As for White, Favre says the Mississippi official has “shamelessly and falsely” attacked him for months “in a brazen attempt to leverage the media attention generated by Favre’s celebrity to further his own political career.”
In the Mississippi welfare fraud scandal, Favre is accused of pocketing millions, which he is adamantly denying. There is no word on exactly how much Favre is seeking in damages.