State Champ Radio

by DJ Frosty

Current track

Title

Artist

Current show

State Champ Radio Mix

12:00 am 12:00 pm

Current show

State Champ Radio Mix

12:00 am 12:00 pm


Legal News

Page: 126

The Justice Department and eight states sued Google on Tuesday, alleging that its dominance in digital advertising harms competition as well as consumers and advertisers — including the U.S. government.
The government alleges that Google’s plan to assert dominance has been to “neutralize or eliminate” rivals through acquisitions and to force advertisers to use its products by making it difficult to use competitors’ products.

The antitrust suit was filed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a press conference Tuesday that Google’s dominance in the ad market means fewer publishers are able to offer their products without charging subscription or other fees, because they can’t rely on competition in the advertising market to keep ad prices low.

As a result of Google’s dominance, he said, “website creators earn less and advertisers pay more.”

The department’s suit accuses Google of unlawfully monopolizing the way ads are served online by excluding competitors. This includes its 2008 acquisition of DoubleClick, a dominant ad server, and subsequent rollout of technology that locks in the split-second bidding process for ads that get served on Web pages.

Google’s ad manager lets large publishers who have significant direct sales manage their advertisements. The ad exchange, meanwhile, is a real-time marketplace to buy and sell online display ads.

The lawsuit demands that Google break off three different businesses from its core business of search, YouTube and other products such as Gmail: the buying and selling of ads and ownership of the exchange where that business is transacted.

Garland said that “for 15 years, Google has pursued a course of anti-competitive conduct” that has halted the rise of rival technologies and manipulated the mechanics of online ad auctions to force advertisers and publishers to use its tools.

In so doing, he added, “Google has engaged in exclusionary conduct” that has “severely weakened,” if not destroyed competition in the ad tech industry.

Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company, said in a statement that the suit “doubles down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow.”

Dina Srinivasan, a Yale University fellow and adtech expert, said the lawsuit is “huge” because it aligns the entire nation — state and federal governments — in a bipartisan legal offensive against Google.

This is the latest legal action taken against Google by either the Justice Department or local state governments. In October 2020, for instance, the Trump administration and eleven state attorneys general sued Google for violating antitrust laws, alleging anticompetitive practices in the search and search advertising markets.

The lawsuit in essence aligns the Biden administration and new states with the 35 states and District of Colombia that sued Google in December 2020 over the exact same issues.

The states taking part in the suit include California, Virginia, Connecticut, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Tennessee.

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: A judge says Roc Nation CEO Desiree Perez must sit for a deposition in Megan Thee Stallion’s war with her record company, a member of Journey sues his longtime bandmate over allegations of lavish spending, Flo Rida wins an $82 million verdict against a beverage company, and much more.

THE BIG STORY: To Depose Or Not To Depose

When should a top executive be hauled into a deposition to answer questions in a lawsuit? It’s a difficult question. Make it too hard and you could insulate powerful people from the legal process; make it too easy and attorneys could use it as a form of gamesmanship in cases of questionable merit. Imagine if Lucian Grainge could be deposed every time someone sued Universal Music?

Courts typically resolve the problem with something called the apex doctrine, which says that busy “apex” officials only need to testify when they have unique info that can’t be derived from other less burdensome sources. Spotify cited the doctrine last year in an (unsuccessful) effort to block the deposition of CEO Daniel Ek in a copyright lawsuit over Eminem’s music.

That same tricky situation cropped up last week in Megan Thee Stallion’s ongoing legal war with her estranged record label, 1501 Certified Entertainment. Industry bigwig Desiree Perez is the CEO of Jay-Z’s Roc Nation — the prototypical kind of executive who can sometimes avoid depositions. But she’s also Megan’s actual manager, and 1501 Certified said she was “one of the most critical” witnesses in the case.

In seeking to avoid the sit-down, Megan’s legal team argued that 1501 was “harassing” Perez by seeking to depose her. But in a ruling last week, the judge overseeing the case didn’t buy it.

To get the full story, go read Billboard’s entire article here.

Other top stories this week…

TOP RAPPER BATTLES EX-MANAGER – Billboard took a deep-dive this week into an ugly lawsuit pitting Latin trap star Anuel AA against his former manager Frabian Eli – two “lifelong friends” who are now accusing each other of serious legal wrongdoing. The latest flashpoint is an emergency hearing this week over whether Eli can sell a $4.8 million Florida mansion that Anuel claims was purchased with stolen money.

DON’T STOP LITIGATING – The civil war inside the iconic rock band Journey continues. Keyboardist Jonathan Cain filed a lawsuit against bandmate Neal Schon for allegedly spending over $1 million on the band’s shared American Express card, including $400,000 in a single month last year — itself a response to a case filed by Schon last year.

PUBLISHER POO-POOS PARODY Music publisher BMG launched a copyright lawsuit against toymaker MGA Entertainment for promoting a brand of “unicorn poop” toys by releasing a song called “My Poops” — a scatological parody set to the tune of the Black Eyed Peas’ “My Humps.” Is that a legal fair use or just an unlicensed commercial? We’re going to find out.

FLO RIDA WINS BIG OVER ENERGY DRINKS – A jury awarded $82 million in damages to Flo Rida in his legal battle with energy drink maker Celsius, siding with the rapper’s allegations that the company reneged on the terms of an endorsement deal. His lawyers told me: “He was due these shares, he worked for them, and he wasn’t going to just let it go.”

Lawyers for Latin trap star Anuel AA are heading to a Miami courthouse Tuesday to ask a judge to block his former manager Frabian Eli from selling a $4.8 million Florida mansion — the latest bizarre twist in a nasty legal battle between the “lifelong friends.”
After years of partnership amid rising stardom, the two have suddenly found themselves in an ugly divorce. Eli (full name Frabian Eli Carrion) sued in September, claiming Anuel breached their contracts by abruptly firing him last summer and owes him millions in unpaid fees. The star rapper (real name Emmanuel Gazmey Santiago) fired back with a countersuit in November, accusing Eli of stealing millions in order to “fund his own extravagant lifestyle.”

In the upcoming showdown Tuesday, the lawsuit’s messiness is on full display.

Anuel is seeking an “emergency injunction” that would bar Eli from selling a 6,000-square-foot home in Doral, Fla., worth an alleged $4.8 million — a property the star calls “one of the many illicit purchases made by Carrion using funds from the company’s bank accounts.”  Without the order, they claim Eli will sell the house in an effort to avoid paying back the money he stole.

Eli, meanwhile, says the injunction demand is baseless and the latest example of his former friend choosing to “lash out” rather than pay him his fair share of their success: “Nothing more than an attempt to divert the court, and the public monitoring this case, away from the undisputed facts of the case.”

‘Unilaterally Terminated‘

Anuel and Eli worked together for years, starting well before the Puerto Rican rapper released his 2018 debut, Real Hasta la Muerte, and won the 2019 new artist of the year award at the Billboard Latin Music Awards. Eli then managed Anuel through three subsequent albums that all topped Billboard’s Top Latin Albums chart, and the pair also started and operated their own record label.

But just nine months after Eli gushed about his “childhood friend” to Billboard, on Sept. 4 the manager filed a lawsuit against Anuel in Florida state court, alleging he had been “unilaterally terminated” from their shared company, despite a seven-year contract that hadn’t been set to expire until 2026. The deal allegedly entitled Eli to 10% of Anuel’s gross earnings.

In his complaint, Eli said he had been surprised by the move because he had worked tirelessly to advance the star’s career, including during Anuel’s months-long stint in prison after pleading guilty to a gun possession charge.

“That prison sentence did not stop the manager from continuing to believe in the artist and to work towards the continuation of his career, while working for the artist twenty-four hours a day seven days a week, without receiving any pay,” Eli’s lawyers wrote at the time. “Together, the manager and the artist have enjoyed enormous success in the music industry, which due to the manager’s handling of the artist’s affairs, has parlayed into a number of other successes in life.”

Read Eli’s entire lawsuit here.

‘Maliciously Exploited‘

In November, Anuel told his side of the story – and he went a lot further than simply rebutting Eli’s allegations. In his own counter-suit, the star said Eli had been terminated because he had “maliciously exploited” their friendship to “defraud” him out of millions of dollars.

Among other allegations of wrongdoing, Anuel claimed his manager had secretly taken excess money from music agreements with Sony’s The Orchard and with Kobalt; that he had stolen money set aside for tax payments; and that he had secretly made huge personal purchases with company money, like $191,000 toward a Lamborghini, more than $1 million toward jewelry, and an undisclosed sum for renting private jets for his family.

The lawsuit also claimed Eli had taken “kickbacks” in return accepting bad business deals on Anuel’s behalf. For instance, it claimed that when Eli had arranged the purchase of a Miami condo for Anuel’s parents, he had “conspired” with the realtor to pay “a higher than necessary price” in return for a personal payment from the agent.

“In complete and utter contravention of his contractual and fiduciary duties; all reasonable sense of morality; and his years long friendship with artist, which led artist to place his full trust in Carrion, Carrion …  bilked counter-plaintiffs out of millions of dollars for which they are rightfully entitled,” Anuel’s lawyers wrote at the time.

Read Anuel’s entire counter-suit here.

‘Losing Out On Millions‘

With the lawsuit and counter-suit both still in the earliest stages of litigation, Anuel threw another bomb in early December — demanding the emergency court order restraining Eli from selling the $4.8 million house in Doral. He claimed that more than $1 million in payments for the Doral house had come from company bank accounts.

In the filing, Anuel’s lawyers warned that Eli was already in “a precarious financial position” and that the property was the only asset they could find under his name. Without a court order requiring him to retain it until the lawsuit was over, the lawyers said there might be no other way for Anuel to recover the allegedly stolen money.

“Counter-plaintiffs risk being successful on its claims, and nonetheless losing out on millions of dollars because [Eli] was permitted to dispose of the property – the sole asset currently in his name – and no longer possessed sufficient assets to cover the value of harm he deliberately and calculatedly took,” they wrote in the Dec. 2 motion.

Eli’s attorneys fired back two weeks later, arguing there was no grounds for an extraordinary order like an injunction freezing the sale of a home. Anuel’s core allegations against Eli, they said, were “simply ludicrous” and “non-sensical” — meaning that he would eventually owe money to their client, not vice-versa.

“This case is really about an artist … that rose to stardom based in part on the work done by the manager, who has now chosen to lash out against the manager with falsities in response to a lawsuit which had to be filed due to the artist’s own irrational actions,” Eli’s attorneys wrote. “Instead of litigating this case on provable facts, with evidence, Anuel is trying to use a ‘kitchen sink approach’ to muddy the waters and cause as much harm as he can.”

Read the entire emergency motion and response here.

A Houston judge ruled late Thursday (Jan. 19) that Megan Thee Stallion’s manager, Roc Nation CEO Desiree Perez, must sit for a deposition in the star’s ongoing war with her record company, rejecting Megan’s arguments that the label was “harassing” Perez by seeking to depose her.
For months, the two sides sparred over whether the Roc Nation big wig must answer questions from lawyers for 1501 Certified Entertainment amid Megan’s litigious split with the Houston-based label. The company’s lawyers called Perez “one of the most critical” witnesses in the case; Megan’s lawyers said 1501 was simply trying to “harass” a busy executive who had little pertinent info to share.

In a ruling made public on Thursday afternoon, Judge Robert Schaffer sided with 1501 — denying a motion from Megan’s lawyers seeking a so-called protective order that would have shielded Perez from the deposition. Though he ruled on detailed arguments from both sides, the judge included no written opinion explaining his rationale for the decision.

It’s unclear when such a sit-down between 1501’s lawyers and Perez will take place. A representative for Megan and for Roc Nation did not immediately return a request for comment on Friday.

The star rapper (real name Megan Pete) has been fighting with 1501 for more than two years, claiming the company duped the young artist into signing an “unconscionable” record deal in 2018 that was well-below industry standards. She says that when she signed a new management deal with Jay-Z’s Roc Nation in 2019, she got “real lawyers” who helped her see that the deal was “crazy.”

That core dispute has mushroomed into additional litigation, with both sides accusing the other of various forms of wrongdoing and claiming millions in damages. A judge ruled in December that the case will need to be decided by a jury trial; a date has not yet been set.

With both sides preparing to make their case, 1501 sought to have Perez sit for a deposition — meaning she would meet with the company’s lawyers and answer questions about Megan’s case under oath. But the rapper’s lawyers quickly threw a challenge flag in November, seeking the protective order that would have shielded Perez from what they called “gamesmanship” by 1501.

Megan’s lawyers pointed to what’s known as the apex doctrine, which limits when high-ranking executives can be forced to give a deposition. (That’s the same rule that Spotify cited last year when it tried to shield CEO Daniel Ek from questioning in a copyright lawsuit.) Under the apex doctrine, busy top officials only need to testify when they have unique info that can’t be derived from other less burdensome sources.

The label quickly fired back in December, arguing that Perez was instead a key “fact witness” who had been “directly, personally, and substantially involved in the underlying facts of the lawsuit.” They claimed she’d had direct conversations about whether Megan’s 2021 release Something for Thee Hotties counted as an “album” under her deal — a central dispute in the case. And they said Perez had personally negotiated one of Megan’s record contracts at issue in the lawsuit.

Attorneys for 1501 declined to comment on the decision on Friday.

Journey keyboardist Jonathan Cain is suing longtime bandmate Neal Schon for allegedly spending over $1 million on the band’s shared American Express card, including $400,000 in a single month last year.
The new allegations came months after Schon sparked the legal battle by filing his own lawsuit accusing Cain of blocking access to “critical” financial records linked to the Amex account.

In a countersuit filed last week in California state court, Cain said it was Schon’s own actions that had led to those restrictions on his access to the Amex account, including “misusing” the card to deal with his own “financial problems as a result of an extravagant lifestyle.”

“Schon’s use of the [shared] AMEX card for personal expenses created serious liquidity problems for the band, as the AMEX balance had to be paid every month, and there were insufficient revenues to pay for other expenses as Schon saddled Journey with over $1 million of his personal expenses,” Cain’s lawyers wrote in the new complaint, filed Jan. 13.

Cain’s countersuit included a number of specific allegations about Schon’s spending habits. Once given access to the band Amex, Cain says Schon promptly spent over $100,000 in January 2022. Then in March, he allegedly spent a whopping $400,000 in charges at Bergdorf Goodman department store in New York City and other retailers.

At the end of a recent tour, Cain says Schon demanded suites at a Hawaiian hotel that cost north of $5,000 per night, then stayed a week longer than necessary and racked up more than $100,000 more in charges on the card.

Schon’s attorney did not immediately return a request for comment on the new allegations.

Members of Journey have been sparring in court for years. Back in 2020, Schon and Cain teamed up to file a lawsuit against former drummer Steven Smith and former bassist Ross Valory over the band’s name. And in September, former lead singer Steve Perry took legal action to stop Schon and Cain from registering federal trademarks on the names of many of the band’s biggest hits. But in both of those cases, which have since settled, Schon and Cain were on the same team.

In October, Schon and Cain finally found themselves on opposite sides of the courtroom. In his complaint, Schon said Cain had unfairly blocked access to the Amex account, “interfering” with the band’s activities and delaying payments to crew members and vendors. “This action is brought to turn the lights on, so to speak,” Schon’s lawyers wrote at the time.

But in the new countersuit, Cain told his side of the story, arguing that it was Schon’s reckless spending that was interfering with the band’s activities.

“Schon’s charges placed considerable pressure on Journey and its ability to cover normal tour expenses,” his lawyers wrote. “Schon was spending Journey’s money, and Cain is the one who was and is ultimately liable for the AMEX Account and Schon’s charges on the AMEX Card.”

In technical terms, Cain is accusing Schon of breaching his fiduciary duty to the band’s shared corporate entity, called Nomota LLC, and of unjustly enriching himself at Cain’s expense.

Music publisher BMG is suing a toymaker for promoting a brand of “unicorn poop” toys by releasing a song called “My Poops” – a scatological parody set to the tune of Black Eyed Peas’ “My Humps.”
In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Manhattan federal court, the publisher accused toymaker MGA Entertainment of infringing the copyright to the band’s smash 2005 hit, which reached No. 3 on the Hot 100 and spent 36 total weeks on the chart.

Released to promote MGA’s Poopsie Slime Surprise toys – unicorns that release sparkling “unicorn poop” slime – the song at issue features similar musical elements to the original, but with joke lyrics like “Whatcha gonna do with all that poop, all that poop.”

In addition to copying key musical elements, BMG says MGA’s song features a lead vocalist who “sounds very similar” to Black Eyed Peas lead singer Fergie.

“Music, especially a hit song such as ‘My Humps,’ adds great value when incorporated into a product or used in a video advertisement, because it increases consumer recognizability, consumer engagement and attention to the product,” BMG wrote in its lawsuit. “The infringing work is so substantially similar to ‘My Humps’ that it is obvious that the infringing work was intentionally copied.”

MGA’s song was released as a music video on YouTube, but BMG claims the copycat song was also incorporated into actual products. A sticker on the Poopsie Slime Surprise packages directed users to the video, the publisher says, and the actual dolls will play a snippet of the song when a “heart-shaped bellybutton” is pressed.

“Defendant has been selling the Dancing Unicorn Toys incorporating the Infringing Work all over the world and has received substantial revenue,” BMG’s lawyers wrote. “The Poopsie Slime Surprise product line has generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue for Defendant.”

In musical terms, BMG says that MGA’s song stole a number of key elements, including the melody, bass line, rhyme scheme, chord progression, cadence and others, and that the “My Poops” singer uses “a similar delivery and vocal inflections as used by Fergie.” It also says the name of the song is “an obvious play” on the name of the original.

Neither BMG nor MGA immediately returned requests for comment on Friday.

The new lawsuit sets the stage for a high-profile dispute over parody songs – a complex area of federal copyright law.

The legal doctrine of “fair use” expressly empowers people to parody existing copyrighted works, and one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most seminal copyright rulings held that 2 Live Crew was legally allowed to release a bawdy parody of Roy Orbison’s rock ballad “Oh, Pretty Woman” without paying royalties. But the music industry’s premiere parodist, “Weird Al” Yankovic, voluntarily chooses to license all of the songs that he parodies. And the legal analysis is undoubtedly trickier when a parody song is used for outright commercial advertising or as part of an actual consumer product, rather than merely as a new song.

A more recent case pitted the Beastie Boys against a toy company called GoldieBlox, which released a viral parody of the group’s 1987 song “Girls” to promote its engineering and construction toys for girls. After the band threatened copyright infringement, GoldieBlox argued fair use – saying it had aimed to criticize the “highly sexist” message of the original Beastie Boys track and “further the company’s goal to break down gender stereotypes.”

But six months later, GoldieBlox agreed to a settlement in which it apologized to the Beastie Boys and agreed to donate a portion of its revenues to charities of the band’s choosing.

Read BMG’s entire lawsuit here:

A court in India has ordered internet service providers to block access to 20 sites that were used to illegally download audio and video streams in India from platforms like YouTube, the IFPI says.
The civil ruling, published in the High Court of Delhi on Jan. 12, was the first such action in India to tackle the practice of stream-ripping, one of the country’s most rampant forms of piracy. The 20 blocked sites collectively received nearly half a billion visits last year from users based in India, according to the IFPI, which coordinated the action with the Indian Music Industry (IMI) on behalf of Sony Music India, Universal Music India and Warner Music India.

The labels told the court that the “rogue websites” were providing services in which copyrighted content on various platforms, primarily YouTube, could be downloaded in mp3 or mp4 format by copying the link in the space provided in the websites. Because the details of the websites’ real administrators are masked, the plaintiffs’ lawyer argued it would be impossible for them to pursue the websites in separate proceedings regarding individual copyrighted content.

Justice C Hari Shankar, who wrote the order, directed India’s government to issue a notification calling upon the various Internet service providers to block access to the websites in India. (The court order reviewed by Billboard says there are 18 defendants, but IFPI says the decision targets 20 infringing websites and more than 50 urls.)

In India, websites are regularly blocked on the basis of copyright infringement using Section 69A of the Information and Technology Act 2000 (as amended in 2008), Information Technology Rules 2009 and civil procedure rules, the IFPI tells Billboard.

“We welcome this decision and the strong message it sends to operators of stream ripping sites, wherever they may be based, that we are prepared to take the appropriate action against them,” Frances Moore, IFPI’s chief executive, says in a press release.

“Given that it’s the first time a website blocking order has been granted against stream ripping websites, this precedent is an important step in the right direction for the Indian recorded music industry,” Blaise Fernandes, IMI’s president and CEO, says in the same release.

Digital music has been leading the way in the rapid growth of India’s music market, which booked $219 million in recorded music revenues in 2021, up 20.3% from 2020. Streaming, which grew by 22.5% in 2021, now represents 87% of total trade value in the 17th-largest music market, according to IFPI’s Global Market Report. 

But the IFPI notes that a study last year found that India still has a rate of piracy more than twice that of most major music markets, with 73% of internet users using unlicensed or illegal methods to listen to music, compared to a global average of 30%. Intellectual property rights theft “is like a cancer,” Fernandes wrote in a 2020 op-ed. “You need both palliative care via social messaging, as well as chemotherapy via the Indian Penal Code or laws that keep up with the needs of India’s digital requirements.”

Beyond India, the recording industry has stepped up efforts to crack down on stream-ripping websites. Courts and authorities in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Denmark, Ecuador, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Peru, Russia and Spain have all issued decisions over the last few years ordering service providers to block customers’ access to such websites, the IFPI says.

U.S. music companies have also battled stream-rippers, who are often based outside the country. In a case brought by more than two dozen record labels, a U.S. magistrate judge in Alexandria, Va., recommended in December 2021 that the operator of two Russian stream-ripping sites, Tofig Kurbanov, pay $82.9 million in damages for circumventing YouTube’s anti-piracy measures and infringing copyrights of audio recordings.

Kurbanov’s piracy operation drew more than 300 million global users to the sites from October 2017 to September 2018 alone, the court said. (U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton accepted the $82.9 million recommendation last February. In March, Kurbanov told the court he would appeal the judgement.)

As the streaming market has grown globally, the IFPI has also helped coordinate court and police actions to shut down sites peddling fake streams in major recording markets like Brazil and Germany, which are artificially juicing the success of songs and albums.

In France, the fifth-largest music market, a study released this week by a French government organization found that one billion streams — or between 1% to 3% of all streams in the market — were fraudulent in 2021. The report, which analyzed data from Spotify, Deezer and Qobuz, notes that “the methods used by fraudsters are constantly evolving and improving,” and that “fraud seems to be getting easier and easier to commit.”

The latest battleground in Megan Thee Stallion’s war with her record label is a dispute over whether her manager – Roc Nation CEO Desiree Perez – can be forced to sit for a deposition.
For months, the two sides have sparred over whether Perez must answer questions from lawyers for record label 1501 Certified Entertainment. They say she is “one of the most critical” witnesses in the ongoing case; Megan’s lawyers say they’re just trying to “harass” a busy executive who has little pertinent info.

In the latest filing on Tuesday, Megan’s attorneys said 1501’s arguments in the dispute are “entirely off base, bordering on nonsensical.” Perez doesn’t have any “unique or superior personal knowledge,” they said, and 1501’s lawyers should have sought such info from “alternative sources.”

The star rapper (real name Megan Pete) has been fighting with 1501 for more than two years, claiming the company duped a young artist into signing an “unconscionable” record deal in 2018 that was well-below industry standards. She says that when she signed a new management deal with Jay-Z’s Roc Nation in 2019, she got “real lawyers” who helped her see that the deal was “crazy.”

That core dispute has mushroomed into additional litigation, with both sides accusing the other of various forms of wrongdoing and claiming millions in damages. A judge ruled in December that the case will need to be decided by a jury trial; a date has not yet been set.

With both sides preparing to make their case, 1501 sought to have Perez sit for a deposition – meaning she would meet with the company’s lawyers and answer questions about Megan’s case under oath. But the rapper’s lawyers quickly threw a challenge flag in November, seeking a so-called protective order that would have shielded Perez from what they called “gamesmanship” by 1501.

They pointed to what’s known as the apex doctrine, which limits when high-ranking executives can be forced to give a deposition. (That’s the same rule that Spotify cited last year when it tried to shield CEO Daniel Ek from questioning in a copyright lawsuit.) Under the apex doctrine, busy top officials only need to testify when they have unique info that can’t be derived from other less burdensome sources.

“1501 does not seek relevant, admissible evidence because Perez does not have any,” Megan’s lawyers wrote in their November filing. “Rather, 1501 is intent on harassing Perez and disrupting her responsibilities as CEO of Roc Nation.”

The label quickly fired back in December, arguing that Perez had been “directly, personally, and substantially involved in the underlying facts of the lawsuit.” They claimed she’d had direct conversations about whether Megan’s 2021 Something for Thee Hotties counted as an “album” under her deal – a central dispute in the case. And they said Perez had personally negotiated one of Megan’s record contracts at issue in the lawsuit.

“Ms. Perez is trying to use her position at Roc Nation to prevent 1501 from obtaining otherwise discoverable information from her as a fact witness,” the label’s lawyers wrote. “1501 is not seeking discovery from Ms. Perez as CEO of Roc Nation. Rather, 1501 is seeking discovery from Ms. Perez as a fact witness.”

With Tuesday’s new filing from Megan’s lawyers, both sides have now fully made their arguments, and a judge will rule in the coming weeks or months on whether Perez must sit down with 1501’s lawyers. A rep for Megan and Roc Nation did not immediately return a request for comment on the deposition dispute.

Steve Zager, lead attorney for 1501, told Billboard his client was simply trying to obtain key information from an individual who was “intimately involved” in the events that led to litigation: “It is not harassment to try to serve a witness with knowledge of the facts of a case with a deposition subpoena where her lawyers have refused to accept service on her behalf.”

Read this week’s entire legal filing from Megan Thee Stallion’s lawyers here:

A Florida jury on Wednesday (Jan. 18) awarded Flo Rida $82 million in damages from energy drink maker Celsius in a lawsuit that claimed the company violated an endorsement deal with the rapper.

After a day of deliberations, a Broward County jury awarded the sum after finding that Celsius breached two contracts it had struck with the rapper in the mid-2010s, his lawyers confirmed to Billboard. Flo Rida’s lawsuit, filed in 2021, claimed he was owed millions in additional stock and ongoing royalties under the terms of the deals.

In an interview with Billboard, Flo Rida’s attorneys said their client was pleased with the outcome and believed that “the justice system performed well today.”

“It was a matter of respect,” said John J. Uustal of the firm Kelley Uustal PLC, who repped the rapper along with partner Cristina M. Pierson. “He was due these shares, he worked for them, and he wasn’t going to just let it go.”

An attorney for Celsius did not immediately return a request for comment on the verdict. Celsius will be able to appeal the verdict, first by asking the judge to overturn it and later by appealing the case to a state appeals court.

During a five-day trial, attorneys for the rapper (real name Tramar Dillard) argued that Celsius had met key sales thresholds that entitled Flo Rida to additional stock amounting to a one-percent stake in the business — a cut his lawyers claimed was worth at least $75 million now that Celsius had grown successful. They said his promotion had helped boost “a tiny local company that was about to go out of business.”

Celsius’ lawyers argued back that the company had broken no promises, saying the sales thresholds hadn’t been triggered and that the rapper had already been paid “far in excess” of what he was owed. They told the jury that Flo Rida was simply chasing a large cash payout to which he wasn’t entitled: “A business deal is a business deal. You don’t get a do-over just because you’re unhappy with the results.”

On Thursday, the lawyers for Flo Rida told Billboard that they believed arguments painting their client as “greedy” had backfired with jurors: “They understood all these complicated legal issues and in our view came to the right conclusion,” Uustal said. “After our client finished testifying, the was no doubt that this was not a greedy individual.”

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: Kanye West’s former lawyers go to extraordinary lengths to cut ties, indie rockers OK Go somehow find themselves in litigation over cereal, BMG is sued over the royalties to “Uptown Funk,” and much more.

Sign up for the free email version of The Legal Beat here.

THE BIG STORY: Kanye’s Lawyers Really, Really Want Out

Just like his corporate partners, his longtime record label, and many of his fans, Kanye West’s lawyers now want nothing to do with him.

In the wake of a string of antisemitic comments last fall, a who’s who of the nation’s top law firms publicly distanced themselves from the rapper. That included Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, the prestigious Wall Street firm that repped him in his dealings with The Gap; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, a white-shoe litigation firm that West had reportedly sought to hire; and Cohen Clair Lans Greifer Thorpe & Rottenstreich, one of many law firms that briefly handled his divorce from Kim Kardashian.

But no firm has done so with quite the flair of Greenberg Traurig, which had been handling a copyright case that accused West of using an unauthorized sample in one of the songs on Donda 2. After months of being unable to formally notify him that he’d been dropped, the firm has proposed an extraordinary alternative: printing newspaper ads announcing they’re no longer repping the disgraced rapper.

Yes, you read that right. Read the entire story here.

Other top stories this week…

A BAND VERSUS A CEREAL BRAND – In a bizarre new lawsuit, indie rockers OK Go found themselves embroiled in trademark litigation with Post Foods over a new line of on-the-go cereal cups called “OK Go!” The band says Post “chose to steal the name of our band”; Post says those allegations are “unfounded.”

“UPTOWN FUNK” ROYALTIES FIGHT – BMG was hit with a lawsuit claiming it has failed to pay royalties from the smash hit “Uptown Funk” to the families of late members of the Gap Band, who are credited as co-writers on the song. As reported by Billboard at the time, those credits were suddenly added in 2015 (months after the song was released) in an apparent effort to avoid litigation. So much for that…

DRAKEO DEATH CASE MOVES FORWARD – A Los Angeles judge rejected Live Nation’s first attempt to end a wrongful death lawsuit over the 2021 murder of Drakeo The Ruler at a music festival, ruling that the late rapper’s family might have a valid case against the concert giant.

HARRY STYLES FIGHTS COUNTERFEITS – Attorneys for Harry Styles filed a lawsuit against online retailers for allegedly violating his intellectual property rights by selling counterfeit merchandise to unsuspecting fans. The aim was to freeze assets and shut down the fake sites, which the lawyers said were mostly based in China.

DRE’S COPYRIGHT THREATS WORK – Marjorie Taylor Greene responded to a cease and desist letter from Dr. Dre over her unlicensed use of the rapper’s 1999 smash hit “Still D.R.E.,” promising to make “no further use” of the song. Dre had blasted the lawmaker for using his hit to “promote your divisive and hateful political agenda.”

SOCIAL MEDIA STAR SUED FOR ABUSE – Singer and influencer Malú Trevejo was sued by four former staffers, who alleged that they “endured mental, emotional, sexual and physical punishment” during their employment with the 20-year-old artist.