Legal
iHeartRadio is facing a class-action lawsuit from subscribers after disclosing that several of its radio stations were hacked months ago, exposing Social Security numbers, financial information and other personal details.
The lawsuit came a week after the radio giant warned customers in regulatory filings last week that “an unauthorized actor viewed and obtained files” at a “small number of our local stations” in December, potentially stealing SSNs, dates of birth, and credit card info.
iHeart said it “immediately implemented our response protocols” to contain the hack, and is offering free credit monitoring to those affected. The company also said it had “strengthened its existing security measures” to “help prevent something like this from happening again.”
Trending on Billboard
Those assurances were not enough for Cheryl Shields, a subscriber who filed a proposed class action against iHeart on Wednesday in New York federal court, seeking to represent customers nationwide whose data was compromised. In doing so, her attorneys blasted iHeart for waiting four months to warn subscribers that their data was at risk.
“As a result of this delayed response, plaintiff and class members had no idea for four months that their private information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm,” Shield’s lawyers write. “The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes.”
The data exposed in the iHeart breach “represents a gold mine for data thieves,” the lawyers write, and there has been “no assurance offered by iHeart that all personal data or copies of data have been recovered or destroyed.”
A spokesperson for iHeart did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday.
Such lawsuits are common following data breaches. After the credit-reporting company Equifax suffered a 2017 data breach that exposed the personal data of nearly 150 million Americans, the company agreed to pay $425 million to resolve nationwide class-action litigation filed by consumers.
The scale of the iHeart data breach is undoubtedly far smaller. The company did not disclose in regulatory filings how many total victims were involved nationwide, though a notification filed in Maine said only three subscribers in that state had been impacted. Disclosure forms were also filed in California and Massachusetts, as first reported The Record.
In technical legal terms, Wednesday’s lawsuit accused iHeart of negligence, arguing that the company had a legal duty to safeguard consumer’s data.
“As a national media and audio provider in possession of millions of customers’ private information, iHeart knew, or should have known, the importance of safeguarding the
Private Information entrusted to it by Plaintiff and Class Members and of the foreseeable consequences they would suffer if iHeart’s data security systems were breached,” Shields’ lawyers write. “Nevertheless, iHeart failed to take adequate cybersecurity measures to prevent the data breach.”
Smokey Robinson has denied shocking new claims of sexual assault, saying through his attorney that the “vile, false allegations” are merely “an ugly method of trying to extract money from an 85-year-old American icon.”
In a statement Wednesday (May 7), lawyer Christopher Frost says he will “fiercely defend” both Smokey Robinson and his wife, Frances, against the $50 million lawsuit claiming the R&B legend raped four different housekeepers over the course of nearly two decades.
“As this case progresses, the evidence (the crucial element that guides us) will show that this is simply an ugly method of trying to extract money from an 85-year-old American icon — $50 million dollars, to be exact,” writes Frost.
Trending on Billboard
Frost says he plans to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and address “numerous aspects of the complaint that defy credulity as well as issues relating to purported timelines, inconsistencies and relationships between the plaintiffs and others.”
The lawyers who brought the case did not immediately return a request for comment Wednesday.
The statement comes one day after Smokey and Frances Robinson were sued in Los Angeles state court by four of their former housekeepers. The employees, suing anonymously, say Smokey Robinson forced them to have oral and vaginal sex in his bedroom dozens of times between 2007 and 2024.
The housekeepers claim Frances shares blame because she did nothing to stop the alleged abuse, despite knowing that her husband had a history of sexual misconduct and that he’d previously struck settlements with assault victims.
The lawsuit also says the Robinsons paid their employees below minimum wage, and that Frances Robinson created a hostile work environment replete with screaming and “racially-charged epithets.”
The settlements cited in Tuesday’s lawsuit have not been previously reported, and there’s no apparent record of prior sexual assault lawsuits against Smokey Robinson. This means that, if legitimate, the deals were likely struck confidentially and outside of court.
But the legendary R&B singer and recording executive is no stranger to the courtroom. In 2023, Robinson testified at a federal jury trial over claims that he stiffed a former manager out of nearly $1 million.
The jurors largely sided with Robinson, finding that former manager Eric Podwall was not entitled to touring profits under his contract. Podwall won just $2,000 for an unpaid record advance after the more than six-year-long legal battle with Robinson.
Days after federal prosecutors dropped Lil Durk’s rap lyrics from his murder-for-hire case, his lawyers say the new “watered-down” charges support his push to be released from jail ahead of trial.
In a court filing Tuesday (May 6), attorneys for the Chicago drill star (Durk Banks) argue that last week’s superseding indictment — which removed not just Durk’s lyrics but also allegations that he ordered a “bounty” payment — has dramatically weakened the case against him.
By removing those elements of the case, Durk’s lawyers say the feds have “effectively conceded” that they presented “false and/or misleading information” in court — both to get the rapper charged in the first place, and to persuade the judge to deny bail.
“With the issues of the lyrics and the payout of a ‘bounty’ altogether abandoned, what remains of the indictment is a weak patchwork of unsupported and non-specific allegations against Mr. Banks,” writes defense attorney Drew Findling. “This watered-down new indictment, coupled with the robust bond package proposed here, tips the balance in favor of Mr. Banks’ release pending trial.”
Durk was arrested in October on murder-for-hire and gun charges over allegations that he ordered members of his Only the Family (OTF) crew to carry out a 2022 attack on rival rapper Quando Rondo that left another man dead.
To back up that claim, the indictment cited lyrics from a song called “Wonderful Wayne & Jackie Boy” in which Durk allegedly referenced the shooting: “Told me they got an addy (go, go)/ Got location (go, go)/ Green light (go, go, go, go, go),” Durk raps in the track. “Look on the news and see your son/You screamin’, ‘No, no’ (pu–y).”
But Durk’s lawyers sharply pushed back, arguing that “Wonderful Wayne” could not have referenced the Rondo shooting for a simple reason: That the rapper wrote and recorded those verses “seven months before the incident even happened.” Though prosecutors defended the inclusion of the lyrics, an updated version of the indictment released Thursday (May 1) removed them entirely.
In Tuesday’s new court filing, Findling says the lyrics were a “hotly contested” issue at a December hearing in which the judge denied to release him on bail. Now that they’ve been removed entirely, he says the judge must reconsider whether Durk can be released.
“The government absolutely intended that section to illustrate direct involvement in the alleged murder-for-hire and more importantly, the knowledge of Mr. Banks of the alleged offense through some sort of musical confession,” Findling says. “The government has now been proven wrong and has removed the reference, substantially depreciating the weight of the allegations.”
The removal of the bounty claim presents an “even greater” blow to the government’s case, Durk’s lawyers say, and should also help persuade the judge that bail can now be granted: “With the payment of the ‘bounty’ allegation withdrawn from the indictment, the foundation for this court’s conclusions has been materially undercut.”
In previous court filings, prosecutors denied that the removal of elements from the new indictment had weakened or substantially altered the case against Durk: “Just like every iteration of the indictment before it, the [new indictment] contains significant allegations that show defendant’s alleged role in the execution-style murder of [the victim] on a busy street corner in Los Angeles.”
The judge will decide whether to reconsider Durk’s bail in the weeks ahead, potentially holding a court hearing next month. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not immediately return a request for comment Wednesday (May 7).
Smokey Robinson and his wife have been hit with an explosive new lawsuit that seeks $50 million in damages over claims that the legendary Motown singer repeatedly raped four housekeepers over nearly two decades.
In the suit, filed on Tuesday (May 6) in Los Angeles County Superior Court, four anonymous women say William “Smokey” Robinson Jr. had a habit of forcing housekeepers to have sex with him in the bedroom of his residence, located in the Chatsworth neighborhood of Los Angeles, between 2007 and 2024.
“Plaintiffs did not consent to defendant Smokey Robinson’s sexual contact or touching,” wrote John W. Harris, an attorney representing the four housekeepers. “Plaintiffs explicitly told defendant Robinson on numerous occasions that they were not interested in his advances and objected to his forceful, physical, sexual and harmful conduct.”
The four women — called Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 in the lawsuit — claim Robinson followed a consistent pattern of assault over the years. The complaint alleges that the 85-year-old R&B singer and record executive would regularly get housekeepers alone in his blue bedroom wearing only his underwear, put a towel down on the bed, and force them to have oral and vaginal sex without a condom.
Jane Doe 1 says Robinson assaulted her in this manner at least seven times while she worked for him between 2023 and 2024. Jane Doe 2 claims she was raped at least 23 times in Robinson’s bedroom, as well as in the house’s laundry room and garage, during her employment with him between 2014 and 2020.
Jane Doe 3, who says she worked as Robinson’s housekeeper from 2012 to 2024, alleges she was assaulted at least 20 times. Jane Doe 4 does not specify how many times she was allegedly raped but says Robinson “would often create a situation” to get her alone and abuse her between 2007 and 2024.
Each of the four women claim they did not report Robinson’s conduct to law enforcement “due to her fear of losing her livelihood, familial reprisal, public embarrassment, shame and humiliation to her and her family, the possible adverse effect on her immigration status, as well as being threatened and intimidated by defendant Smokey Robinson’s well-recognized celebrity status and his influential friends and associates.”
The housekeepers say Robinson’s wife, Frances, shares the blame for these assaults. According to the plaintiffs, Frances Robinson did nothing to protect them, even though she knew her husband had a history of sexual misconduct and that he’d previously struck settlements with alleged assault victims.
The women say Frances also created a hostile work environment by “regularly screaming” and using racial slurs, and that they were paid below minimum wage and did not receive overtime or legally-mandated work breaks.
“Despite having full knowledge of defendant Smokey Robinson’s conduct, defendant Frances Robinson would further perpetuate hostilities towards plaintiffs instead of preventing further harassment and assaults,” writes the housekeepers’ lawyer. “Instead, defendant Frances Robinson, throughout plaintiffs’ employment, berated plaintiffs with derogatory, racially-charged epithets, assign[ed] additional arduous tasks, and forbid plaintiffs from exercising their rights to meals and rest periods.”
The lawsuit brings a total of 16 claims, including sexual battery, assault, false imprisonment, gender violence and negligence. The four housekeepers are seeking at least $50 million in damages from Smokey and Frances for economic, emotional and physical harm.
Representatives for Smokey Robinson did not immediately return requests for comment on Tuesday.
Jury selection began at Diddy’s sex trafficking and racketeering trial on Monday (May 4), and some celebrities like Kid Cudi and actor Michael B. Jordan were mentioned during the selection process. Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest videos, charts and news According to CNN, the Sinners actor won’t be called to testify […]
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Prosecutors delete Lil Durk’s lyrics from his murder-for-hire case, jury selection begins in Diddy’s sex-trafficking trial, Led Zeppelin’s Jimmy Page is sued over a decades-old credits dispute and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Rap On Trial — Or Not?
When federal prosecutors indicted Lil Durk on murder-for-hire charges last year, they quoted from one of his songs, claiming the lyrics were a direct reference to the alleged shooting and evidence of his guilt.
That was a controversial choice. The use of rap music as evidence in criminal cases has drawn pushback in recent years, as critics argue it threatens free speech and can sway juries by tapping into racial biases. Some states have moved to restrict the practice, but many have not — and there are no such rules in federal prosecutions.
Trending on Billboard
In Durk’s case, his lawyers strongly objected to the use of his music, arguing the song in question was written and recorded months before the shooting even took place. They called the lyric allegations “false evidence” that had been unfairly used to indict him and to deny him pre-trial release. In a public statement, Durk’s family said he had been the latest rapper to be “criminalized for their creativity.”
Prosecutors initially defended the move, arguing that Durk had “repeatedly used his pulpit as a voice of violence.” But in an updated version of the indictment released last week, they backed down — removing all reference to his lyrics and instead focusing on other allegations tying him to the shooting.
The case against Durk will continue — in a separate filing, the feds stressed that the new indictment still contains “significant allegations that show defendant’s alleged role in the execution-style murder” — but it will do so without his lyrics.
Other top stories this week…
DIDDY TRIAL, EXPLAINED – Jury selection is officially underway in the sex trafficking trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, ahead of opening statements next week. To get you up to speed before the trial gets underway, I put together an exhaustive explainer on everything you need to know about the Diddy trial — from the exact charges he’s facing, to key players in the courtroom, to the Cassie Ventura tape and much more.
AIN’T OVER YET – A federal appeals court revived a lawsuit claiming Sam Smith and Normani stole key elements of their 2019 hit “Dancing With a Stranger” from an earlier track, ruling that a judge prematurely dismissed the case and should have sent it to a jury. That’s a worrying ruling for any artist hit with a song-theft lawsuit; if such disputes must be litigated all the way to trial to be decided, they become dramatically more expensive.
WHOLE LOTTA LITIGATION – Led Zeppelin‘s Jimmy Page was hit with a new lawsuit over the credits to “Dazed and Confused,” reviving a decades-old dispute over the iconic track. Jake Holmes has claimed for years that he actually wrote the song, and he reached a legal settlement with Page back in 2012 to resolve those allegations. But in the new case, Holmes says Page is effectively ignoring the settlement and has released archival recordings that infringe Holmes’ copyrights.
SCENT SETTLEMENT – Revlon and Elizabeth Arden have fully settled a corporate espionage lawsuit, filed last year, that claimed several former employees “sabotaged” the companies’ decades-old fragrance partnership with Britney Spears and took the business to an upstart rival called Give Back Beauty. The settlements clear the way for Give Back Beauty to formally take over Britney’s lucrative perfume brand, which reportedly earns tens of millions per year.
JAY V. BUZBEE GOES ON – Jay-Z filed an unusual new allegation in his legal war with attorney Tony Buzbee, accusing the lawyer of ordering employees at his law firm to edit Wikipedia pages in an effort to damage the rapper’s reputation. The new claim was the latest salvo in a bitter fight that started when Buzbee filed a shocking lawsuit accusing Jay-Z of raping an unnamed girl decades ago.
Jay-Z has filed an unusual new allegation in his legal war with attorney Tony Buzbee, accusing the lawyer of ordering employees at his law firm to edit Wikipedia pages in an effort to damage the rapper’s reputation.
The new claim is the latest salvo in a bitter fight that started when Buzbee filed a shocking lawsuit accusing Jay-Z of raping an unnamed girl decades ago. Jay-Z vehemently denied the allegation, which has since been voluntarily dropped, and has blasted Buzbee for allegedly trying to extort him.
In an updated version of an earlier case against Buzbee and his client filed Monday (May 5), Jay-Z is adding an eyebrow-raising new claim: That the lawyer made sneaky edits to Wikipedia as part of his alleged plot to harm the rapper.
“In violation of Wikipedia’s rules, Buzbee directed his employees to edit Wikipedia pages to enhance Buzbee’s image and damage Mr. Carter’s and Roc Nation’s reputations,” Jay-Z’s attorneys write in the amended complaint. “Users with an IP address directly linked to the Buzbee Firm made over 100 positive edits to Buzbee’s Wikipedia page.”
The lawsuit does not elaborate on what exact edits were allegedly made to Wikipedia. Reps for Jay-Z did not immediately return a request for comment.
In a statement to Billboard on Tuesday, Buzbee strongly denied the new allegation and the rest of Jay-Z’s claims: “Most of the pleading is nonsensical. All of it is meritless.”
The case against Jay-Z, filed in December, claimed that he and Sean “Diddy” Combs drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl at an after-party following the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards. Jay-Z forcefully denied the allegations, calling them a “blackmail attempt.” After just two months of heated litigation, Doe dropped her case without a settlement payment.
Weeks after the case was dropped, Jay-Z sued both Doe and Buzbee, accusing her of defamation and accusing both of malicious prosecution and other wrongdoing. The lawsuit called it an “evil conspiracy” against the rapper: “The extortion and abuse of Mr. Carter by Doe and her lawyers must stop.”
Buzbee and his client have denied the lawsuit’s allegations and moved to dismiss the case — arguing, among other things, that she cannot be sued for defamation over allegations made as part of a lawsuit.
Beyond the Wikipedia claims, Monday’s new complaint makes several other notable changes to the earlier lawsuit.
The new version of the case now also targets Antigone Curis, a New York attorney who served as co-counsel in the original rape lawsuit against Jay-Z. Naming Curis as a co-defendant, Jay-Z alleges that Buzbee “used Curis” because he himself was not admitted to practice law in Manhattan federal court — an issue that has since come to light in several of Buzbee’s cases against Combs in New York.
“It is clear that Curis joined the conspiracy to extort Mr. Carter, which was hatched in Alabama, and quickly became an integral part of the scheme by using her admission to the [Southern District of New York], weaponizing the civil justice system,” Jay-Z’s attorneys write in the new case.
The lawsuit also includes new claims about the alleged harm caused to Jay-Z by the rape accusation. It says Roc Nation lost contracts in the sports and entertainment space that would have generated at least $20 million; that Jay was personally denied a $55 million personal credit line; and that a company he’s associated with was denied a $115 million loan.
“At trial, plaintiff will present evidence demonstrating how the extortionate scheme, and the false complaint filed in New York, resulted in the loss of business opportunities to Mr. Carter [and] have served to preclude him from new business opportunities,” his attorneys write, before later adding: “Buzbee, Doe, and their co-conspirators must answer for all of this.”
A$AP Rocky has opened up about his gun assault trial for the first time, calling the experience “gut-wrenching and nerve-wracking.” In a new interview with Variety published on Tuesday (May 6), Rocky talked about what it was like sitting in the courtroom for his gun assault trial in February — he was accused by former […]
Revlon has fully settled a corporate espionage lawsuit that claimed several former employees “sabotaged” the company’s decades-old fragrance partnership with Britney Spears.
The case, filed last year by Revlon and its Elizabeth Arden unit, accused four ex-staffers of stealing trade secrets and breaching their contracts by taking the Britney account to upstart rival Give Back Beauty – a move the lawsuit described as a “heist.”
But over the past few months, Revlon has quietly struck deals to resolve those claims – first with Give Back Beauty and one of the execs in February, then last week with three more ex-staffers. On Monday, the judge signed off on the latter deal and ruled that the “matter be closed.”
Trending on Billboard
The settlements have cleared the way for Give Back Beauty to formally take over Britney’s lucrative perfume brand. In a February press release, the smaller company announced that it had “signed a transition agreement” with Revlon to clear the use of the intellectual property and end the legal dispute.
“My fragrance business has always held a special place in my heart,” Spears said at the time. “It’s always been a way for me to connect with my fans, who I love. I’m excited for this new chapter and bringing more beauty into the world with Give Back Beauty.”
A rep for Revlon did not immediately return a request for comment on the resolution of the litigation.
Spears first inked a deal with Elizabeth Arden in 2004, launching her “Curious” scent later that year to a reported $100 million in sales. By 2013, that brand had reportedly sold more than 500 million bottles and the overall Spears-Arden partnership was earning $30 million a year. But last year Spears declined to renew the deal and instead signed with Give Back Beauty, an Italian firm founded in 2017.
Faced with the loss of a valuable partnership, Revlon went the legal route – claiming that Britney had not simply walked away, but had been illegally poached by Give Back Beauty. The lawsuit claimed four Arden staffers (Vanessa Kidd, Dominick Romeo, Reid Mulvihill and Ashley Fass) had secretly helped orchestrate the star’s departure, including one who allegedly “acted as a double-agent” – working directly with Give Back Beauty while ostensibly negotiating with Britney’s team to renew her Revlon deal.
“Revlon and Elizabeth Arden were completely unaware that Revlon’s own team was actively sabotaging one of their most valuable licensing relationships,” the company’s lawyers claimed at the time. Spears herself was not named in the lawsuit nor accused of any wrongdoing.
Give Back Beauty and the former execs strongly denied the allegations, arguing in a later legal response that Revlon had gone to court with a “false narrative” of espionage and corporate raiding simply because it was angry that it had been beaten by a competitor.
“Revlon’s motion is … an anticompetitive ruse to damage a competitor because Revlon, weakened in the market by its recent bankruptcy, cannot compete fairly with GBB, and seeks to frustrate GBB’s transition of Britney Brands, at the same time, sending a warning about future competition from an international rival that poses a growing threat to Revlon’s market share,” the smaller company’s lawyers wrote at the time.
But by February, despite the strongly-word legal broadsides, Give Back Beauty and Revlon had apparently struck a deal to end their dispute. Beyond allowing Give Back to take over the IP for the brand, the terms of the deal have not been disclosed in court filings.
“Give Back Beauty will bring Britney’s fragrance and beauty business to another level,” Corrado Brondi, the company’s founder, wrote at the time. “We are looking forward to building on that legacy, introducing innovations to her product lines and expanding the brand into new markets globally, while ensuring that the spirit and authenticity of her brand remain intact.”
The February settlements covered Give Back itself and Ashley Fass; the settlement approved Monday covered Kidd, Romeo, Mulvihill. Reps for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment.
More than a decade after Led Zeppelin‘s Jimmy Page settled a lawsuit over the disputed songwriting credits to “Dazed and Confused,” he’s facing a new case accusing him of flouting that earlier agreement. Jake Holmes has claimed for years that he actually wrote “Dazed and Confused” and that Page simply performed it without credit or […]