Legal News
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 […]
Federal prosecutors have unveiled a new indictment against Lil Durk in his murder-for-hire case — only this time, they’ve dropped all reference to lyrics that the star’s lawyers had claimed were being unfairly weaponized against him.
The new “superseding” indictment, released Friday (May 2), came six months after prosecutors first charged the Chicago drill star (Durk Banks) with murder-for-hire, accusing him of ordering members of his Only the Family (OTF) crew to carry out a 2022 attack on rival rapper Quando Rondo that left another man dead.
Though it added a new charge of stalking, Friday’s new indictment is most notable for what it removed: Any mention of Durk’s lyrics. Last month, his lawyers argued that the cited song was clearly unrelated to the shooting and had been unfairly used against him; in a social media post Wednesday (April 30), Durk’s family said he was the latest rapper to be “criminalized for their creativity.”
Trending on Billboard
In separate court filings on Friday, prosecutors acknowledged removing Durk’s lyrics from the new indictment, but said the move would not weaken the case against him.
“Defendant Banks has presented a false narrative that he is being prosecuted and detained because of his violent lyrics. This claim is, and has always been, baseless,” prosecutors write. “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.”
Durk’s attorney, Drew Findling, filed his own response to the new indictment in court Friday, arguing that “it appears that the government has conceded” the “hotly contested” dispute over the lyrics. He also noted that prosecutors had deleted another passage from the indictment that directly accused one of Durk’s co-defendants of paying a bounty at Durk’s direction.
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles declined to comment on the new indictment. Findling did not immediately return a request for comment.
Durk was arrested in October on murder-for-hire and gun charges related to the September 2022 shooting at a Los Angeles gas station, which left Rondo (Tyquian Bowman) unscathed but saw his friend Lul Pab (Saviay’a Robinson) killed in the crossfire.
In court filings, prosecutors have argued that Durk’s OTF crew was not merely a well-publicized group of Chicago rappers, but a “hybrid organization” that also functioned as a criminal gang to carry out violent acts at his behest. One of them was the Rondo attack, the feds say, allegedly carried out in retaliation for the 2020 killing of rapper King Von (Dayvon Bennett), a close friend of Durk’s.
To back up that claim, prosecutors quoted lyrics from a song called “Wonderful Wayne & Jackie Boy” that allegedly referenced the shooting. They claimed Durk “sought to commercialize” Lul Pub’s death by “rapping about his revenge” on Rondo: “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).”
The use of rap music as evidence in criminal cases is controversial, as critics argue it threatens free speech and can sway juries by tapping into racial biases. Over the past few years, the practice has drawn backlash from the music industry and led to efforts by lawmakers to stop it. But it has continued largely unabated, most notably in the recent criminal case against Young Thug in Atlanta.
Last month, Durk’s lawyers sharply pushed back — arguing that “Wonderful Wayne” could not have referenced the Rondo shooting because the rapper wrote and recorded his verses “seven months before the incident even happened.” Mockingly asking if the government was prosecuting Durk “on a theory of extra-sensory prescience,” the star’s lawyers called the lyric allegations “false evidence” that had been unfairly used to indict him and to deny him pre-trial release.
Ahead of Friday’s new indictment that dropped the lyrics, prosecutors had strongly defended their use of Durk’s music. In a court filing earlier this week, the feds said he was not being prosecuted “because of his lyrics,” but suggested they might still be cited as evidence in the case.
“Defendant has repeatedly used his pulpit as a voice of violence, publicly rapped about paying for murders, hunting opponents with machineguns, ‘bounty hunters’ in Beverly Hills — and other lyrics that have a striking similarity to the modus operandi used to kill S.R.,” the government wrote. “It’s true that words have power, and that defendant’s words about ‘green lighting’ violence and placing bounties may be admissions of criminal conduct. That is for a jury to decide.”
Sean “Diddy” Combs is about to go on trial over accusations of sexual abuse. But what exactly are the charges he’s facing? Is Cassie Ventura testifying against him? And what in the world are “freak offs”? Before the trial starts, let’s get you up to speed.
The once-all-powerful hip-hop mogul was arrested in September, charged by federal prosecutors with running a large-scale criminal operation aimed at his own “sexual gratification.” For decades, the feds say, Diddy “abused, threatened and coerced women” into giving him what he wanted, including participating in drug-fueled sex parties.
Combs, who has denied all of the allegations, will finally head to trial next week to face a jury of his peers. Before he does, here are answers to all your Diddy trial questions.
What are the charges against Diddy?
Prosecutors have built much of the case against Diddy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the “RICO” law used against mobsters and drug cartels. RICO, which allows the feds to target an entire illicit organization over many individual crimes, was designed to target organized crime, where bosses often insulate themselves from actual illegal acts.
In Diddy’s case, prosecutors say the star served as his own kind of crime boss, exploiting the “employees, resources and the influence of his multi-faceted business empire” to carry out a decades-long campaign of sexual abuse. That operation included numerous sexual and physical assaults, the feds say, but also forced labor, kidnapping, arson, bribery, witness tampering, drug crimes and more.
Separately, Diddy is also charged with violating a federal sex trafficking statute, which makes it illegal to use force, fraud, or coercion to compel someone to engage in commercial sex acts. He’s also accused of violating the Mann Act, an older statute that made it illegal to transport people across state lines for the purposes of prostitution.
What’s a “freak off”?
At the very center of the case against Diddy are allegations about so-called “freak offs” — drug-fueled orgies in which victims were allegedly coerced into having sex with male sex workers while Combs looked on.
Prosecutors say these “elaborate and produced sex performances,” which Combs “masturbated during,” were a regular occurrence and “sometimes lasted multiple days.” The rapper and his associates allegedly plied victims with illegal drugs, which prosecutors say was designed in part to “keep the victims obedient and compliant.”
According to charging documents, freak offs were “often electronically recorded,” sometimes without the knowledge of those being filmed — and the footage was then later used as a form of “collateral” to keep victims from speaking out.
The events were so complex that they required substantial logistical efforts by Diddy’s associates to pull off, the feds say — including booking hotel rooms, arranging travel, delivering large sums of cash to pay sex workers, cleaning up to “mitigate room damage,” and providing supplies. Among those supplies were “more than 1000 bottles of baby oil” — a headline-grabbing allegation when it was included in September’s initial indictment.
Who are the alleged victims?
Diddy has been hit with civil lawsuits by dozens of alleged victims, but the criminal charges against him formally center on just four people, identified in court documents as Victim-1, Victim-2, Victim-3 and Victim-4.
While technically still anonymous in filings, Victim-1 is strongly believed to be Cassie Ventura, Combs’ longtime girlfriend whose civil rape lawsuit in November 2023 helped to spark the rapper’s downfall. Prosecutors have said Victim-1 will testify in the courtroom under her real name, setting the stage for a potentially blockbuster moment at the trial.
The identities of the other three victims remain unknown, and prosecutors have sought to keep it that way. In a motion last month, they cited recent cases against R. Kelly, Ghislaine Maxwell and others in which judges allowed alleged victims to remain anonymous to avoid “harassment from the media and others” amid a case that has received an “exceptional amount of media coverage.”
At a hearing last week, the judge ruled that the three other victims could testify without revealing their names.
Who are the key players in the courtroom?
Diddy’s trial will be overseen by U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a relatively new federal judge nominated by President Joe Biden in 2022 after a long stint as a litigator at a prestigious New York law firm. Subramanian, confirmed to the post in March 2023, has an understandably short track record so far — though he is also currently handling the Justice Department’s high-profile antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster.
Diddy’s lead attorney is Marc Agnifilo, a veteran defense attorney with an extensive background in handling the kind of complex, high-profile charges that Combs now faces. After prosecuting RICO cases against mobsters in New Jersey, Agnifilo worked for years under legendary New York criminal lawyer Ben Brafman, where he represented Martin Shkreli, the so-called “Pharma Bro” convicted of securities fraud in 2017, and Keith Raniere, the leader of the upstate New York sex cult NXIVM.
Combs is also represented by Teny Geragos, another Brafman alum (and daughter of celebrity attorney Mark Geragos) who joined Agnifilo when he left to start his own firm last year; and Alexandra Shapiro, a well-known appellate law specialist. Brian Steel, a veteran Atlanta defense attorney who rose to fame last year by winning Young Thug’s release from jail on gang charges, joined the team at the last minute last month.
On the prosecution side, the charges against Combs were filed last year by Damian Williams, the top federal prosecutor for Manhattan, who is known for bringing cases against cryptocurrency entrepreneur Sam Bankman-Fried, former U.S. senator Bob Menendez and New York Mayor Eric Adams. Following November’s election, President Donald Trump has since appointed Jay Clayton, a longtime partner at the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, to fill that post.
Unlike the case against Adams — which was controversially dropped in early April — there has been no indication that Trump or Clayton plan to back away from Combs. The same attorneys under Williams (Meredith Foster, Emily A. Johnson, Christy Slavik, Madison Reddick Smyser and Mitzi Steiner) are all still on board, and the district attorney’s office has since added Maurene Comey — one of the lead prosecutors in the sex trafficking case against Ghislaine Maxwell, a top accomplice of Jeffrey Epstein.
Go read Billboard’s full story on all the lawyers involved in the Diddy litigation.
When does the trial start and how long will it take?
The proceedings will kick off on Monday (May 5) with jury selection. Jurors will be pre-screened with a questionnaire about their backgrounds and beliefs; Combs’ lawyers said in earlier filings that they want to ask their opinions of “people with multiple sexual partners.” After a broader pool is established, the two sides will spar in court over how to pick 12 jurors who can impartially decide the case.
Once a jury is selected, the trial will really get under way on May 12, first with opening statements by both sides, then with witness testimony. The trial is widely expected to last at least eight weeks, though that’s only an estimate. Back in 2021, the trial of R. Kelly — another major musical artist facing RICO charges over allegations of sexual abuse — took six weeks to complete.
How will the prosecution make its case?
If R. Kelly’s trial is any guide, prosecutors are likely to offer jurors mountains of evidence and hours of witness testimony aimed at painting a vivid picture: of an all-powerful man abusing his role at the top of an organization to coerce women into sexual activity against their will.
That will likely include not just the alleged sexual assaults, but all that happened before and after them, including threats, isolation, financial dependence and blackmail. “These are the tools of coercive control,” Nadia Shihata, one of the prosecutors in the Kelly case, told Billboard last year. “In the R. Kelly case, we called it the ‘Predator’s Playbook’.”
In court documents filed early in the case, the feds said they had interviewed more than 50 witnesses during their investigation, “many of whom saw or experienced the defendant’s abuse.” They also said they had pulled evidence from over 120 cellphones, laptops and other electronic devices.
One explosive piece of evidence that jurors will definitely see is the infamous 2016 surveillance video of him assaulting his former girlfriend Cassie Ventura in the hallway of a Los Angeles hotel. Though he initially apologized, Diddy’s lawyers have fought hard to keep it out of the trial, arguing the clip would “unfairly confuse and mislead the jury.” But prosecutors called that a “desperate” attempt to avoid “crushing” evidence, and Subramanian ruled last week that it could be played at the trial.
How will Diddy’s lawyers defend him?
Since the earliest days of the case, Diddy’s lawyers have signaled that they plan to build their narrative around the idea of consent — that the star’s sexual encounters with the alleged victims, while perhaps weird and unseemly, were ultimately still consensual.
At a bail hearing days after Combs was arrested, Agnifilo hinted at that argument, telling the judge that the star and then-girlfriend Cassie had brought sex workers into their relationship because “that was the way these two adults chose to be intimate.” And at a hearing just days ago, Agnifilo suggested that Diddy was a “swinger.”“There’s a lifestyle called swingers, call it whatever you will, that he was in, that he might have thought was appropriate,” Agnifilo said, according to Reuters. “Part of the reason people think it’s appropriate is because it’s common.”
What happens if Diddy is found guilty?
Short answer: Lots of prison.
If Combs is convicted on the racketeering charge or either of the sex trafficking charges, he’s facing a potential life prison sentence; the trafficking charges alone have a mandatory minimum of 15 years, which would leave Diddy in federal prison until he was 70 years old. The Mann Act charges carry lesser penalties, with a maximum of 10 years in prison.
Recent RICO cases against alleged sex abusers don’t offer a rosy outlook for Diddy. In the R. Kelly case, the singer was sentenced to 31 years; Raniere, the NXIVM cult leader convicted of turning vulnerable women into sexual “slaves,” was sentenced to 120 years.
Even if acquitted on all charges — and court watchers aren’t optimistic — Combs is still facing a rough future. His reputation will be difficult to repair, and much of his once-formidable business empire is already crumbling. He’s also facing dozens of civil lawsuits, where he could still be held liable for monetary damages even if he’s cleared on the criminal charges.
A federal appeals court has 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 the case was tossed out too soon and should have been decided by a jury trial.
The decision, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, reversed a 2023 ruling by a lower judge that had dismissed the case – a copyright lawsuit claiming Smith and Normani ripped off a little-known earlier song called “Dancing with Strangers.”
At the time, the trial judge said the two songs were simply not similar enough to constitute copyright infringement. But in a ruling Tuesday, the appeals court said a jury of their peers might have decided the case differently if they’d been given the chance.
Trending on Billboard
A “reasonable jury” could potentially decide that the hooks of the two tracks share the same combination of musical elements “in substantial amounts,” the appeals court wrote, including lyrics, “metric placement” and the same “melodic contour.”
Though the two songs also have key differences, the appeals court said a trial judge cannot simply pick a winner if there are conflicting reports from musical experts: “Under that approach, expert testimony would not be required at all.”
The ruling is a loss for Smith and Normani, but is also a worrying decision for any artist hit with a song-theft copyright lawsuit. If such cases must be litigated all the way to trial to be decided, they become dramatically more expensive for defendants, and give accusers more leverage to secure settlements from artists wary of protracted litigation.
Released in 2019, “Dancing with a Stranger” peaked at No. 7 on the Hot 100 chart, making it one of Smith’s biggest hits and Normani’s peak spot on the chart. The song, released on Smith’s third studio album Love Goes, ultimately spent 45 weeks on the chart.
In March 2022, the two artists were sued over the track by songwriters Jordan Vincent, Christopher Miranda and Rosco Banlaoi, who claimed that the 2019 hit song was “strikingly similar” to their own “Dancing” — and that it was “beyond any real doubt” that their song had been copied.
A year later, the case was dismissed by Judge Wesley L. Hsu, who ruled that the two songs were not “substantially similar” – the legal threshold for proving copyright infringement. He granted Smith and Normani summary judgment, meaning he ended the case without a trial because he believed a jury could not validly side with the plaintiffs.
But in Tuesday’s decision, the Ninth Circuit overturned that ruling, saying that so long as there is “sufficient disagreement” among the musicologists retained by each side, then case “must be submitted” to a jury.
The ruling will send the case back to Judge Hsu for more litigation, including a potential jury trial.
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: Mariah Carey wants payback after winning a lawsuit over “All I Want for Christmas is You”; Diddy’s trial judge says jurors can see an infamous surveillance video; 50 Cent sues to stop the release of a movie he stars in; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Mariah’s Christmas Revenge
To paraphrase a legendary line from HBO’s The Wire: “If you come at the queen, you best not miss.”
Trending on Billboard
A month after the Queen of Christmas defeated a copyright lawsuit over her holiday classic “All I Want for Christmas is You,” Mariah Carey and other defendants in the case are now seeking legal revenge – demanding that the songwriter who filed the action repay the legal bills they spent defending it.
Vince Vance claimed that “All I Want” ripped off his own earlier song of the same name, but a federal judge tossed the case out last month, citing experts who said the songs shared mostly just “commonplace Christmas song clichés.” The judge even said that some of Vance’s filings were so “frivolous” that he’d need to reimburse Carey and others the money the spent beating them.
In a motion earlier this month, Carey and others argued that Vance and his lawyers must hand over a whopping $180,000 to pay for those baseless filings. They said they had been “perfectly justified” in paying high rates to teams of elite lawyers because Vance had been seeking drastic remedies, including $20 million in damages and the “destruction of all copies” of the song.
Vance’s attorneys responded last week, arguing that Carey’s demand was “simply not reasonable” and that his lawsuit, while unsuccessful, had been a legitimate use of the court system. Saying the award should not exceed $70,000 at the very most, they warned that the full fine could bankrupt an “elderly man” who does not have “vast resources.”
“The plaintiff is elder and living off his music catalog and some touring,” the songwriter’s attorneys wrote. “One artist should not push another artist to the brink of a financial collapse.”
Will the judge aim to deter future bad copyright cases by punishing Vance? Or be swayed by his pleas for mercy? Stay tuned at Billboard in the months ahead to find out.
Other top stories this week…
DIDDY TRIAL LOOMS – With jury selection set to begin next week, a federal judge issued a key pre-trial ruling that an infamous 2016 surveillance video of Sean “Diddy” Combs assaulting his former girlfriend Cassie Ventura in the hallway of a Los Angeles hotel can be played for jurors at his sex trafficking trial. Diddy’s attorneys had argued the clip has been deceptively edited and would “unfairly confuse and mislead the jury”; prosecutors blasted that argument as a “desperate” attempt by Combs to avoid “crushing” evidence of his crimes.
JAY-Z LIBEL SUIT – The star’s unnamed rape accuser and her attorney Tony Buzbee asked a federal judge to dismiss the rapper’s defamation lawsuit against them, arguing they cannot be sued over claims they made as part of a court case. They cited the “fair report privilege” – a legal doctrine that largely immunizes legal proceedings from libel liability. And they said that a headline-grabbing NBC News interview, in which she echoed her claims about Jay-Z, was protected under the same legal logic.
MOVIE BATTLE – 50 Cent filed a lawsuit aimed at blocking the release of an upcoming horror movie called SkillHouse in which he plays the starring role, claiming he never signed a final agreement and had not been paid. The rapper (Curtis Jackson) says he filmed his scenes because he trusted that a deal would eventually be reached, but it never was: “Nevertheless, defendants have billed Jackson as the star and producer of the film [and] have shamelessly and deceptively marketed the film as a ’50 Cent Movie’ and ‘produced by 50 Cent,’ when it is nothing of the sort.”
SHADY SETTLEMENT – Eminem’s publisher reached a settlement to end a copyright lawsuit it filed against a Ford dealership near his hometown of Detroit – a case that claimed the company used the rapper’s “Lose Yourself” in TikTok videos that warned viewers they would “only get one shot” to buy a special edition truck. Eminem doesn’t own Eight Mile Style and was not involved in the lawsuit.
COOKIE INFRINGEMENT – Warner Music Group filed a copyright lawsuit against cookie chain Crumbl, claiming the Utah-based company used more than 159 songs by artists such as Lizzo, Mariah Carey, Ariana Grande and Beyoncé in TikTok and Instagram videos without permission. The case against Crumbl is the latest in a rash of lawsuits accusing commercial brands of using easily-available music in social media ads without the necessary synch licenses – cases that have targeted Marriott, NBA teams, Chili’s, and the University of Southern California.
Prosecutors are firing back at efforts by Sean “Diddy” Combs to bar an infamous 2016 surveillance video from his upcoming sex trafficking trial, calling it a “desperate” attempt to avoid “crushing” evidence.
With his trial looming next month, Diddy’s attorneys argued last week that the clip — showing him assaulting his former girlfriend Cassie Ventura in the hallway of a Los Angeles hotel — has been deceptively edited and would “unfairly confuse and mislead the jury.”
But in a response filing Friday, prosecutors say those arguments are “overblown” and are merely a pretext to prevent jurors from seeing “some of the most damning evidence of his sex trafficking.”
“The defendant has been overwhelmingly concerned with the existence of the video surveillance since the assault occurred and has taken great measures to ensure it was not released,” prosecutors write. “Now facing trial, the defendant attempts to keep this devastating proof from the jury. His grasping arguments to preclude this crushing evidence should be quickly dismissed.”
Combs was indicted in September, charged with running a sprawling criminal operation that aimed to “fulfill his sexual desires.” The case centers on elaborate “freak off” parties in which Combs and others would allegedly ply victims with drugs and then coerce them into having sex, as well as on alleged acts of violence to keep victims silent.
Jury selection is currently set to start on May 5, with opening statements scheduled for May 12. If convicted on all of the charges, which include sex trafficking and racketeering, Combs faces a potential life prison sentence.
The Cassie video, which aired on CNN in May, showed him attacking her at the Intercontinental Hotel in March 2016. The clip drew far more public attention to the accusations against the star — who was then only facing civil lawsuits — and prompted an apology from Combs shortly after it aired.
“My behavior on that video is inexcusable,” Combs said at the time. “I take full responsibility for my actions in that video. I was disgusted then when I did it. I’m disgusted now. I went and I sought out professional help. I got into going to therapy, going to rehab. I had to ask God for his mercy and grace. I’m so sorry.”
In the lead up to the trial, Combs’ lawyers have repeatedly targeted the Cassie tape, accusing prosecutors of unfairly leaking it and alleging that CNN had unfairly edited it. Last week, they formally moved to ban it from the trial, calling it “inaccurate” and “unreliable” because of edits that were “specifically designed to inflame the passions” of viewers.
But in Friday’s response, the feds said those issues were quibbles that could easily be fixed at trial, not valid reasons to withhold the tape from jurors entirely. They pointed out that Combs himself had apologized over the clip and had not disputed its content; and they said that any problems with finding the original footage were caused by Diddy’s own efforts to destroy it.
“It is by the defendant’s own hand that the original version of this damning footage no longer exists: it was deleted and given to the defendant as part of a cover-up orchestrated by the defendant and his co-conspirators,” prosecutors write. “The Court must not reward the defendant for his actions by precluding the video that remains available despite the defendant’s obstructive efforts.”
50 Cent has filed a lawsuit aimed at blocking the release of an upcoming horror movie in which he plays the starring role, claiming he never signed a final agreement and has not been paid.
In a complaint filed Friday against producer Ryan Kavanaugh and others, the rapper (Curtis Jackson) says he filmed the entirety of SkillHouse because he trusted that he would eventually reach a deal covering his compensation for the movie.
“That trust was misplaced. No final agreement was ever signed,” 50’s lawyers write. “Nevertheless, defendants have billed Jackson as the star and producer of the film [and] have shamelessly and deceptively marketed the film as a ‘50 Cent Movie’ and ‘produced by 50 Cent,’ when it is nothing of the sort.”
Trending on Billboard
Despite being listed as a producer, 50 says he was given “no creative input into the film” – an arrangement he says he “never would have agreed to” because it might harm his “carefully curated and award-winning reputation as a film and television producer.” Adding “insult to injury,” the rapper’s attorneys say the producers “have not paid Jackson a dime” to date.
“Despite plaintiffs’ repeated objections and demands to cease and desist, defendants continue to infringe and misappropriate plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights and intend to release the film in the coming weeks (if not days),” 50’s attorneys write. “Should the film be released publicly, Jackson faces irreparable harm to his valuable brand and reputation.”
The lawsuit isn’t unexpected. Last week, the rapper warned on Instagram: “They can’t release this MOVIE SKILL HOUSE without my signature which they do not have. What kinda business are they doing? I’d hate to have to demonstrate.” In another post, he later added: “This guy Ryan Kavanaugh is doing everything in his power to make me kill this movie. This one is going in the trash can.”
In Thursday’s complaint, 50 says he only draft term sheets were exchanged, and that he believed a full contract would eventually be negotiated and signed. In order to “avoid unnecessary delay and based on a mistaken good-faith belief in Kavanaugh’s promises and reputation,” he says he filmed his scenes without that final paperwork signed.
Without such a deal, his lawyers say that releasing the movie would violate his intellectual property rights, including his trademarks and his likeness rights. And they say the producers are already infringing those rights by using his name and image to promote the movie and Kavanaugh’s GenTV streaming service.
“Defendants have made Jackson the centerpiece of their promotional and marketing efforts for the Film,” the star’s lawyers write. “Despite having raised concerns months ago, Jackson’s name, image, and trademarks still feature prominently across the GenTV platform.”
Kavanaugh did not immediately return a request for comment on Friday.
Warner Music Group has filed a lawsuit against Crumbl, the Utah-based cookie company, for copyright infringement. The lawsuit, filed on April 22 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, accuses Crumbl of using WMG’s copyrighted sound recordings and musical compositions in its social media marketing campaigns without proper licenses.
Crumbl has built its brand primarily through social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram, often featuring popular music tracks in its promotional content. WMG claims that Crumbl has misappropriated at least 159 sound recordings and musical compositions in its videos. These tracks, which include works by artists such as Lizzo, Mariah Carey, Ariana Grande and Beyoncé, are said to be key to Crumbl’s marketing strategy. Many of these videos rely heavily on music, with little to no dialogue, highlighting the central role of the unlicensed tracks in Crumbl’s advertising efforts.
WMG’s complaint provides several examples of this alleged misappropriation. For instance, Crumbl’s TikTok video promoting its blueberry cheesecake features the unauthorized use of “Blueberry Faygo” by Lil Mosey, the label said. Another video promoting Crumbl’s yellow sugar cookie, while also advertising the film Minions: The Rise of Gru, uses Coldplay’s “Yellow” without permission. A video promoting a butter cake cookie features — you guessed it — BTS’ “Butter.” Additionally, there’s a video featuring Crumbl employees dancing to K CAMP’s “Lottery (Renegade),” and Crumbl even referenced music used in some videos, such as a TikTok post featuring Lizzo’s “Juice,” with the caption repeating the song’s lyrics.
Trending on Billboard
Other songs that WMG contends were infringed upon by Crumbl include Beyoncé’s “Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It),” Bruno Mars’ “Locked Out of Heaven,” Dua Lipa’s “Levitating,” George Michael’s “Careless Whisper,” Gwen Stefani’s “Holdback Girl,” Gotye’s “Somebody That I Used to Know,” Taylor Swift’s “All Too Well,” Miley Cyrus’ “Party in the U.S.A.,” Missy Elliott’s “Get Ur Freak On,” Mariah Carey’s “Fantasy” and dozens more.
WMG asserts that Crumbl’s actions constitute direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. The plaintiffs argue that Crumbl, which has over a thousand stores nationwide and is reportedly exploring a sale, according to Reuters, should have been aware of the need to secure licenses for the music used in its promotional materials. Despite this, Crumbl allegedly persisted in using WMG’s music without authorization, even after similar cases, including separate lawsuits against Bang Energy by Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment, brought attention to the overarching issue.
The lawsuit seeks a jury trial and a permanent injunction to prevent Crumbl from any further infringement. The company is also pursuing statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each infringed work, potentially totaling nearly $24 million if the court awards the maximum penalty for all 159 cited works.
This legal action underscores the music industry’s ongoing efforts to protect intellectual property rights in the digital age, particularly as brands increasingly leverage popular music in social media marketing. The outcome of this case could have broader implications for how companies approach the use of copyrighted music in online promotions.
WMG is being represented by Sidley Austin LLP and Workman Nydegger.
Crumbl has not responded to Billboard‘s request for comment on WMG’s lawsuit.
A songwriter who unsuccessfully sued Mariah Carey over “All I Want for Christmas is You” is pleading with a judge to reject demands that he repay her six-figure legal bill, warning it would push an “elderly man” to “the brink of a financial collapse.”
After beating Vince Vance’s copyright lawsuit over her holiday classic, Carey, Sony Music and other defendants told the judge earlier this month that they had paid nearly $186,000 to a team of lawyers to defeat “frivolous” motions advanced by Vance’s attorneys.
But in a response filing on Monday, Vance’s lawyers said that such a award was “simply not reasonable” and completely out of proportion for the amount of litigation at issue – and that it could bankrupt an an “elderly man now without vast resources.”
Trending on Billboard
“The plaintiff is elder and living off his music catalog and some touring,” the songwriter’s attorneys say. “One artist should not push another artist to the brink of a financial collapse.”
Vance (real name Andy Stone) first sued Carey in 2022, claiming “All I Want” infringed the copyrights to a 1989 song of the exact same name by his Vince Vance and the Valiants. He said his track had received “extensive airplay” during the 1993 holiday season — a year before Carey released her now-better-known hit.
The case was a big deal because Carey’s song is big business. The 1994 hit, which became even more popular after it appeared in the 2003 holiday rom-com Love Actually, has re-taken the top spot on the Hot 100 for six straight years and earned a whopping $8.5 million in revenue in 2022.
But in a ruling last month, Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani said Vance had failed to show that the songs were similar enough to violate copyright law. She cited analysis by a musicologist who said the two tracks were “very different songs” that shared only “commonplace Christmas song clichés” that had been used in many earlier tracks.
The judge not only tossed out Vance’s case, but also ruled that he and his lawyers should be punished for advancing meritless arguments that the judge said were aimed to “cause unnecessary delay and needlessly increase the costs of litigation.”
Earlier this month, Carey and the other defendants told the judge they had paid a combined $185,602.30 for a total of 295 hours to defeat those motions. They said they spent a lot because Vance was demanding “drastic” thing, like $20 million in damages and the “destruction” of all copies of Carey’s song.
Carey, repped by Peter Anderson and others from the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, asked for about $141,000; Walter Afanasieff, a co-writer on Carey’s track repped by Kenneth D. Freundlich, asked for $7,000; Sony Music, represented by Benjamin Akley, Donald Zakarin, Ilene Farkas and others from Pryor Cashman, asked for $32,000; and Kobalt, repped by Bert Deixler and others from Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP, asked for $5,000.
But in Tuesday’s response, Vance’s lawyer (Gerard P. Fox) said those demands were far too high for a case that he said had been filed with good intentions and sound legal reasoning.
“He heard something that to him seemed substantially similar and spent money that is sparse for him on two of the top musicologists in the country and asked them for their independent opinions, and they both gave him the same opinion: there was infringement,” Fox writes.
“The loss of this case … is staggering enough for this plaintiff and saddling him with $185,000 of big law firm billing that is unreasonable and forcing him to sell parts of his catalogue of music will accomplish nothing,” the lawyer writes.
Jay-Z’s rape accuser wants a federal judge to dismiss his defamation lawsuit against her, arguing she cannot be sued over allegations she made in court – and that a headline-grabbing NBC News interview is protected under the same legal logic.
In a court motion filed Tuesday, attorneys for the Jane Doe accuser and her attorney, Tony Buzbee, argued that her shocking accusations against the rapper were covered by the “fair report privilege” – a legal doctrine that largely bars defamation cases over allegations made during legal proceedings.
Jay-Z’s lawsuit – filed in March after Doe dropped her case against him – claims that she also defamed him by making similar allegations during an interview with NBC News. But in her new motion, she says those statements are also covered by the “fair report” protections.
Trending on Billboard
“The average person watching the report, and indeed anyone watching the report, would certainly understand that the statements refer to allegations in the lawsuit,” her lawyers write.
The case against Jay-Z, filed in December, claimed that he and Sean “Diddy” Combs had 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 for defamation, malicious prosecution and other wrongdoing, claiming they had carried out an “evil conspiracy” to extort a settlement from him by making the “false and malicious” rape allegations.
“Mr. Carter does not commence this action lightly,” his lawyers wrote in the lawsuit, filed in Alabama federal court. “But the extortion and abuse of Mr. Carter by Doe and her lawyers must stop.”
In Tuesday’s motion to dismiss that case, attorneys for Doe and Buzbee argued that they cannot be sued because they had made such statements in court. And they said the “fair report” privilege also clearly applies to the NBC interview, even if Doe gave statements that weren’t exactly the same as the claims she had raised in court.
“It is immaterial that the NBC News piece does not preface every statement with a reference to Doe’s amended complaint,” her lawyers write. “Doe’s statements in the NBC News piece are substantially the same as the allegations of her underlying amended complaint, even if they are not identical.”
Attorneys for Doe and Buzbee also argued that the other claims in Jay-Z’s case are similarly faulty, saying he has not “come close” to showing that he can sue for malicious prosecution. A representative for Jay-Z did not immediately return a request for comment.
The Alabama lawsuit is part of a sprawling legal battle between Jay-Z and Buzbee in the wake of the rape allegation. A separate case in California, in which Jay-Z is suing the lawyer for extortion and defamation, is awaiting an early-stage ruling by a judge. Buzbee has also filed his own cases against both Jay-Z’s Roc Nation and his longtime law firm, Quinn Emanuel, alleging they have harassed his clients and committed other wrongdoing.