Legal News
Page: 17
President-elect Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to pause the potential TikTok ban from going into effect until his administration can pursue a “political resolution” to the issue.
The request came as TikTok and the Biden administration filed opposing briefs to the court, in which the company argued the court should strike down a law that could ban the platform by Jan. 19 while the government emphasized its position that the statute is needed to eliminate a national security risk.
“President Trump takes no position on the underlying merits of this dispute. Instead, he respectfully requests that the Court consider staying the Act’s deadline for divestment of January 19, 2025, while it considers the merits of this case,” said Trump’s amicus brief, which supported neither party in the case and was written by D. John Sauer, Trump’s choice for solicitor general.
Trending on Billboard
The argument submitted to the court is the latest example of Trump inserting himself in national issues before he takes office. The Republican president-elect has already begun negotiating with other countries over his plans to impose tariffs, and he intervened earlier this month in a plan to fund the federal government, calling for a bipartisan plan to be rejected and sending Republicans back to the negotiating table.
He has been holding meetings with foreign leaders and business officials at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida while he assembles his administration, including a meeting last week with TikTok CEO Shou Chew.
Trump has reversed his position on the popular app, having tried to ban it during his first term in office over national security concerns. He joined TikTok during his 2024 presidential campaign and his team used it to connect with younger voters, especially male voters, by pushing content that was often macho and aimed at going viral.
He said earlier this year that he still believed there were national security risks with TikTok, but that he opposed banning it.
The filings Friday come ahead of oral arguments scheduled for Jan. 10 on whether the law, which requires TikTok to divest from its China-based parent company or face a ban, unlawfully restricts speech in violation of the First Amendment. The law was signed by President Joe Biden in April after it passed Congress with broad bipartisan support. TikTok and ByteDance filed a legal challenge afterwards.
Earlier this month, a panel of three federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the statute, leading TikTok to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
The brief from Trump said he opposes banning TikTok at this junction and “seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office.”
In their brief to the Supreme Court on Friday, attorneys for TikTok and its parent company ByteDance argued the federal appeals court erred in its ruling and based its decision on “alleged ‘risks’ that China could exercise control” over TikTok’s U.S. platform by pressuring its foreign affiliates.
The Biden administration has argued in court that TikTok poses a national security risk due to its connections to China. Officials say Chinese authorities can compel ByteDance to hand over information on TikTok’s U.S. patrons or use the platform to spread or suppress information.
But the government “concedes that it has no evidence China has ever attempted to do so,” TikTok’s legal filing said, adding that the U.S. fears are predicated on future risks.
In its filing Friday, the Biden administration said because TikTok “is integrated with ByteDance and relies on its propriety engine developed and maintained in China,” its corporate structure carries with it risk.
This story was originally published by The Associated Press.
The woman who accused Jay-Z and Sean “Diddy” Combs of drugging and raping her when she was 13 years old can remain anonymous for now, a judge ruled Thursday (Dec. 26), citing the “highly sensitive” nature of her accusations.
According to court documents obtained by Billboard, Judge Annalisa Torres wrote that “the weight of the factors” in the case “tips in favor of allowing Plaintiff to remain anonymous” for now. In justifying the decision, the judge cited the Jane Doe’s assertion that she continues to suffer from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and other health effects due to the alleged rape, as well as a claim by the woman’s attorneys that Combs has threatened other alleged victims who have filed suits against him for speaking out. However, the judge acknowledges that “because the balance of these factors will certainly shift” as the case moves forward, she plans to revisit the question of anonymity at a later date.
Also in Thursday’s ruling, the judge turned down a request by Jay-Z’s legal team to fast-track a hearing on their motion to dismiss the case against him and criticized the rap mogul’s lawyer, Alex Spiro, for his “relentless filing of combative motions containing inflammatory language and ad hominem attacks” against the plaintiff’s attorney, Tony Buzbee, calling them “inappropriate, a waste of judicial resources, and a tactic unlikely to benefit his client.” The motion to expedite the hearing was tied to a Dec. 13 NBC News interview in which the Jane Doe admitted to inconsistencies and “mistakes” in her narrative of the alleged assault and was contradicted by her own father.
In the woman’s complaint, filed earlier this month, she accused Combs and Jay-Z (born Shawn Carter) of drugging and sexually assaulting her following an MTV Video Music Awards after-party in 2000. The case was an updated version of a previous complaint the woman had filed against Combs alone.
Since the updated case including Carter was filed on Dec. 8, the rap mogul and his attorneys have forcefully denied the allegations, with Carter calling the lawsuit a “blackmail attempt” and characterizing Buzbee as a “fraud” with an aim “to exploit people for personal gain.” Buzbee has filed a host of lawsuits against Combs over the last several months and has said he represents dozens more victims who have yet to file their own complaints.
In a statement sent to Billboard in response to Thursday’s court ruling, Buzbee said that “the coordinated and desperate efforts to attack me as counsel for alleged victims are falling flat.”
An attorney for Carter did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s request for comment.
The latest decision in the case comes as part of a mounting legal war between Jay-Z and Buzbee. On Dec. 18, Buzbee filed a lawsuit against Jay-Z’s company, Roc Nation, and its attorneys (including Marcy Croft and law firm Quinn Emanuel) accusing them of “engaging shadowy operatives” to derail his case against the rapper, including by allegedly offering money to one of his former clients (Gerardo Garcia) to convince him to file bogus lawsuits against his firm — an incident Buzbee claims was caught on tape. “Defendants have conspired to obstruct justice by engaging shadowy operatives to illegally seek out more than two dozen current and former clients of The Buzbee Law Firm to convince those clients to bring frivolous cases against [the firm],” Buzbee wrote.
In response, a Roc Nation spokesperson called Buzbee’s lawsuit “nothing but another sham” and “a pathetic attempt to distract and deflect attention,” while Croft reacted by calling the allegations in the lawsuit “false” and “a desperate attempt to distract from his mounting legal woes.”
Buzbee’s Dec. 18 lawsuit is actually the second he’s filed against Carter’s attorneys over the past month. The first, filed earlier in December, accused Quinn Emanuel of retaliatory behavior, including alleged harassment of Buzbee’s colleagues, clients and family. That came in response to a lawsuit Jay-Z secretly filed against Buzbee in November in which the rapper accused the Texas attorney of spearheading an effort to extract settlements from innocent celebrities after threatening to link them to Combs.
Daddy Yankee and his estranged wife Mireddys González reached a partial agreement in their first court hearing on Friday (Dec. 20) over his allegations that she withdrew $100 million in funds from two of his companies without authorization. Following private negotiations, both parties agreed that the artist born Ramón Luis Ayala Rodríguez will regain the […]
A criminal investigation has been launched into suspected fraud at U.K. collecting society PPL after the organization discovered “suspicious activity” on a small number of member accounts.
PPL said one staff member had been dismissed following an internal investigation it carried out over several months earlier this year. The alleged crime is now being investigated by The Metropolitan Police, the CMO said in a short statement.
“We recently became aware of suspicious activity on a small number of member accounts. We immediately conducted an internal investigation, and one employee was dismissed,” said a spokesperson Thursday (Dec.19). The organization said it was “working with the limited number of impacted members to rectify accounts.”
PPL is the second largest of the United Kingdom’s two main collecting societies and licenses recorded music on behalf of labels and artists to U.K. radio and television broadcasters, as well as its use in bars, nightclubs, shops and offices.
Trending on Billboard
Last year, the 90-year-old organization — which has more than 110 neighboring rights agreements in place with international CMOs, including SoundExchange and the Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies (AARC) in the United States — collected revenues of £285 million ($356 million), its highest ever annual total. In 2023, PPL paid out £247 million ($309 million) to almost 165,000 performers and recording rights holders.
Record industry sources tell Billboard that the suspected embezzlement is believed to have involved an individual or individuals posing as recording artists who were not registered as PPL members and then fraudulently claiming royalties on their behalf.
Billboard understands that PPL discovered the scheme when the real artists tried to register as members earlier this year. Sources say that the fraudulent royalty claims are believed to have taken place over a number of years, possibly as far back as 2016, with the fraudulent transactions believed to total around £500,000 ($625,000).
PPL said it was unable to comment on the case while a criminal investigation is underway and declined to answer questions on when it discovered the suspicious activity, the timeframe of the alleged offense or whether the impacted member accounts relate to U.K. artist members or overseas partner CMOs. The Metropolitan Police has been approached by Billboard for details.
The criminal investigation into suspected embezzlement at PPL comes as the music business battles on multiple fronts against fraudulent activity and rampant copyright infringement on a global scale.
In November, Universal Music Group (UMG), ABKCO and Concord Music Group filed a lawsuit against Believe and its distribution company TuneCore, accusing them of “massive ongoing infringements” of their sound recordings, seeking $500 million in damages (Believe refutes the claims). One month earlier, TikTok cited issues with “fraud” as its reason for walking away from renewing its license with Merlin, a digital licensing coalition representing thousands of indie labels and distributors.
There have also been several high-profile cases against individuals accused of defrauding streaming platforms, rights holders and collection societies in recent years.
In 2022, two men in Phoenix, Arizona pled guilty to claiming $23 million worth of YouTube royalties from unknowing Latin musicians like Julio Iglesias, Anuel AA, and Daddy Yankee despite having no actual ties to those artists.
More recently, a North Carolina musician was indicted by federal prosecutors in September in the first ever federal streaming fraud case. Prosecutors allege Michael Smith used two distributors to upload “hundreds of thousands” of AI-generated tracks, and then used bots to stream them, earning him more than $10 million since 2017.
To try and curb the rise in fraudulent activity the music business has been ramping up its efforts to stop money being illegally siphoned out of the royalty pool.
Last year, a coalition of digital music companies, including distributors including TuneCore, Distrokid and CD Baby, as well as streaming platforms Spotify and Amazon Music, launched the “Music Fights Fraud” task force. The past 12 months have additionally seen Spotify and Deezer change their royalty systems to include financial penalties for music distributors and labels associated with fraudulent activity.
Spotify is firing back at Drake’s accusations that the streamer helped Universal Music Group artificially boost Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us,” calling the allegations “false” and blasting the rapper’s legal action as a “subversion of the normal judicial process.”
The new filing is the first response to a petition filed last month in which Drake accused UMG and Spotify of an illegal “scheme” involving bots, payola and other methods to pump up Lamar’s song — a track that savagely attacked Drake amid an ongoing feud between the two stars.
In a motion filed Friday in Manhattan court, the streaming giant says it has found zero evidence to support the claims of a bot attack, and flatly denies that it struck any deal with UMG to support Lamar’s song.
Trending on Billboard
“The predicate of Petitioner’s entire request for discovery from Spotify is false,” the company’s lawyers write. “Spotify and UMG have never had any such arrangement.”
Beyond denying the allegations, the filing repeatedly criticizes Drake for going to court in the first place — calling his claims of a conspiracy “far-fetched” and “speculative,” and questioning why Spotify (a “stranger” to the “long-running fued” between Drake, Kendrick and UMG) is even involved.
Spotify also criticized Drake for the way in which he brought his claims to court — not as a full-fledged lawsuit, but as an unusual “pre-action” petition aimed at demanding information. The company accused Drake of using that “extraordinary” procedure because his allegations are too flimsy to pass muster in an actual lawsuit and would have been quickly dismissed.
“What petitioner is seeking to do here … is to bypass the normal pleading requirements … and obtain by way of pre-action discovery that which it would only be entitled to seek were it to survive a motion to dismiss,” Spotify’s lawyers write. “This subversion of the normal judicial process should be rejected.”
A spokesperson for Drake and his legal team did not immediately return a request for comment on Spotify’s filings.
Drake went to court last month, accusing UMG of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the federal “RICO” statute often used against organized crime. He accused Spotify of participating in the scheme by charging reduced licensing fees in exchange for recommending the song to users. A day later, he filed a similar action in Texas, suggesting that UMG had legally defamed him by releasing a song that “falsely” accused him of being a “sex offender.”
The legal actions represent a remarkable twist in the high-profile beef between the two stars, which saw Drake and Lamar exchange stinging diss tracks over a period of months earlier this year. That a rapper would take such a dispute to court seemed almost unthinkable at the time, and Drake has been ridiculed in some corners of the hip-hop world for doing so.
The actions also represent a stunning rift between Drake and UMG, where the star has spent his entire career — first through signing a deal with Lil Wayne’s Young Money imprint, which was distributed by Republic Records, then by signing directly to Republic.
UMG has not yet filed a responded to the litigation in court. But in a statement issued at the time, the music giant called Drake’s allegations “offensive and untrue”: “No amount of contrived and absurd legal arguments in this pre-action submission can mask the fact that fans choose the music they want to hear.”
In Friday’s filing, Spotify echoed that criticism — arguing that civil RICO cases are difficult to prove even with ample evidence, and that Drake hardly has any: “The Petition asserts no specific facts of any kind in support of these alleged RICO and deceptive practices violations,” the company wrote. “Instead, it relies exclusively on speculation … or the claims of anonymous individuals on the internet.”
Spotify’s attorneys seemed particularly focused on disputing the idea that swarms of bots had been able to flood the platforms to fraudulently boost Lamar’s track — a hot-button issue in the modern music industry. In an affidavit attached to Friday’s filing, Spotify’s vp of music offered sworn testimony that the company “invests heavily” in efforts to “mitigate the impact of artificial streaming on our platform.”
“When we identify attempted stream manipulation, we take action that may include removing streaming numbers, withholding royalties and charging penalty fees,” David Kaefer wrote in the filing. “Confirmed and suspected artificial streams are also removed from our chart calculations. This helps us to protect royalty payouts for honest, hardworking artists.”
Universal Music Group, the owner of Republic Records, has reached a settlement to resolve a trademark lawsuit the music giant filed against a music investment platform called Republic.
The deal will end a case in which UMG accused the smaller company of confusing consumers by expanding into music royalties investing – a move UMG warned could dupe people into thinking Republic Records was involved in the project. But a judge later ruled that the case would be difficult to win.
In an order last week (Dec. 13), the federal judge overseeing the lawsuit said that all claims had been “settled in principle” and ordered the case dismissed. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed, and neither side immediately returned requests for more details.
Trending on Billboard
Launched in 2016, OpenDeal Inc.’s Republic platform lets users buy into startups, cryptocurrency projects and other investments across a wide range of sectors. In October 2021, the company announced it would start allowing users to invest in music royalties by purchasing NFTs (non-fungible tokens), calling itself the first to “bring music investing to the masses.”
That quickly sparked the lawsuit from UMG, which acquired Republic Records in 2000 and now operates it as one of its top imprints, home to Taylor Swift, Ariana Grande, Drake, Post Malone and many others. In a November 2021 complaint seeking an immediate injunction, UMG called OpenDeal’s new service a “wanton effort to usurp plaintiff’s Republic name and trademarks for itself.”
“The artists, labels, managers, agents, and fans who currently know of plaintiff’s Republic label would be presented with two different companies offering identical services under identical names in the same industry,” UMG’s lawyers wrote at the time. “Confusion is inevitable.”
But in July 2022, Judge Analisa Torres ruled that that UMG was unlikely to be able to prove such allegations in court. She said the evidence of potential confusion was “extremely minimal,” since the services and consumers of the two companies “differ significantly” — and that a shared connection to the music industry was “not enough.”
“It is conceivable that there may ultimately be some overlap between the parties’ consumers—for instance, fans of a popular artist may both purchase that artist’s music through Republic Records, and make crowdfunded investments in recordings by that artist through the Republic Platform,” the judge wrote. “But, such scenarios remain hypothetical.”
That ruling – denying UMG’s request for a so-called preliminary injunction that would have forced OpenDeal to change its name while the case was litigated – was not a final decision on the case. But it indicated that UMG was unlikely to win, and such trademark cases often settle after such early skirmishes.
After that decision, UMG later filed an updated version of its allegations, and the case proceeded into discovery – the process of exchanging evidence in a civil lawsuit. But the lawsuit has largely been paused for more than a year as the two sides engaged in settlement talks that ultimately resulted in last week’s agreement.
LONDON (AP) — A teen charged with killing three girls and wounding 10 other people in a stabbing rampage at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in England this summer remained silent in court Wednesday as not guilty pleas were entered on his behalf.
Axel Rudakubana, 18, who has refused to speak in each court appearance, was read the charges of three counts of murder, 10 counts of attempted murder and additional charges related to possessing the poison ricin and for having an al-Qaida manual.
Justice Julian Goose ordered a clerk to enter the pleas in Liverpool Crown Court as Rudakubana stayed mum during a video appearance from a London prison where he is held.
Trending on Billboard
His trial is scheduled for Jan. 20.
It was the first time in a court appearance that the teen did not pull his sweatshirt collar over his nose to obscure his face.
He appeared to smile as an officer confirmed that the court proceeding could be heard at the prison. The judge noted that Rudakubana was not responding. He swayed from side to side as the charges were read and bent forward at one point.
Rudakubana was charged in August with murdering three girls — Alice Dasilva Aguiar, 9, Elsie Dot Stancombe, 7, and Bebe King, 6 — and stabbing 10 other people on July 29 in the seaside town of Southport in northern England.
The attack at a small dance and yoga studio on the first day of summer vacation sparked rioting across England and Northern Ireland fueled by far-right activists that lasted a week.
The violence, which injured more than 300 police officers and led to fiery attacks on hotels housing migrants, began after Rudakubana — then unnamed –- was falsely identified as an asylum seeker who had recently arrived in Britain by boat.
Rudakubana was born in Wales to Rwandan immigrants.
More than 1,200 people were arrested for the disorder that lasted a week and hundreds have been jailed for up to nine years in prison.
A report released Wednesday was critical of police for failing to recognize the threat of violent disorder after a number of smaller incidents across the U.K. in the previous two years.
The report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services said there were also lapses in gathering intelligence from social media and the dark web.
Rudakubana was charged in October with additional counts for production of a biological toxin, ricin, and possession of information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing to commit an act of terrorism for having the manual in a document on his computer.
Police have said the stabbings have not been classified as acts of terrorism because the motive is not yet known.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will hear arguments next month over the constitutionality of the federal law that could ban TikTok in the United States if its Chinese parent company doesn’t sell it.
The justices will hear arguments Jan. 10 about whether the law impermissibly restricts speech in violation of the First Amendment.
The law, enacted in April, set a Jan. 19 deadline for TikTok to be sold or else face a ban in the United States. The popular social media platform has more than 170 million users in the U.S.
It’s unclear how quickly a decision might come. But the high court still could act after the arguments to keep the law from taking effect pending a final ruling, if at least five of the nine justices think it’s unconstitutional.
Trending on Billboard
Lawyers for the company and China-based ByteDance had urged the justices to step in before Jan. 19. The high court also will hear arguments from content creators who rely on the platform for income and some TikTok users.
The timing of the arguments means that the outgoing Biden administration’s Justice Department will make the case in defense of the law that passed Congress with bipartisan support and was signed by Democratic President Joe Biden in April.
The incoming Republican administration might not have the same view of the law.
President-elect Donald Trump, who once supported a ban but then pledged during the campaign to “save TikTok,” has said his administration would take a look at the situation. Trump met with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida on Monday.
The companies have said that a shutdown lasting just a month would cause TikTok to lose about one-third of its daily users in the U.S. and significant advertising revenue.
The case pits free speech rights against the government’s stated aims of protecting national security, while raising novel issues about social media platforms.
A panel of federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the law on Dec. 6, then denied an emergency plea to delay the law’s implementation.
Without court action, the law would take effect Jan. 19 and expose app stores that offer TikTok and internet hosting services that support it to potential fines.
It would be up to the Justice Department to enforce the law, investigating possible violations and seeking sanctions. But lawyers for TikTok and ByteDance have argued that Trump’s Justice Department might pause enforcement or otherwise seek to mitigate the law’s most severe consequences. Trump takes office a day after the law is supposed to go into effect.
This story was originally published by The Associated Press.
Megan Thee Stallion is demanding a restraining order against Tory Lanez, claiming he has continued to “terrorize her” with a “campaign of harassment” even as he sits behind bars on a ten-year prison sentence for shooting her.
In a petition filed Tuesday (Dec. 17) in Los Angeles court, attorneys for the superstar (real name Megan Pete) claim that Lanez (Daystar Peterson) has conspired with people outside prison to “harass, bully, and antagonize” her with misinformation amid his “desperate” appeal of his 2022 felony convictions.
“Mr. Peterson’s attempts to retraumatize and revictimize Ms. Pete recognize no limits — indeed, they continue even while he is behind bars,” Megan’s lawyers write. “While Mr. Peterson distorts and recklessly disregards the truth in his desperate attempt to appeal his conviction, his false assertions have reignited a slew of negative, harmful, and defamatory comments directed to Ms. Pete.”
Trending on Billboard
Monday’s petition cited a separate lawsuit Megan filed in October against YouTuber and social media personality Milagro Gramz, who she claims has served as a “mouthpiece and puppet” for the convicted singer. In an updated version of that case filed last week, Megan alleged that discovery in the case had revealed prison phone calls in which Lanez coordinated payments to Gramz.
“Mr. Peterson’s father—when he thought no one was listening—asked his son about payments to Ms. Cooper for her harassment of Ms. Pete,” Megan’s attorneys write in the new filing. “Instead of denying that Ms. Cooper has been paid, they question how Ms. Pete uncovered their conspiracy.”
If granted by a California judge, the restraining order would immediately bar Lanez from any harassing conduct. In the filing, Megan’s lawyers ask the judge that Lanez be “ordered not to contact Ms. Pete, directly or indirectly, or harass or intimidate her, directly or indirectly, online.”
The exact contours of such an order — what constitutes harassment of Megan versus Lanez simply speaking about his own defense — could be further clarified by the judge. Lanez would later have a chance to respond, and the judge would then decide whether to issue a longer-term restraining order.
Attorneys for Lanez did not immediately return a request for comment.
Lanez was convicted in December 2022 on three felony counts over the violent 2020 incident, in which he shot at the feet of Megan during an argument following a pool party at Kylie Jenner’s house in the Hollywood Hills. In August 2023, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. He has filed an appeal, which remains pending.
In the new petition, Megan’s attorneys also directly accused Lanez of orchestrating a high-profile false story that circulated on social media earlier this year, claiming incorrectly that an appeals court had declared him “innocent” in the shooting.
“Mr. Peterson, through third parties, disseminated a rumor which falsely suggested that an appellate court declared his innocence,” Megan’s lawyers write. “Mr. Peterson’s interpretation underscores his desire to spread misinformation in an effort to save his public image.”
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: Daddy Yankee accuses his soon-to-be ex-wife of stealing $80 million from his company; Jay-Z’s attorneys demand dismissal after his accuser admits “mistakes”; Johnny Ramone’s widow wins a legal ruling in the battle over the punk band’s legacy; and more, including a special recap of the best-ever Christmas music lawsuits.
THE BIG STORY: Daddy Yankee’s Divorce Goes Nuclear
Just weeks after Daddy Yankee and wife Mireddys González announced they were divorcing following 20 years of marriage, his lawyers took things to another level.
Trending on Billboard
In a motion filed in Puerto Rico court, the reggaetón hitmaker accused González and others of withdrawing a stunning $80 million from the bank account of his El Cartel Records “without authorization.” He’s seeking an injunction forcing her “immediate removal” from the company and the disclosure of information to unravel whatever harm was allegedly done.
In addition to the accusations of stolen money, the lawsuit makes other notable claims — like alleging that González shut him out of the negotiations that led to October’s $217 million sale of part of his catalog to Concord. He claims he doesn’t actually know exactly what was sold, and that the price “turned out to be unreasonable, disproportionate and far below the real value.”
For more details, go read the full story from Billboard‘s Griselda Flores. And stay tuned at Billboard for more developments as the case moves forward.
CHRISTMAS SPECIAL: Holiday Music Lawsuits
With the holidays right around the corner, I broke down the many times that Christmas music has ended up in court — from Mariah Carey’s ongoing copyright battle over “All I Want For Christmas Is You” to Darlene Love’s fights with advertisers to repeated courtroom clashes over religious freedom. Before you kick off til the new year, go read the full story here.
Other top stories this week…
“I HAVE MADE SOME MISTAKES” – Jay-Z demanded the dismissal of a rape lawsuit linking him to the allegations against Sean “Diddy” Combs, just hours after his accuser gave a bombshell interview to NBC News admitting inconsistencies and “mistakes” in her story. Jay-Z’s attorneys said they would seek to strike the complaint and seek penalties against Tony Buzbee, the attorney who filed it: “It is stunning that a lawyer would not only file such a serious complaint without proper vetting, but would make things worse by further peddling this false story in the press,” said Jay-Z attorney Alex Spiro. “We are asking the Court to dismiss this frivolous case today, and will take up the matter of additional discipline for Mr. Buzbee and all the lawyers that filed the complaint.”
ELSEWHERE IN DIDDY WORLD – On Friday, Combs said he would drop an appeal seeking to be released on bail, meaning he will remain in jail until his May trial on federal sex trafficking and racketeering charges — a move that came after the bond request was rejected by federal judges three separate times. Then on Monday, the judge overseeing the criminal case rejected accusations from Diddy’s legal team that federal prosecutors leaked the infamous video of the Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend Cassie, ruling there was no proof to such a charge.
HEY HO, LET’S SUE – Johnny Ramone’s widow, Linda Cummings-Ramone, won a legal victory over Joey Ramone‘s brother, Mickey Leigh, in their never-ending feud over control of the pioneering punk band’s legacy. An arbitrator ruled that Leigh’s manager, David Frey, must be terminated as a director on the band’s board for a wide variety of improper conduct, including improperly greenlighting a film project at Netflix with actor Pete Davidson attached to star as Joey. The ruling also detailed how Frey had tanked an opportunity for Linda to throw out the first pitch at a Ramones-themed New York Mets game: “There was no reason to lose this opportunity other than to continue the animosity and dysfunction,” the arbitrator wrote.
QUANDO RONDO SENTENCED – The rapper (Tyquian Terrel Bowman) was sentenced to nearly three years in federal prison after striking a deal with prosecutors to plead guilty to a federal drug offense in Georgia. The deal saw the Savannah-based rapper admit to a single count of conspiracy to distribute marijuana in return for prosecutors dropping more serious charges involving methamphetamine, fentanyl and cocaine.
ASSAULT CASE SETTLED – Paula Abdul and former American Idol producer Nigel Lythgoe agreed to settle a lawsuit in which she alleged that he sexually assaulted her in the early 2000s when she was a judge on the show. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and Abdul simply said she was “grateful that this chapter has successfully come to a close and is now something I can now put behind me.”
TIKTOK AT SCOTUS – TikTok asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in on an emergency basis to block the federal law that would ban the popular platform in the United States unless its China-based parent company agreed to sell it. The appeal to the high court came just days after a federal appeals court affirmed the law’s constitutionality, rejecting TikTok’s claims that it violates the First Amendment’s protections for free speech. With the petition filed, the justices are on the clock: The statute banning TikTok — a crucial music industry promotion tool and a platform that now boasts more than 170 million users in the U.S. — goes into effect on Jan. 19.