State Champ Radio Legal News
Page: 14
Eminem’s music publisher is suing Meta over accusations that Facebook and Instagram made “Lose Yourself” and other iconic tracks available to billions of users without permission, violating copyright law on a “massive” scale in the pursuit of “obscene monetary benefit.”
In a complaint filed Friday (May 30) in federal court, Eight Mile Style alleged that the social media giant added Eminem’s songs to its music library without the necessary licenses, allowing users to add them to millions of videos that have been “viewed billions of times.”
“Meta’s years-long and ongoing infringement of the Eight Mile compositions is another case of a trillion (with a ‘T’) dollar company exploiting the creative efforts of musical artists for the obscene monetary benefit of its executives and shareholders without a license and without regard to the rights of the owners of the intellectual property,” Eight Mile Style’s lawyer, Richard Busch, wrote in the filing.
Trending on Billboard
Eight Mile’s lawyers made a point to note that the lawsuit was not about Facebook and Instagram users uploading songs illegally — an issue heavily litigated between tech companies and music firms for years — but about the platforms themselves actively infringing copyrights.
“The rampant infringement of which Meta is guilty is not a case of merely allowing its users to infringe,” Busch wrote. “Rather, this case involves Meta’s knowing infringement of the [Eminem songs] by first reproducing and storing them in Meta’s online Music Libraries, and then distributing them for users to select and incorporate into their own photos and videos.”
Eminem doesn’t own Eight Mile Style, and the rapper is not involved in the litigation. A spokesperson for Meta did not immediately return a request for comment. Reached by Billboard, Eight Mile’s attorney Busch said: “Everything we have to say is in the complaint.”
Related
Click ‘Edit’ to Select Content
05/30/2025
Eight Mile Style is no stranger to copyright litigation. The company spent years suing Spotify over claims that the streamer didn’t secure proper licenses before uploading Eminem’s music to the platform. That case was dismissed last year by a federal judge who said the publisher had waited too long to sue.
At the center of Friday’s lawsuit are the huge libraries of fully licensed music that modern social media platforms provide for users, making it easy to add their favorite songs to their videos and photos. Such catalogs were an attempt to fix the chaotic early days of social media, where users would upload infringing music and sites would take it down if flagged.
The key innovation of those libraries is that they were licensed by rightsholders, but Eight Mile Style says Meta has no such license to include Eminem’s music in the libraries on Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
“The Eight Mile compositions are some of the most valuable in the world, and Eight Mile Style is very protective of these iconic songs,” the company’s lawyers wrote in the lawsuit. “Defendants have enjoyed massive profits at Eight Mile Style’s expense, in an amount to be determined, by copying and making the Eight Mile compositions available to Meta’s billions of active daily users.”
Notably, Eight Mile’s lawyers say they have proof that Meta knew it needed a license for Eminem’s music but had failed to secure one.
The suit claims that in 2020, Meta negotiated a music license with Audiam, a digital rights collection agency, to cover music that appears on its platforms. During those talks, the suit says the social giant “tried to negotiate, unsuccessfully” to include the Eight Mile tracks in that deal — and came away from it knowing “that no license was granted by Audiam or Eight Mile Style as part of those negotiations.”
“Indeed, these facts were confirmed by Audiam prior to this litigation, and Meta has not provided Eight Mile Style with any license authorizing its use of the Eight Mile Compositions, despite repeated requests to do so,” Busch wrote in the Friday complaint. Audiam is not named in the suit nor accused of any wrongdoing.
Offset is now demanding that his estranged wife Cardi B pay him spousal support after their split is finalized, according to new court filings in their divorce case.
The Migos rapper filed an updated answer to Cardi’s divorce petition in New Jersey’s Bergen County Superior Court earlier this month, as first reported by TMZ. The amended filing adds a request for an unspecified amount of alimony, but remains unchanged otherwise.
A representative for Offset and an attorney for Cardi did not immediately return a request for comment.
Trending on Billboard
After six years of marriage, Cardi filed for divorce from Offset in August, seeking primary custody of their 5-year-old daughter Kulture, 2-year-old son Wave and then-unborn baby. According to Cardi’s rep, the divorce filing was “not based on any one particular incident, it has been a long time coming and is amicable.”
Except it has been anything but. In anugly social media exchange in December, Offset claimed Cardi “look[ed] like the hoe” and was “focus[ed] on d—.” She immediately fired back: “So dating because I’m single means I’m just worried about d—?? You sound like a dummy,” before later adding: “F— off and sign the papers TODAY.”
In February, Offset filed his response to the divorce case, seeking joint custody of the children and that her home be the kids’ primary residence.
The current case is actually the second time Cardi has filed for a divorce. The “WAP” star previously filed in Georgia court to end their marriage in September 2020. At the time, she said it wasn’t “because of cheating” — although rumors of infidelity plagued their relationship for years.
Within a month, Cardi revealed that the couple had reconciled, and she later withdrew the case. “It’s hard not to talk to your best friend,” she said on Instagram Live of the rekindling. “It’s really hard not to talk to your best friend. And it’s really hard to have no d—.”
Over the next four years, their romance survived a few more rough patches — more cheating rumors, plus a social media squabble between the spouses — before Cardi finally confirmed that they had split once more. “I’ve been single for a minute now,” she said on Instagram Live in December 2023. She formally filed for divorce on Aug. 1.
I recently had the opportunity to testify before Congress about the NO FAKES Act of 2025 — a landmark effort to protect human voices and likenesses from being cloned by artificial intelligence without consent.
I started singing when I was four years old and have used my voice throughout my career to amplify lyrics that I believe in. Each recording reflects pieces of my individuality and artistry that have evolved throughout my life.
My recordings reflect my human experience, and I am honored that they are a part of people’s lives — from wedding vows to breakups, to celebrating milestones and even the special relationship between a mother and daughter.
Trending on Billboard
But today, my voice and likeness, along with so many others, are at risk. AI technology is amazing and can be used for so many wonderful purposes. But like all great technologies, it can also be abused when it is harnessed to steal people’s voices and likenesses to defraud families, manipulate the images of young girls, impersonate government officials or pose as artists like me.
It’s mind-blowing that we must even question that our voices and likenesses should be our own to control. It’s scary and unquestionably wrong.
I was so gratified with the commitment of the bipartisan group of Senators I testified before last week in DC to deal with deepfake images by supporting the NO FAKES Act, which would prevent the theft of someone’s voice or likeness to harm, harass, bully or defraud them or others, and damage our careers, reputations and values.
The NO FAKES Act gives every person the power to say “yes” or “no” about how their most personal human attributes are used.
In Congress, I was asked about the impact of unauthorized deepfakes on the careers and livelihoods of young artists — and that impact can be immense. Every performer in our business must establish early in their career who they are and what they stand for, creatively, artistically and personally. That is how we build connections with our fans. But if bad actors can invade that artist-fan bond and distort the story a young artist tells the world about who they are, many careers could be lost before they truly get started. And that’s a problem that goes beyond the arts — unconsented deepfakes and voice clones rob every person of the ability to speak their own truth and tell their own story.
The NO FAKES Act also supports innovation by providing a roadmap for how these powerful tools can be developed responsibly. And it doesn’t stand in the way of protected uses like news, parodies, or criticism. Thanks to technology companies like OpenAI and Google who support this bill, as well as the legions of creators who have worked so hard to advocate for it (nearly 400 of us last week endorsed it here), and the child protection and anti-sex-trafficking and exploitation groups who support it and continue to fight for those who are most vulnerable, we have a real chance of it becoming law this year.
It has been a special honor to record songs that shine a light on the battles many women fight, especially domestic violence. Fans have shared with me that “Independence Day” has given them strength, and in some cases, the song has been the catalyst that has made them realize they need to leave an abusive situation.
Imagine the harm an AI deepfake could do breaching that trust, using my voice in songs that belittle or justify abuse. Or the devastation of a fan, scammed by a deepfake voice clone impersonating me or any artist they trust, into handing over their hard-earned money to a fraudster. Or my voice and/or likeness being used to promote a product that may be subpar at best, and harmful at worst. And while this isn’t the part that I am an expert on, knowing AI is being used to deepfake and manipulate young girls in ways that can devastate and ruin their lives is especially troubling. As a mother, an artist and a human being who cares about others — I ask you to join in the fight to stop that kind of betrayal.
Passing the NO FAKES Act will set us on the right path to develop the world’s best AI while preserving the sacred qualities that make our country so special — authenticity, integrity, humanity and our endlessly inspiring spirit.
Martina McBride is an award-winning country music singer who has charted seven top 10s on the Billboard 200 and landed 21 songs on the Hot 100 in her career, and been nominated for 14 Grammys. She’s also a four-time CMA Female Vocalist of the Year and three-time ACM Top Female Vocalist winner, and in 2019 was honored with the ACM’s Icon Award.
A billion-dollar lawsuit over music piracy must be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justice Department now says, warning that a “sweeping” ruling won by the record labels could force internet providers to cut off service to many Americans.The massive copyright case – in which Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group won a $1 billion verdict in 2019 – saw a lower court hold Cox Communications itself liable for widespread illegal downloading by its users.
But in a brief filed Tuesday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer says the justices must consider overturning that ruling – telling the high court that the “sweeping” decision conflicts with legal precedent and has “broad practical implications” for how Americans use the internet.
Trending on Billboard
“Losing internet access is a serious consequence, as the internet has become an essential feature of modern life,” the solicitor general writes. “And because a single internet connection might be used by an entire family—or, in the case of coffee shops, hospitals, universities, and the like, by hundreds of downstream users—the decision below could cause numerous non-infringing users to lose their internet access.”
The central problem with the ruling against Cox, the feds say, is that it imposes costly liability on an internet service providers (ISPs) simply because “the music industry sends notices alleging past instances of infringement by those subscribers.” They say that approach could force IPSs to take aggressive measures out of fear of billion-dollar verdicts.
“Given the breadth of that liability, the decision below might encourage providers to avoid substantial monetary liability by terminating subscribers after receiving a single notice of alleged infringement,” Sauer writes.
An attorney for the labels did not immediately return a request for comment. In previous filings, lawyers for the music companies have rejected such dire warnings, calling them “contrived” and “disingenuous” efforts to avoid legal liability.
UMG, Warner and Sony all sued Cox in 2018, seeking to hold the internet giant itself liable for alleged wrongdoing committed by its users. The labels said Cox had ignored hundreds of thousands of infringement notices and had never permanently terminated a single subscriber accused of stealing music.
ISPs like Cox are often shielded from such lawsuits by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA. But a judge ruled that Cox had forfeited that protection by failing to terminate people who were repeatedly accused of violating copyright law. Stripped of that immunity, jurors held Cox liable in December 2019 for the infringement of 10,017 separate songs and awarded the labels more than $99,000 for each song — adding up to a whopping $1 billion.
Earlier this year, a federal appeals court ordered the award recalculated earlier this year, ruling that aspects of the verdict were improper. But the appeals court also upheld other parts, and Cox is still facing the potential of a very large penalty when it is re-issued.
So Cox took the case to the Supreme Court in August, warning that the “draconian” approach to copyright law “threatens mass disruption” for internet users: “This court should grant certiorari to prevent these cases from creating confusion, disruption, and chaos on the internet. Innovation, privacy, and competition depend on it.”
Those same arguments are echoed by the solicitor general’s Tuesday brief to the justices, albeit in more subdued terms.
The appellate court ruling against Cox “departs from this court’s contributory-infringement precedents,” Sauer writes, including the landmark 2005 ruling that shuttered filesharing websites like Grokster. The feds say it also conflicts with a more recent ruling that said Twitter didn’t aid a terrorist attack simply because ISIS used the social media site.
“Adoption of Sony’s rule would … threaten liability for other service providers (e.g., an electric utility) that might be asked to cut off service to identified customers who had previously used the service for unlawful purposes,” Tuesday’s filing.
Attorneys for the labels will have a chance to file their own brief responding to the government’s arguments. In their own motion asking the Supreme Court to reject Cox’s appeal, the music companies said the ISP was exaggerating such warnings to help its legal case.
“Cox has no problem severing the internet lifeline for tens of thousands of homes and businesses when its own revenue is on the line,” the labels wrote in a November response. “Cox terminated over 600,000 subscribers for failure to pay their bills during the two-year period relevant here. During that same period, it terminated 32 subscribers for copyright infringement.”
Former Red Hot Chili Peppers guitarist Josh Klinghoffer will avoid prison time after striking and killing a man with his car in Los Angeles last year, according to a new report.
In an Alhambra, California, courtroom on Wednesday (May 28), Klinghoffer pleaded no contest to misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence after hitting the man, 47-year-old Israel Sanchez, with his 2022 GMC Yukon on March 18, 2024, according to Rolling Stone. Sanchez, who was in a crosswalk when he was hit, was pronounced dead at a hospital later that day.
As a result of the no jail plea deal, Klinghoffer was sentenced to one year of informal probation and 60 days of community labor, Rolling Stone reports. Additionally, he must complete a driver safety class and pay restitution in an amount to be determined at a later date.
After Klinghoffer entered his plea deal, a prosecutor read a statement that warned against distracted driving, according to Rolling Stone: “If you continue to drive while distracted, and as a result of your driving someone is killed, you can be charged with murder.” Klinghoffer then said that he understood.
Also during the hearing, Sanchez’s only daughter, Ashley Sanchez, read a victim impact statement in which she called him “an extraordinary grandfather” whose “absence has left an irreversible void in our lives,” according to Rolling Stone. In addressing Klinghoffer, she said her father’s death had caused her “deep and lasting trauma” and called it an “avoidable loss.”
Klinghoffer still faces a wrongful death lawsuit over the incident. In the complaint, filed by Ashley Sanchez, her attorneys wrote, “Video of the incident shows that defendant Josh Adam Klinghoffer made no braking or slowing motion until after he fatally struck Israel Sanchez, indicating that defendant was likely driving while distracted.” The woman’s lawyers also claimed to have video evidence showing that Klinghoffer was “using a device mere seconds before” he hit Sanchez. The trial in that case is slated to kick off on July 1, according to Rolling Stone.
Representatives for Klinghoffer and Ashley Sanchez did not immediately return requests for comment on Wednesday.
A touring guitarist for the Red Hot Chili Peppers in the late 2000s, Klinghoffer officially joined the band full-time in 2010 as a replacement for John Frusciante. After working on two studio albums with the group, he was fired in 2019 following Frusciante’s return. He has also served as a touring guitarist for Pearl Jam and released solo material under the name Pluralone.
Donald Trump has pardoned YoungBoy Never Broke Again, the rapper confirmed on Wednesday (May 28). The news was first reported by CNN’s Jasmine Wright on X. “President Trump has also issued a full pardon to rapper NBA YoungBoy, one of the most streamed rappers, who was convicted of possessing weapons as a felon,” she wrote. […]
Smokey Robinson has filed a countersuit against four longtime housekeepers who accused him of rape earlier this month, claiming the allegations were part of an “extortionate scheme” by the women and their attorneys.
The new cross-complaint, filed in Los Angeles court Wednesday (May 28), came three weeks after the unnamed housekeepers filed a $50 million civil lawsuit over allegations that the legendary Motown singer repeatedly raped them over nearly two decades in his employ.
In filing the countersuit, defense attorneys for Robinson went on offense — accusing the four women and their attorneys (John W. Harris and Herbert Hayden) of defamation, invasion of privacy, civil conspiracy and even elder abuse over the “fabricated” allegations.
“The depths of plaintiffs’ avarice and greed knows no bounds,” Robinson’s attorney Christopher Frost writes, according to a copy of the submitted complaint obtained by Billboard. “During the very time that the Robinsons were being extraordinarily generous with plaintiffs, plaintiffs were concocting an extortionate plan to take everything from the Robinsons … and wrongfully destroy the Robinsons’ well-built reputations.”
Allegations made during court cases, such as those against Robinson, are typically shielded from defamation lawsuits by the First Amendment. But Robinson’s attorneys say the accusers and their lawyers stepped outside those protections by holding a press conference in which they “paraded themselves in front of the media” and created a “media whirlwind.”
“While the law protects plaintiffs’ ability to concoct whatever fiction they may wish to create in a legal pleading … it does not allow plaintiffs to make gratuitous and slanderous allegations in media circus-type press conferences,” Frost wrote in the cross-complaint.
Attorneys for the accusers did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday. Frost confirmed that the cross-complaint was filed with the court on Wednesday but declined to comment otherwise.
Robinson was sued on May 6, accused of forcing the housekeepers to have oral and vaginal sex in his Los Angeles-area bedroom dozens of times between 2007 and 2024. The singer’s wife, Frances Robinson, was also named as a defendant over claims that she didn’t do enough to stop the abuse, despite knowing that he had a history of sexual misconduct.
In addition to the sexual abuse allegations, the lawsuit also claimed that the Robinsons paid their employees below minimum wage, and that Frances Robinson created a hostile work environment replete with screaming and “racially-charged epithets.” The accusers also filed a police report, leading the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to open a criminal investigation.
In Wednesday’s countersuit, the Robinsons’ attorneys told a very different story. They said the housekeepers had “stayed with the Robinsons year after year” because the couple had treated them as “extended family,” including financially helping them and celebrating holidays together. The complaint quoted alleged text messages in which the accusers wished Robinson a happy birthday and told him “love you.”
“The Robinsons did not abuse, harm, or take advantage of plaintiffs,” Frost wrote. “They treated plaintiffs with the utmost kindness and generosity.”
According to Wednesday’s new filing, the housekeepers and their lawyers made “pre-litigation demands for $100 million or more” before filing their case. When that failed to work, the new filing says the accusers went public with the allegations as loudly as they could.
“The resulting media whirlwind was swift and severe, being picked up by virtually every major media outlet worldwide, and the harm to the Robinsons’ reputation [is] palpable,” Frost wrote. “The Robinsons are afraid to open the newspaper, read the internet, or even go out in public for fear of what they may hear or see next, no matter how fabricated.”
The filing focused on statements by Harris, the attorney, at a May 6 press conference calling Robinson a “serial and sick rapist” and a “serial assaulter” — statements that Robinson says are fair game for a defamation case: “Plaintiffs may be able to make slanderous statements in a legal pleading (for now), but they are not entitled to do so in gratuitous, self-serving press conferences.”
In addition to defamation and other wrongdoing, the Robinsons say the accusers tried to “hide, conceal, and destroy evidence exposing their illegal scheme,” including by taking Frances Robinson’s phone and deleting text conversations. The filing hinted that the Robinsons would seek additional penalties for such “spoliation” of evidence.
THE BIG STORY: The Beastie Boys and Universal Music Group both reached settlements to end copyright lawsuits in which they accused Chili’s of using their songs in videos posted to TikTok, Instagram and other platforms – part of a flood of recent litigation over music on social media.
The cases, filed last year, claimed the restaurant chain featured copyrighted music in what amounted to advertisements on social media. The UMG case involved songs by Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber, Mariah Carey, Lady Gaga, Snoop Dogg and dozens of other artists, but the problem was particularly galling for the Beastie Boys, a group that’s long been famously opposed to their music appearing in ads.
When it comes to music, social media has increasingly become a legal minefield for brands. TikTok, Instagram and other services provide their users with huge libraries of fully licensed songs to play over their videos, but those tracks are strictly for personal use and cannot be used for commercial videos. That kind of content requires a separate “synch” license, just like any conventional advertisement on TV.
Trending on Billboard
That distinction appears to have been lost on many brands. Sony filed a lawsuit against Marriott last year for allegedly using nearly 1,000 of its songs in social media posts, and Kobalt and other publishers sued more than a dozen NBA teams over the same thing a few months later. In March, Sony sued the University of Southern California for allegedly using Michael Jackson and AC/DC songs on in videos hyping its college sports teams. Then last month, Warner Music filed a case against cookie chain Crumbl, claiming it used songs by Lizzo, Mariah Carey, Ariana Grande and Beyoncé without clearing them.
What comes next? For music owners, you should take a swing through TikTok and see if any big companies are profiting off your songs. For brand owners, experts tell Billboard they need to be taking “proactive steps” to fix the problem before it turns into a costly lawsuit.
You’re reading 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. To get the newsletter in your inbox every Tuesday, go subscribe here.
Other top stories this week…
DIDDY TRIAL GOES ON – The Diddy trial continued in its second week, with blockbuster testimony from Kid Cudi about how he believes that the indicted mogul once broke into his house and ordered someone to torch his Porsche with a Molotov cocktail. To get up to speed on the trial, go read our full recap of the first two weeks.
LIL WAYNE LAWSUIT – Darius “Deezle” Harrison, a producer on Lil Wayne’s hit album 2008’s Tha Carter III, sued Universal Music Group over allegations that he’s owed more than 10 years’ worth of royalties from the chart-topping record – a figure he says totals more than $3 million. His lawyers say he has not been paid royalties from the album in over a decade.
HITTING BACK – Months after hip-hop producer Madlib filed a lawsuit against his former manager and business partner Eothen “Egon” Alapatt, the exec sued him right back — blasting him for “having the audacity to bring this mean-spirited personal action.” The countersuit accused Madlib of a wide range of “misconduct” following the sudden end of their long partnership, including promising to release music by the late Mac Miller that he doesn’t own.
IS IT OVER NOW? – Justin Baldoni dropped his subpoena of Taylor Swift in his messy legal battle against her friend Blake Lively – that Swift’s reps had fiercely criticized as “tabloid clickbait.” Baldoni’s lawyers had sought communications between the Swift and Lively teams, citing anonymous accusations that Lively asked Swift to delete text messages and demanded a statement of support. But a judge quickly struck those claims from the case docket as improper, irrelevant and “potentially libelous.”
LILES CLAIMS EXTORTION – Record exec Kevin Liles claimed that a rapper named Lady Luck was trying to extort him by falsely accusing him of sexual assault in the 2000s. He said her lawyers threatened to publicize the “utterly false and horrendous allegations” if he didn’t pay them $30 million: “I intend to vigorously fight any complaint she may file and will take whatever legal action is necessary against her and the attorneys who have participated in this attempted shakedown.” The new dispute is unrelated to another sexual assault lawsuit against Liles filed by an unnamed woman earlier this year, which he is seeking to have dismissed.
MEGAN BLASTS TORY – Megan Thee Stallion’s legal team fired back at recent claims of new evidence that would exonerate Tory Lanez, who was convicted in 2022 of shooting the rapper. Lanez’s supporters say there’s new surveillance footage and a new witness who can ID a different shooter, but Megan’s lawyers issued a detailed report rejecting those claims: “One by one, their misleading statements unravel and all that is left is the simple truth: he was convicted by overwhelming evidence.”
BOWLING ALLEY BRAWL – DaBaby won a court order tossing out assault and battery claims over a 2022 bowling-alley brawl with Brandon Curiel, the brother of his ex-girlfriend DaniLeigh, after a judge ruled that the rapper had not been properly served for years. Though the case against DaBaby was dismissed, the rapper could still be on the hook financially as the case continues against the bowling alley where the attack allegedly occurred.
FORTNITE PATENT VERDICT – Epic Games, the company behind the video game Fortnite, defeated a $32.5 million patent lawsuit over animated in-game concerts put on by Travis Scott and Ariana Grande. A company called Utherverse Digital claimed Epic infringed its virtual reality patents when it staged the virtual concerts for tens of millions of Fortnite gamers during the COVID-19 pandemic, but a jury in Seattle said neither the Scott nor the Grande concert used Utherverse’s technology.
300 Entertainment co-founder Kevin Liles has denied sexual assault allegations made by rapper Lady Luck (born Shanell Jones). Liles released a statement on Tuesday (May 27) claiming the former Def Jam artist engaged in a $30 million extortion plot against him earlier this month. According to Liles, Jones and her legal team threatened to release […]
With the Diddy trial now in recess for the long holiday weekend, Billboard is recapping the biggest moments over the first two weeks — from Cassie Ventura’s bombshell testimony about “freak offs” to a hunt for Suge Knight to Kid Cudi’s torched Porsche.
The trial, which is expected to last six more weeks, will decide the fate of Sean “Diddy” Combs, who federal prosecutors say coerced Ventura and other women to partake in the freak offs — drug-fueled sex with male escorts for his entertainment. His attorneys say the events were entirely consensual.
After just two weeks of testimony, there’s no shortage of big moments. Here are the six you — and the jurors — are going to remember.
The Video
On the very first day of the trial, prosecutors wasted no time getting to their most explosive piece of evidence: a headline-grabbing surveillance video of Combs beating Ventura in the hallway at Los Angeles’ Intercontinental Hotel in March 2016.
Ahead of the trial, the two sides spent months arguing over whether the clip could be played for the jury. Combs’ team argued first that it had been unfairly leaked to the press to taint the jury pool, and later said it had been deceptively edited and would confuse jurors. But prosecutors said he was merely “desperate” to hide “some of the most damning evidence of his sex trafficking,” and a judge eventually ruled that it could be played.
Prosecutors did so immediately, calling as their very first witness a former security guard at the hotel who responded to the incident. Playing with no audio in a silent courtroom, jurors looked on impassively as the ugly footage played twice, once with the security guard describing each moment in detail from the witness stand.
Graphic Details About Freak-Offs
Freak offs — elaborate events in which Combs allegedly forced Ventura and others to have sex with escorts while he masturbated — have been at the center of the case since it was filed. But on the first day of the trial, jurors got far more vivid details.
Daniel Philips, a male exotic dancer who said he’d taken part in numerous freak offs, described arriving to dark Manhattan hotel rooms, where he would have sex with Ventura at Diddy’s direction. When a prosecutor asked what Combs had been doing during the events, Philips didn’t mince words: “He was sitting in the corner masturbating.”
Philips’ testimony got darker and more graphic from there, describing ejaculation, urination, drug use and finally an outburst of physical violence against Cassie: “I was shocked. It came out of nowhere. I was terrified,” Philips said.
Later, Cassie told jurors her own side of the story, saying the parties left her feeling “humiliated” and eventually “became a job,” but that she felt she had no choice but to participate — first out of wanting to please a man she loved, and later out of fear of blackmail videos and physical violence.
When asked about whether she had wanted to be urinated on, Cassie was unequivocal: “No, I did not want it,” she said. “It was disgusting, it was too much. I choked. No one could think I wanted it.”
Celebrity Name Drops
The first two weeks of the Diddy trial have seen a number of major celebrity name-drops — none accused of any wrongdoing, but likely still to the chagrin of their publicists.
Under cross-examination, Ventura told the jury about a 21st birthday party that Combs threw for her at a Las Vegas club in 2007 — a key early moment in their romantic relationship. When asked about other celebrities in attendance, she said that Diddy had “brought Britney Spears” to the event. Later, defense attorneys mentioned Michael B. Jordan, suggesting Combs was jealous because he was suspicious Ventura was having an affair with the actor in 2015.
Then at the start of the second week, Danity Kane singer Dawn Richard told jurors that Combs once punched Ventura in the stomach at a Los Angeles restaurant where Usher and other celebrities were present. Richard’s testimony left it unclear whether the A-listers had actually seen the incident or merely been at the event.
The Hunt For Suge Knight
But no celebrity name drop was more dramatic than that of Suge Knight — the former CEO of Death Row Records and a major Diddy rival in the East Coast–West Coast hip-hop rivalry of the 1990s.
During her testimony last week, Cassie told jurors of a 2008 incident in which Combs abruptly left a freak-off after learning that Knight was at a diner nearby. “I was crying,” she said. “I was screaming, ‘Please don’t do anything stupid’.”
Then on Tuesday, Diddy’s former personal assistant David James offered another, more detailed perspective on the incident — saying he driven a black SUV carrying Combs, a security guard and multiple handguns to the restaurant, but that Knight had already left when they arrived. “It was the first time I realized my life was in danger,” James said.
Cassie’s Settlements
During cross-examination, Diddy’s lawyers got Cassie to reveal the size of two major civil settlements stemming from the abuse she allegedly suffered — a tactic likely aimed at making jurors question her motives for speaking out against Combs.
It was Ventura’s civil lawsuit, filed in November 2023, that first raised allegations against Combs. Though it sparked a flood of additional cases and set into motion the criminal probe that led to his indictment, the case itself was almost immediately dismissed after Cassie reached a private settlement.
At trial this week, Cassie confirmed that she had she had received $20 million in that deal. Diddy’s defense attorney quickly noted that Ventura had canceled an upcoming concert tour soon after inking that settlement. “As soon as you saw that you were going to get the $20 million, you canceled the tour because you didn’t need it anymore, right?” Estevao asked Ventura. “That wasn’t the reason why,” she replied.
Later that same day, Ventura said she would give the money back if she could reverse Combs’ abuse. “If I never had to have freak-offs I would have agency and autonomy,” Ventura said.
Near the very end of her testimony, Ventura also revealed another settlement for the first time, disclosing that she was expecting to receive roughly $10 million from InterContinental Hotels over the 2016 incident captured in the surveillance tape.
Kid Cudi Takes The Stand
Beyond Cassie herself, the highest-profile witness to testify so far has been Kid Cudi — a critically acclaimed rapper who briefly dated Ventura in 2011.
Cudi has long been linked to the case. Back when Ventura first sued, she suggested that Combs had blown up Cudi’s car as an act of jealous revenge. A spokesperson for the rapper later confirmed her account to the New York Times: “This is all true.”
Sitting on the witness stand, Cudi said it himself — telling jurors that he believes Combs broke into his Los Angeles house and later torched his Porsche with a Molotov cocktail. Shown a photo of his burnt-up luxury car, Cudi said, “It looks like the top of my Porsche was cut open, and that’s where the Molotov cocktail was put in.”
Cudi later told jurors that Combs had promised him he wasn’t responsible for the car explosion, but he said he believed Combs was lying.
