Legal News

Megan Thee Stallion and Big Sean have reached a settlement with two little-known Detroit rappers, ending a lawsuit claiming the hip-hop superstars ripped off an earlier song with their 2020 collaboration “Go Crazy.”

In a lawsuit filed in July, Duawn “Go Hard Major” Payne and Harrell “H Matic” James claimed that Megan’s song sounded so much like their 2012 track “Krazy” that there was no way it had been created independently without illegal copying.

But just four months later, attorneys for the pair of accusers notified a federal judge Friday (Nov. 11) that the two sides had “reached an agreement in principle to settle their dispute in its entirety.”

The public filing did not disclose any terms of the agreement, like whether any money would exchange hands or songwriting credits would be altered. Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for more details.

“Go Crazy,” released on Stallion’s 2020 debut album Good News, didn’t chart as a single, but the album spent 75 weeks on the Billboard 200 and peaked at No. 2 in December 2020. The song featured both Big Sean and 2 Chainz, though the latter was not named in the current lawsuit.

In their July 25 complaint, Payne and James claimed that various aspects of “Krazy” and “Go Crazy” are “nearly identical,” including the wording of the chorus, melodic and harmonic sequences and the use of cadence.

“An average lay observer would recognize the infringing work as having been appropriated from [‘Krazy’] because of the striking similarity between the two compositions and the way in which they are performed,” said the complaint.

Since “Krazy” was never released by a label, the attorneys for the two accusers made a creative, hyper-local argument for why Stallion or Big Sean had enough “access” to the song that they were able to copy it — a key requirement in any copyright infringement lawsuit. They said Payne and James had performed the song in “West Detroit hip hop clubs and bars” where Big Sean — a Motor City native — had frequently gone. The pair also sold “thousands of physical copies of CDs” in the parking lots of those same clubs, their lawyers argued.

Just two days after Condé Nast sued Drake and 21 Savage for using a fake cover story in Vogue magazine to promote their new album Her Loss, a federal judge has issued a restraining order forcing them to stop using it.

Siding with Condé, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff ruled Wednesday that the faux cover – one of several fake promos for the album – was likely violating the publisher’s trademarks because Drake and 21 were “misleading consumers” and “deceiving the public.”

“Issuance of the requested temporary restraining order is in the public interest to protect the public against confusion, deception and mistake,” the New York federal judge wrote.

For the past week, Drake and 21 Savage have been on a phony media blitz to promote Her Loss, which debuted Friday. They dropped a video of a fake performance on Saturday Night Live, teased an a similar appearance on NPR’s Tiny Desk series, and created an elaborate deepfake interview with Howard Stern.

NPR used the stunt as an opportunity to tell the star he was “welcome anytime” on the beloved concert, and Stern laughed the whole thing off, but Condé Nast went a different route. In a lawsuit filed Monday, the publisher called the stunt a “flagrant infringement” its trademark, aimed at exploiting the “tremendous value that a cover feature in Vogue magazine carries” without actually securing one.

“All of this is false,” the publisher’s lawyers wrote, demanding an immediate injunction forcing Drake and 21 to cease all use of the “counterfeit” cover. “And none of it has been authorized by Condé Nast.”

The order issued Wednesday is what’s known as a temporary restraining order – a quick injunction designed to prevent “irreparable harm” that could not later be undone. A plaintiff like Condé can only win one if the judge decides that they are likely to eventually win their lawsuit.

Judge Rakoff’s order bars Drake and 21 from “using, displaying, dissenting or distributing” the fake cover or the actual phony Vogue copies they printed as part of the stunt. And it expressly requires them to take down websites and social media posts sharing the image, and to remove physical posters put up in certain markets.

Notably, it also explicitly requires them to stop making any mention of Vogue editor in chief Anna Wintour. In its lawsuit, Conde took particular aim at the fact that Drake had thanked her in his posts sharing the fake magazine cover, saying it had been “deliberately deceptive” to suggest that the infamous editor had endorsed the project.

Reps for Drake and 21 did not immediately return requests for comment on Wednesday’s order.

A temporary restraining order is, by its nature, temporary – lasting only until the parties have a chance to argue over a longer-term injunction. A hearing on such an injunction is set for Nov. 22.

Read the full order here:

A Los Angeles judge on Wednesday (Nov. 9) tossed out a lawsuit accusing Phoebe Bridgers of defaming producer Chris Nelson with a social media post echoing accusations of abuse made against him by another woman.

The judge cited California’s so-called anti-SLAPP law, which empowers courts to quickly dismiss lawsuits that might silence free speech. The star’s lawyers had argued that Nelson was just using the lawsuit to “chill Ms. Bridgers’ allegations of abusive conduct, which are protected by the First Amendment.”

The decision, issued by Judge Curtis A. Kin of the Los Angeles Superior Court, did not come with a written ruling explaining the judge’s rationale. An attorney for Nelson did not immediately return a request for comment.

In a statement to Billboard, a rep for Bridgers said: “We feel vindicated that the court recognized this lawsuit as frivolous and without merit.  It was not grounded in law, or facts, but was filed with the sole intention of causing harm to our client’s reputation and career.  This victory is important not just for our client but for all those she was seeking to protect by using her platform.”

Nelson sued Bridgers last year, claiming she had defamed him by posting false information to social media as part of a “vendetta to destroy plaintiff’s reputation.”

He pointed to a series of October 2020 Instagram posts, in which the singer said she had “witnessed and can personally verify much of the abuse (grooming, stealing, violence) perpetuated by Chris Nelson.” She also directed her followers to a separate thread from friend Emily Bannon, which contained more extensive allegations against Nelson.

Bridgers quickly moved to end the case, with her lawyers arguing that Nelson was trying to silence her allegations by dragging her through messy litigation: “It is clear that Mr. Nelson voluntarily and intentionally published his ‘amended’ complaint to the media before it was even filed in a transparent attempt to embarrass Ms. Bridgers and to get attention for his dispute with her.”

Faced with that motion, Nelson demanded the right to depose her — saying it was the only way he could prove that his allegation was valid. He said denying him that chance would violate his right to due process. A judge eventually agreed with him, ordering Bridgers to sit for questioning.

A New York judge has scheduled a July trial for Dr. Luke’s defamation lawsuit against Kesha over her accusations of rape against the producer, setting the stage for a courtroom showdown nearly nine years after the case was first filed.
In an order issued Monday, Judge Jennifer G. Schecter said the trial would start on July 19 and wrap up by July 26. A trial had previously been scheduled to start in February, but with key issues in the case still awaiting rulings by a state appeals court, both sides saw that plan as unworkable.

Dr. Luke, whose full name is Lukasz Gottwald, filed his lawsuit against Kesha in 2014, claiming she had legally defamed him with a “false and shocking” allegation that he drugged and raped her after a 2005 party. He claimed she did so as leverage to secure a more lucrative deal.

After nearly eight years of litigation, a trial on those accusations was long scheduled for February. But as the trial loomed, it became increasingly unclear whether that date would work, since the parties are waiting for New York’s highest appeals court rules on two key issues that will play a central role in the case.

The first is whether Dr. Luke is a so-called public figure — a crucial distinction in a defamation case because the First Amendment makes it much harder for such figures to win a lawsuit. The second issue is whether New York’s newly-enacted “anti-SLAPP” law applies retroactively to the case; the statute, designed to protect free speech against bad lawsuits, would also make it far harder for Dr. Luke to win.

After lower courts sided with Dr. Luke on both issues, Kesha is now asking the New York Court of Appeals to reverse the rulings. The cases are pending, but it’s unclear when the court will rule, leaving in doubt whether the trial could proceed.

In dueling August court filings, the two sides each blamed each other for the slow pace of those appeals and the resulting trial delay.

Kesha’s attorneys argued that she had “done everything in her power to try to ensure that trial will begin as scheduled” but that Dr. Luke had “obstructed her efforts at every turn.” Dr. Luke’s lawyers, meanwhile, said it was “Kesha’s attorneys who have delayed the case for years by endlessly filing meritless appeals, which they have lost time and again.”