State Champ Radio Legal News
Lawyers for Sean “Diddy” Combs pushed back against a woman’s lawsuit that accused him of sexual assault, filing a motion on Friday (April 26) to dismiss some claims that were not under law when the alleged incident occurred.
The motion filed in a New York court claims Combs cannot be sued because certain laws didn’t exist when Joi Dickerson-Deal made the allegations against him in 1991.
The music mogul’s lawyers want certain statues from Dickerson-Deal’s claims such as revenge porn and human trafficking to be dismissed with prejudice.
In a filing last year, she said Combs “intentionally drugged” her then brought her home and sexually assaulted her after a date in Harlem when she was a 19-year-old college student.
Trending on Billboard
Without her knowledge, Combs videotaped the assault and later shared it with several friends in the music industry, the suit alleges. He denied the allegations, accusing her of seeking to exploit the New York law that temporarily extended the statute of limitations.
Dickerson-Deal’s claim came nearly three decades after his alleged misconduct and the New York State Revenge Porn Law was not codified until 2019, Combs’ lawyers said.
His attorneys also pointed out a few others including the New York Services for Victims of Human Trafficking Law, which came into effect in 2007.
The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they have been sexually abused unless they come forward publicly, as Dickerson has done.
Last month, Combs’ properties in Los Angeles and Miami were raided by federal authorities in a sex trafficking investigation. The criminal investigation is a major escalation in the scrutiny of Combs, who has been the defendant in several recent sexual abuse lawsuits.
In a lawsuit Combs settled the day after it was filed in November, his former protege and girlfriend, the R&B singer Cassie, sued him alleging years of sexual abuse, including rape. The lawsuit said he forced her to have sex with male prostitutes while he filmed them.
In February, a music producer filed a lawsuit alleging Combs coerced him to solicit prostitutes and pressured him to have sex with them.
Another of Combs’ accusers was a woman who said he raped her two decades ago when she was 17.
Combs and his attorneys have denied all of the allegations in the lawsuits.
Britney Spears has settled an outstanding legal dispute with her father that arose following the termination of the pop star’s 13-year conservatorship in 2021, Billboard has confirmed. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“It has been our honor and privilege to represent, protect, and defend Britney Spears,” said Spears’ attorney, Mathew Rosengart, in a statement sent to Billboard. “Although the conservatorship was terminated in November, 2021, her wish for freedom is now truly complete. As she desired, her freedom now includes that she will no longer need to attend or be involved with court or entangled with legal proceedings in this matter.”
A legal scuffle ensued in the wake of the conservatorship’s dissolution in November 2021, when Rosengart vowed to investigate alleged misconduct by Spears’ father, Jamie Spears, during the years he served as his daughter’s conservator — including claims that he took millions from her estate, tried to control her with drugs and denied her the freedom to remove a birth control device.
Trending on Billboard
Conflict also arose over Jamie’s request in December 2021 that Britney’s estate continue paying his legal fees, arguing that the conservatorship’s termination did not end his ongoing “fiduciary obligations” and that he could face “personal bankruptcy and ruin” if his request was turned down. Rosengart responded by calling the request “not only legally meritless, but an abomination.”
Britney was placed in a conservatorship controlled by her father in 2008 following a string of public breakdowns. The legal arrangement came under scrutiny beginning in 2019, when a pair of documentaries and a movement dubbed #FreeBritney launched by the superstar’s fans went viral, ultimately leading Britney to speak out on her own behalf in public court testimony.
Attorneys for Jamie Spears did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s request for comment.
You can read Rosengart’s full statement below.
It has been our honor and privilege to represent, protect, and defend Britney Spears.
Although the conservatorship was terminated in November, 2021, her wish for freedom is now truly complete. As she desired, her freedom now includes that she will no longer need to attend or be involved with court or entangled with legal proceedings in this matter.
Britney Spears won when the court suspended her father, and Britney Spears won when her fundamental rights and civil liberties were restored.
Since obtaining her freedom in late 2021, Britney Spears has achieved remarkable success on several fronts, including her August, 2022 collaboration with Sir Elton John on the smash hit Hold Me Closer (which debuted at number one on the Billboard Hot Dance/Electronic Songs chart and became her 24th top-ten single), followed by her landmark book deal with Simon & Schuster for her memoir The Woman in Me, an immediate NY Times #1 bestseller, which received universal, breathtaking praise and would not have been possible during the conservatorship.
We repeat our gratification for being in a position to help restore the civil rights and liberties of Britney Spears and the honor and privilege it has been to serve and protect Ms. Spears and obtain her goals in resolving various legal matters pursuant to her thoughtful and wise instruction and requests, which once again are to her credit.
Victims of the Astroworld music festival want their looming trial against Travis Scott, Live Nation and other organizers to be livestreamed to the public, citing a public demand for “transparency and accountability.”
After more than two years of litigation over the 2021 crowd crush at the Astroworld — a disaster that left 10 dead and hundreds injured — the first jury trial is set to kick off early next month. It will be a pivotal first test for hundreds of other lawsuits filed by alleged victims that claim the organizers were legally negligent in how they planned and operated the festival.
In a motion on Thursday (April 25), lawyers for the plaintiffs in the upcoming trial argued that it should be broadcast live on the internet, saying such a step was needed to “ensure that all those affected by the Astroworld tragedy can observe the proceedings and stay informed of the trial’s progress.”
Trending on Billboard
“The devastating scale of the events at Astroworld, combined with the involvement of high-profile defendants, has generated significant national attention and a legitimate public demand for transparency and accountability,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers write. “By livestreaming the trial, the Court will demonstrate its commitment to open and accessible proceedings, fostering public trust and confidence in the judicial system’s handling of this consequential matter.”
A ruling opening up her courtroom to cameras would be a major shift for the judge overseeing the Astroworld litigation. Back in 2022, citing the risk that potential jurors might become biased, Judge Kristen Hawkins imposed an unusually strong gag order that has severely limited public knowledge about the status of the case.
Media outlets like ABC challenged Judge Hawkins’ gag order, arguing that it was depriving the public of information about important judicial proceedings over a newsworthy event. But a Texas appeals court upheld the media ban last year without explanation.
Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed over the deadly crowd crush during Scott’s Nov. 5, 2021, headlining set at Astroworld. The cases, collectively seeking billions in damages, claim that organizers bear legal responsibility for the disaster because of poor safety planning and failure to stop the show after problems had been reported.
The lawsuits have spent much of the last two years in discovery, as the two sides exchanged information and took depositions of key figures. But now the first trial in the massive litigation — over a wrongful death case filed by the family of Madison Dubiski, a 23-year-old who died at Astroworld — is set to start on May 6.
In seeking to have that trial aired live, attorneys for Dubiski’s family argued that it was “impractical” for everyone involved in the litigation to attend the proceedings physically: “There are hundreds of plaintiffs and their family members, numerous defendants, and a multitude of counsel to account for.”
But they also hinted that they think the judge might have doubts about broadcasting the trial. The recording would be “conducted unobtrusively, with minimal disruption to the trial process,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers said, and the judge will have the ability to “pause or terminate the broadcast if necessary to preserve order or to protect sensitive information.” And witnesses would be sequestered and required not to watch the stream “to safeguard the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings.”
The judge will presumably rule on the motion in the next week before the trial gets underway.
A federal appeals court on Friday (April 26) upheld R. Kelly’s conviction on child pornography and enticement charges, rejecting his argument that the case against him was filed too late.
Eighteen months after a federal jury in Chicago found Kelly (Robert Sylvester Kelly) guilty, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the 2022 guilty verdict, saying that he had been convicted by “an even-handed jury” and that “no statute of limitations saves him.”
“For years, Robert Sylvester Kelly abused underage girls. By employing a complex scheme to keep victims quiet, he long evaded consequences,” Judge Amy St. Eve wrote for a three-judge panel. “In recent years, though, those crimes caught up with him at last. But Kelly — interposing a statute-of-limitations defense — thinks he delayed the charges long enough to elude them entirely. The statute says otherwise, so we affirm his conviction.”
Trending on Billboard
Friday’s ruling affirms one of Kelly’s two felony sex abuse convictions. The other one — a September 2021 guilty verdict on racketeering charges brought by federal prosecutors in New York — is currently pending on appeal.
In the wake of Friday’s decision, Kelly can now appeal the verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court. But such appeals face extremely long odds, as the high court hears only a tiny fraction of the petitions it receives.
In a statement to Billboard on Friday, Kelly’s attorney, Jennifer Bonjean, said: “We are disappointed in the ruling but our fight is far from over. We will seek review from the Supreme Court and continue to pursue all of his appellate remedies until we Free R. Kelly. You can bet on that.”
After decades of accusations of sexual misconduct, Kelly was indicted in 2019 by federal prosecutors in both New York and Illinois. By the end of 2022, he had been convicted in both cases.
In Brooklyn, the feds accused Kelly of violating the federal RICO statute (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) by orchestrating a long-running scheme to recruit and abuse women and underage girls. After being convicted in September 2021, Kelly was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
In Chicago, a different team of federal prosecutors accused Kelly of violating child pornography laws, enticing minors for sex and obstructing justice by upending a 2008 criminal trial. Though he was acquitted on certain counts, Kelly was convicted in September 2022. The judge later sentenced him to 20 years in prison, but the vast majority of that sentence will be served concurrently with the New York sentence.
In appealing the Chicago verdict, Kelly’s attorneys argued that the case — over crimes that allegedly occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s — had been filed well past the statute of limitations that existed at the time, which barred child sex abuse charges after a victim’s 25th birthday.
But in Friday’s ruling, the judges chose instead to apply the modern statute of limitations, which extends through the life of the victim.
“Kelly maintains that the old, pre-2003 statute of limitations should control,” Judge St. Eve wrote. “All the inducement of minors in this case, he points out, took place when he could expect a more generous statute of limitations. The law does not support Kelly’s position.”
The appeals court also rejected several other arguments from Kelly, including one challenging the procedural fairness of his trial and another against the propriety of his sentence.
With Kelly’s Chicago verdict affirmed, attention now turns to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which is currently weighing his Brooklyn conviction. That case was argued in court last month, when Bonjean told the judges that the RICO case against Kelly had stretched federal racketeering laws “to the point of absurdity.”
A superfan accused of hacking Kelsea Ballerini and leaking her unreleased music has reached an agreement with the star’s lawyers not to share her songs with anyone else — and to name any people he’s already sent them to.
Just a week after Ballerini sued Bo Ewing over accusations that he illegally accessed her unfinished album and shared it with members of a fan club, attorneys for both sides said Wednesday (April 24) that they have agreed on a preliminary injunction against Ewing that will remain in place as the case plays out.
Under the terms of the injunction to which his lawyers agreed, Ewing is not only banned from disseminating any of Ballerini’s materials, he’s required to divulge who he has already shared them with and how he came into possession of her music.
Trending on Billboard
“Defendant shall, within thirty days of entry of this order, provide plaintiffs with the names and contact information for all people to whom defendant disseminated the recordings,” the agreement reads. “Defendant shall use his best efforts to disclose to Plaintiffs from whom and by what means he obtained the recordings.”
The agreement avoids a court battle over such an injunction, which Ballerini’s attorneys were asking a federal judge to impose regardless of Ewing’s cooperation. In doing so, they warned that the hack had caused “immediate and ongoing harm” that would get far worse if Ewing was allowed to widely release the allegedly leaked songs online.
“The most critical time for an album’s success is its initial release date,” Ballerini’s attorneys wrote in a motion demanding such an injunction. “Hacks like this substantially diminish both performers’ and labels’ ability to realize the full benefits of the release because the work is already available for download, for free, at the time of the official release.”
Ballerini sued last week, claiming that Ewing — allegedly a former fan who had become disillusioned with the star — had gained illegal “back-door access” to a device holding recordings of 12 songs still in production. Her lawyers say he then shared them with members of an online fan club.
“Because the recordings are not the completed master, the songs are not final and are subject to revision,” her lawyers wrote. “Ms. Ballerini and her team are the only people who can say when the recordings are complete. Defendant’s actions have stripped plaintiffs of that right and caused the distribution of unfinished work that may not yet be up to plaintiffs’ high professional standards.”
Almost immediately, the federal judge overseeing the case issued a so-called temporary restraining order — an emergency order that banned Ewing from sharing any of Ballerini’s materials. That order set the stage for a longer-term preliminary injunction, which both sides were set to debate at a hearing on Thursday (April 25).
Instead, Ewing’s attorneys struck Wednesday’s deal accepting such an injunction. Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. signed off on the agreement on Thursday. Neither side’s lawyers immediately returned requests for comment.
Only one word really describes Drake’s shift from objecting to an AI impersonation of him to using similar technology to add imitations of 2Pac and Snoop Dogg to his Kendrick Lamar diss track “Taylor Made Freestyle”: Chutzpah. (Drake had a bar-mitzvah-themed 31st birthday party, so he probably knows the term.) Last year around this time, the infamous “Heart on My Sleeve,” which featured AI vocal imitations of Drake and The Weeknd, shifted the debate about music and AI into high gear. Ever since, industry lobbyists and artists rights groups have been pushing legislation to regulate generative AI technology based on concepts of rights and permissions. Now Drake goes and blatantly breaks the main principle involved. It’s like something out of a political attack ad: He was against this before he was for it!
To me, using artists’ voices without their permission is wrong and it’s even more wrong — creepier — if the artist in question died relatively recently. The legal situation around this, and AI in general, is in flux, though. Tennessee’s ELVIS Act just passed, and a few federal bills have significant support. But the main point of the ELVIS Act and most of the recently proposed legislation is to impose penalties for exactly the kind of thing Drake did.
Trending on Billboard
And Drake, who must know these laws are necessary because a year ago they would have helped him, just made it harder to pass them. Imagine you’re a music business lobbyist who spent the last year explaining to members of Congress how important it is to protect the unique sounds of particular performers and then suddenly one of the biggest artists in the world goes ahead and violates every principle you’ve been discussing. Forget about Lamar — where’s the diss track from the RIAA?
It’s hard to say for sure whether what Drake did was illegal because laws vary by state — that’s why we need federal legislation in the first place. But Drake seems to have released the recording without his label, Republic Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group, which could indicate some concerns. (A representative for Drake declined to comment and Universal did not respond to requests for comment.) And Tupac Shakur’s estate has threatened to sue if Drake doesn’t take the track offline. (Snoop Dogg’s reaction — “They did what? When? How? Are you sure?,” followed by a weary sigh — is a work of art in itself. 10/10, no notes.) Litigation could be complicated, though. The Shakur estate threatened to sue for a violation of Shakur’s right of publicity, as well as for copyright infringement, which may be harder but comes with high statutory damages.
Howard King, the lawyer for Shakur’s estate, lays out the issue in his cease-and-desist letter to Drake. “Not only is the record a flagrant violation of Tupac’s publicity and the estate’s legal rights,” King writes, “it is also a blatant abuse of the legacy of one of the greatest hip-hop artists of all time. The Estate would never have given its approval for this use.” The use of 2Pac’s voice was especially inappropriate, King suggests, since Lamar is “a good friend to the Estate who has given nothing but respect to Tupac.”
In music critic terms, Drake is using simulacra of 2Pac and Snoop to call out Lamar by implying that he’s unworthy of their legacy. In legal terms, this might violate Shakur and Snoop Dogg’s rights of publicity or likeness rights, and there are precedents that would suggest it does — Tom Waits and Bette Midler each won a case about (human) vocal imitation. In moral terms, this feels so wrong because it forces Shakur and Snoop to say something they would never have said in real life. In hip-hop, reputation is everything — you own your words in both senses of the term — and Snoop and Shakur have every right to guard theirs.
This might seem like an awfully pretentious way to talk about what will almost certainly be remembered as a minor track from a major artist. Are reputations really at stake? Doesn’t anyone with even the slightest interest in pop music know that Drake used AI?
That’s a very current way of thinking about a technology that’s evolving really fast. What happens when millions of hobbyist producers release thousands of songs with imitations of hundreds of artists? (There are fan-made AI tracks out there already.) Who’s to know who dissed whom, let alone who favors what politician or endorses which product? For that matter, what happens when this comes for politicians? You can’t regulate digital technology with the legal equivalent of an umbrella — you need to prepare for a flood.
The ELVIS Act and the EU AI legislation represent a good start for that preparation, and most of the federal legislation under discussion seems solid. Hopefully, by the time the flood hits, we’ll remember “Heart on My Sleeve” as the beginning of an important debate and “Taylor Made Freestyle” as an amusing aside.
A Houston judge has denied Travis Scott’s motion to be dismissed from sprawling litigation over the 2021 disaster at the Astroworld music festival ahead of a looming jury trial next month.
Scott’s attorneys had argued that the star himself could not be held legally liable for the deadly crowd crush during his the November 2021 performance, which killed 10 and injured hundreds. They argued that safety and security at live events is “not the job of performing artists.”
But in a ruling made public on Wednesday, Judge Kristen Hawkins denied that motion, leaving Scott on the hook to face the first jury trial in the case, set to kick off next month. She offered no written rationale for her ruling, and attorneys for Scott did not return a request for comment.
Trending on Billboard
More than 2,500 people have sued over Astroworld – a popular festival headlined and marketed by the Houston-native Scott that turned deadly in 2021. Collectively seeking billions in potential damages, the victims claim that Scott (real name Jacques Bermon Webster II), Live Nation and other organizers were legally negligent in how they planned the event.
The lawsuits, combined into one single large action in Texas state court in Houston, have spent much of the last two years in discovery, as the two sides exchange information and take depositions of key figures. Scott was deposed in October, facing questioning from plaintiffs attorneys for roughly eight hours, according to the Associated Press.
The first trial in the massive litigation – a wrongful death case filed by family of Madison Dubiski, a 23-year-old who died at Astroworld – is set to start on May 6.
With that trial date looming, many of the defendants have pushed to be dismissed from the case. Drake (Aubrey Graham), who was named in many of the lawsuits because he appeared on stage as a guest performer during Scott’s deadly show, was dismissed earlier this month.
Scott’s attorneys argued last month that he too should not be held liable for the tragic incident. Even though the event was promoted under Scott’s name and branding, his lawyers said that he was merely an onstage performer who was not responsible for ensuring audience safety.
“Like any other adrenaline-inducing diversion, music festivals must balance exhilaration with safety and security—but that balance is not the job of performing artists, even those involved in promoting and marketing performances,” wrote Scott’s attorney Daniel Petrocelli. “Which only makes sense: Performing artists, even those who engage in certain promotional activities, have no inherent expertise or specialized knowledge in concert safety measures, venue security protocols, or site-design.”
At a hearing over that motion last week, attorneys for Dubiski’s family pushed back on Scott’s arguments, saying he had a “conscious disregard for safety.”
As reported by the Associated Press, the victim’s attorneys argued that Scott had encouraged fans to break into the concert without a ticket, citing a tweet on the day of the concert in which he said “we still sneaking the wild ones in.” They also said he had create unsafe crowd flow conditions by insisting that Scott be the only musical act to use the main stage on the festival’s first day, and then ignored orders from festival organizers to stop the concert when conditions turned dangerous.
Tupac Shakur’s estate is threatening to sue Drake over a recent diss track against Kendrick Lamar that featured an AI-generated version of the late rapper’s voice, calling it a “a flagrant violation” of the law and a “blatant abuse” of his legacy.
In a Wednesday cease-and-desist letter obtained exclusively by Billboard, litigator Howard King told Drake (Aubrey Drake Graham) that he must confirm that he will pull down his “Taylor Made Freestyle” in less than 24 hours or the estate would “pursue all of its legal remedies” against him.
Trending on Billboard
“The Estate is deeply dismayed and disappointed by your unauthorized use of Tupac’s voice and personality,” King wrote in the letter. “Not only is the record a flagrant violation of Tupac’s publicity and the estate’s legal rights, it is also a blatant abuse of the legacy of one of the greatest hip-hop artists of all time. The Estate would never have given its approval for this use.”
Drake released “Taylor Made” on Friday, marking the latest chapter in a back-and-forth war of words between the Canadian rapper and Lamar. Beyond taking shots at both Kendrick and Taylor Swift, the track made headlines because of its prominent use of artificial intelligence technology to create fake verses from Tupac and Snoop Dogg – two West Coast legends idolized by the LA-based Lamar.
“Kendrick, we need ya, the West Coast savior/ Engraving your name in some hip-hop history,” the AI-generated Tupac raps in Drake’s song. “If you deal with this viciously/ You seem a little nervous about all the publicity.”
In Tuesday’s letter, Tupac’s estate warned Drake that the use of his voice clearly violated Tupac’s so-called publicity rights – the legal power to control how your image or likeness is used by others. And they took particular exception the use of his voice to take shots at Lamar.
“The unauthorized, equally dismaying use of Tupac’s voice against Kendrick Lamar, a good friend to the Estate who has given nothing but respect to Tupac and his legacy publicly and privately, compounds the insult,” King wrote.
A rep for Drake declined to comment on the demands of the Shakur estate.
It’s unclear if Snoop Dogg, whose voice was also featured on “Taylor Made,” is planning to raise similar legal objections to Drake’s track. On Saturday, he posted a video to social media in which he seemed to be learning of the song for the first time: “They did what? When? How? Are you sure?” A rep for Snoop Dogg did not return a request for comment.
The unauthorized use of voice cloning technology has become one of the music industry’s thorniest legal subjects, as AI-powered tools have made easier than ever to convincingly mimic real artists.
The issue exploded onto the scene last year, when an unknown artist named Ghostwriter released a track called “Heart On My Sleeve” that featured – ironically – fake verses from Drake’s voice. Since then, as voice-cloning has proliferated on the internet, industry groups, legal experts and lawmakers have wrangled over how best to crack down on it.
It’s not as simple as it might seem. Federal copyrights are difficult to directly apply, since cloned vocals usually feature new words and music that are distinct from existing copyrighted songs. The publicity rights cited by the estate are a better fit because they protect someone’s likeness itself, but they have historically been used to sue over advertisements, rather than over creative works like songs.
Faced with that legal uncertainty, the recording industry and top artists have pushed for new legislation to address the problem. Last month, Tennessee passed a statute called the ELVIS Act that aims to crack down on voice cloning by expanding the state’s publicity right laws beyond just advertisements. Lawmakers in Washington DC are also considering similar bills that would create new, broader publicity rights at a federal level.
In Wednesday’s letter, however, the estate said that California’s existing publicity right laws clearly outlaw something as blatant as Drake’s use of Tupac’s voice in “Taylor Made.” King argued that the song had caused “substantial economic and reputational harm” by creating the “false impression that the estate and Tupac promote or endorse the lyrics for the sound-alike.”
The estate also argued that the song was likely created using an AI model that violated the estate’s copyrights by “training” on existing recordings of Tupac’s music. The legality of using copyrighted “inputs” is another difficult legal issue that’s currently being tested in several closely-watched lawsuits against AI developers, including one filed by major music publishers.
“It is hard to believe that [Tupac’s record label]’s intellectual property was not scraped to create the fake Tupac AI on the Record,” King wrote, before demanding that Drake also provide “a detailed explanation for how the sound-alike was created and the persons or company that created it, including all recordings and other data ‘scraped’ or used.”
Wednesday’s letter also pointedly highlighted that Drake himself has made previous objections to the use of his own likeness by others. In addition to last year’s incident surrounding “Heart on My Sleeve” — which was quickly pulled down from the internet — King pointed to a lesser-known federal lawsuit in which Drake’s attorneys accused a website of using his image without authorization.
“The [“Taylor Made Freestyle”] has generated well more than one million streams at this point and has been widely reported in the general national press and popular entertainment websites and publications,” the estate wrote. “Without question, it is exponentially more serious and damaging than a picture of you with some other people on a low volume website.”
In its closing paragraphs, the letter demanded written confirmation by noon Pacific on Thursday that Drake’s representatives were “expeditiously taking all steps necessary to have it removed.”
“If you comply, the estate will consider whether an informal negotiation to resolve this matter makes sense,” King wrote. “If you do not comply, our client has authorized this firm to pursue all of its legal remedies including, but not limited to, an action for violation of … the estate’s copyright, publicity and personality rights and the resulting damages, injunctive relief, and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.”
Megan Thee Stallion and Roc Nation are facing a lawsuit from a cameraman who claims he was forced to watch her have sex with a woman inside a moving vehicle while she was on tour in Spain.
In a complaint filed Tuesday (April 23) in Los Angeles court, Emilio Garcia accused the superstar of subjecting him to a hostile work environment due to the alleged incident, which he says amounted to harassment that left him “embarrassed, mortified and offended.”
“After a night out, plaintiff Stallion and three other women were riding in a SUV together,” Garcia’s lawyers write in the lawsuit, obtained by Billboard. “Suddenly, Stallion and one of the other women start having sex right beside plaintiff. Plaintiff could not get out of the car as it was both moving and he was in the middle of nowhere in a foreign country.”
Trending on Billboard
Garcia claims that the day after the incident — which allegedly occurred in June 2022 near Ibiza, Spain — Megan told him, “Don’t ever discuss what you saw.” He says she then “berated him” and made “fat-shaming comments” towards him.
In the months following the alleged incident, Garcia claims that Roc Nation switched him from a monthly rate to a per-assignment arrangement. He says he also “noticed a change in how he was treated and saw a decrease in the number of bookings he received from Stallion.” In June 2023, he claims he was told that he was told that “his services would no longer be required.”
Beyond the allegations of a hostile workplace, Garcia also claims that Megan and Roc Nation violated California wage-and-hour laws by failing to fully pay him for the “myriad” tasks he performed for the superstar as her personal cameraman: “More than once, Stallion interrupted plaintiff during dinner and demanded that he immediately shift his focus to assist with her TikTok creative ideas.”
Despite his status as an independent contractor, Garcia claims that Megan effectively treated him like an employee. He says she repeatedly told him explicitly that he was “not allowed to service any other client other than herself.”
Notably, Garcia is represented by the same attorneys (Neama Rahmani and Ronald Zambrano) who filed a high-profile hostile workplace case against Lizzo on behalf of three of her backup dancers. Like the new case, that earlier lawsuit also features allegations that employees were forced to watch sex acts in a European country during an overseas tour.
A rep for Megan and Roc Nation did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday.
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: Pharrell faces another trademark dispute, this time filed by Pink over the term “P.Inc”; Madonna is sued again by fans angry about delayed starts to her concerts; YoungBoy Never Broke Again is arrested again on new drug and gun charges; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Pink v. P.Inc
Another week, another trademark dispute for Pharrell Williams.Less than a month after his longtime friend and musical collaborator Chad Hugo accused him of wrongly trying to secure trademarks to their shared “Neptunes” name, the superstar was hit with a similar action from the singer Pink.The disputed trademark? The term “P.Inc,” which Pharrell’s lawyers applied to register last year as a federal trademark covering a wide range of advertising and business services. Pink’s lawyers say the term is so similar to her own stage name that it would confuse consumers who see it.Strangely enough, Pink is actually not the first trademark owner to complain about Pharrell’s trademark application. Last month, the application drew another opposition filing from a retail giant that’s used the term PINK for decades. For more, go read our full story here.
Other top stories this week…
MADONNA SUED AGAIN – Madonna and Live Nation were hit with another federal class action lawsuit over late starts to her concerts, this time filed by spurned Washington D.C. ticket buyers who are accusing her of showing “total disrespect for her fans” by forcing them to wait “hours for her performance in a hot, uncomfortable arena.” The case comes three months after Madonna was hit with a similar case in New York – a case that she is currently seeking to have tossed out of court.YOUNGBOY ARRESTED – YoungBoy Never Broke Again (aka NBA YoungBoy) was arrested on new drug and weapons charges amid a years-long house arrest in Utah as he awaits trial on separate federal gun charges. Local police say he ran a “large scale prescription fraud ring” aimed at purchasing codeine from area drug stores, using associates to illicitly buy the pharmaceuticals under a real doctor’s name. Federal prosecutors, who had already accused the rapper of breaking the terms of his house arrest, quickly moved to revoke his pre-trial release altogether.MOTOWN LEGEND FIRES BACK – Motown Records founder Berry Gordy Jr. fired back after being named as a defendant in an ugly legal battle pitting his son against a former business advisor and romantic partner, calling it a “craven, desperate, and disgusting attempt” to “shake down” his family.
Trending on Billboard
