State Champ Radio Legal News
Page: 2
Trending on Billboard
A new lawsuit claims Drake’s ”What Did I Miss?” music video ripped off the work of an Italian photographer — and, in a strange twist, that the rapper was intentionally trying to connect his feud with Kendrick Lamar to a controversial Balenciaga campaign.
The copyright infringement complaint, filed against Drake (Aubrey Graham) on Wednesday (Nov. 12) in federal court, alleges a key sequence in the “What Did I Miss?” video lifts from a photograph in Gabriele Galimberti’s 2020 book The Ameriguns. Both Galimberti’s photo and the scene in question show men standing outside houses, surrounded by firearms laid out in parallel around swimming pools.
Related
Galimberti is a photographer with National Geographic, though he is perhaps best known for shooting a notorious 2022 Balenciaga campaign that portrayed children with sexually explicit objects. The campaign drew a huge backlash, with consumers accusing the fashion house and Galimberti of glorifying pedophilia.
Wednesday’s lawsuit draws a direct line between the Balenciaga controversy and “What Did I Miss?,” in which Drake addressed the aftermath of his rap battle with Lamar. That feud ended with Lamar calling Drake a “certified pedophile” on the chart-topping diss track “Not Like Us,” leading Drake to sue Universal Music Group (UMG) for defamation.
“Plaintiff was ultimately publicly vindicated in a defamation lawsuit abroad related to the false accusations arising from the Balenciaga advertisement,” writes Galimberti’s attorney. “Given Kendrick Lamar’s lyrics…calling defendant Graham a pedophile and defendant Graham’s now dismissed defamation lawsuit, on information and belief, defendant Graham sought to imply that he, like plaintiff, would be publicly exonerated.”
Related
Drake’s defamation lawsuit was dismissed last month, with a federal judge ruling that lyrics in rap battles are hyperbole and not meant to imply facts. Drake is now appealing to revive the case against UMG, which owns both Lamar’s label Interscope Records and his label, Republic Records.
Republic and UMG are both defendants in Galimberti’s lawsuit as well, along with Drake and his company OVO Sounds. Galimberti is seeking financial damages for what he describes as “both an egregious violation of federal law and an affront to plaintiff, his livelihood, his legacy and to photographers everywhere.”
“Plaintiff is a serious professional, addressing serious themes,” reads the complaint. “His work hangs in galleries, museums, graces serious print literature, and his career depends upon the respect and admiration of dealers, collectors and critics of contemporary and documentary art. By the forced and unauthorized association of his work with the infringing video, the integrity of his work and his reputation as a photographer has been damaged.”
Reps for Drake and UMG did not immediately return requests for comment on the lawsuit.
“What Did I Miss?” debuted at No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 in July, and hit No. 1 on both Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Rhythmic Airplay, extending multiple Billboard chart records for the rapper.
Trending on Billboard
In the wake of Calvin Harris’ bombshell fraud claims against business manager Thomas St. John, fellow star DJ Eric Prydz has brought a lawsuit alleging the financial adviser stole $269,000 from his accounts.
St. John, the head of beleaguered entertainment industry accounting firm Thomas St. John Group, was accused in arbitration this summer of secretly funneling $22 million from Harris’ accounts into a real estate side venture. St. John denies the claims, maintaining that the Scottish DJ was an informed and willing investor in the project.
Related
Now, Prydz — another titan of the EDM industry — says St. John exploited his account access to steal money. The Swedish DJ, who has been a client of St. John’s since 2012, claims in an Oct. 28 breach of contract and fraud lawsuit that St. John paid himself $269,000 in commissions for services Prydz says he never asked for or authorized.
“Thomas St. John is a professional financial advisor who is supposed to be trustworthy and reliable, and who should be acting in the best interests of his client,” wrote Prydz’s attorney, Carla Wirtschafter of Reed Smith. “TSJ, however, proved to be none of those things. Instead, he is a fraud who not only abuses the trust of his clients, he takes money from them without their knowledge or authorization for his personal use and benefit.”
The lawsuit claims Prydz decided to fire St. John in September after discovering that the manager had taken $219,000 in unearned commissions on top of his regular 5% fee. St. John allegedly agreed to stay on through the end of October to finish a tax return for Prydz, though this process quickly turned contentious.
Prydz claims St. John tried to “extort” an additional $150,000 out of him and refused to complete the tax return otherwise, which Prydz says he refused. But according to the lawsuit, St. John unilaterally took another $50,000 out of Prydz’s accounts to cover part of this improper fee.
Related
The legal complaint alleges that after all this, St. John never filed the tax return as promised — and that he’s now refusing to turn over the necessary documentation to Prydz’s new financial advisers.
“As a direct result of TSJ’s malicious conduct to hold Prydz’s financial documents hostage, Prydz has been unable to complete and file the now past due tax forms,” the lawsuit reads.
Prydz is seeking a court order for St. John to release his financial records and return the allegedly stolen commissions. The DJ also wants additional monetary damages recouping St. John’s 5% fee, claiming the adviser did “little or no work” to earn those payments.
Reps for St. John did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday (Nov. 12).
Prydz’s lawsuit is just the latest legal woe for St. John, whose U.S. business arm has been in bankruptcy since March. The manager’s real estate project, a Hollywood development called CMNTY Culture Campus, is the subject of claims from both Harris and songwriter Philip Lawrence.
Related
A deep dive by Billboard last month reported that CMNTY Culture — originally envisioned as a recording studio and creative office complex — was born out of the St. John-advised, $90 million sale in 2020 of Lawrence’s catalog of Bruno Mars writing credits.
Following that deal, Lawrence opted to park some of the proceeds in a real estate venture to lessen his taxes on the sale and brought on St. John as a partner. But Lawrence’s finances soon dried up, and St. John ended up buying out the songwriter and helming the project himself.
It was at this point that St. John took on outside investors, including Harris. But while St. John claims Harris wanted in on CMNTY Culture, Harris alleges in his arbitration that the manager fooled him into signing investment documents without knowing what they were.
Harris now claims that his money has disappeared and that CMNTY Culture is a “complete boondoggle.” Indeed, St. John is no longer developing a recording studio and has yet to break ground on any construction, though he maintains that the project is still on track for success under reworked plans for a residential apartment complex.
The Harris action is still pending before a private arbitrator. Meanwhile, Lawrence has declared bankruptcy, while his estate trustee recently accused St. John in court papers of violating their fiduciary relationship during the CMNTY Culture partnership.
Trending on Billboard
An appeals court has upheld Tory Lanez’s convictions for shooting Megan Thee Stallion, rejecting his arguments aimed at overturning his 10-year prison sentence.
Nearly three years after the singer (Daystar Peterson) was found guilty in 2022 of shooting Megan in the foot during a drunken argument on a Hollywood Hills street, a California appellate court affirmed the verdict in a ruling issued Wednesday (Nov. 12).
Related
Lanez and his supporters have long maintained his innocence, claiming there was insufficient proof that he was the shooter and that he received an unfair trial. But in the ruling, the appeals court said there was no reason to undo the verdict.
“Peterson contends the trial court committed a number of errors,” the appeals court wrote. “We find no prejudicial error and, accordingly, affirm Peterson’s conviction.” A spokeswoman for Lanez did not immediately return a request for comment on the ruling.
The ruling came more than five years after the July 12, 2020, shooting, which happened as a driver was shuttling Lanez, Megan and her assistant/friend Kelsey Harris from a party at Kylie Jenner’s house. According to prosecutors, when Megan got out of a vehicle and began walking away, Lanez shouted “Dance, b—h!” and fired a gun at her feet, striking her once.
Following the incident, Megan initially told police officers that she had cut her foot stepping on broken glass, but days later alleged that she had been shot. Lanez was eventually charged with the shooting in October 2022.
Related
During a blockbuster trial in Los Angeles court, Lanez’s lawyers tried to sow doubt over who had really pulled the trigger, painting a scenario in which Harris could have been the shooter. But a key defense witness offered confusing eyewitness testimony, and prosecutors pointed to an earlier interview in which Harris pinned the blame squarely on Lanez. Megan herself offered powerful testimony that Lanez had been the one to shoot her, and neither Lanez nor the driver took the witness stand.
Lanez and his supporters have refused to accept that verdict, calling it a “miscarriage of justice.” His legal team has filed multiple forms of appeal to challenge the verdict, each of which has now been rejected. They have also claimed publicly that new evidence exonerates him; Megan’s reps and prosecutors strongly deny that.
On appeal, Lanez raised a slew of arguments. He argued it had been unfair for jurors to hear the earlier interview with Harris, in which she placed the blame for the shooting on Lanez; he also argued prosecutors had improperly cited an Instagram post in which he appeared to say that Harris had not shot Megan.
In Wednesday’s decision, the appeals court rejected each of those arguments, including Lanez’s claim that prosecutors had “introduced racial bias into the proceedings” by referencing a tattoo of a gun on his chest.
“It was defense counsel who asked — both on direct and on redirect — if [a witness] had ever seen Peterson with a gun,” the appeals court wrote. “Neither of the prosecutors even mentioned Peterson’s tattoos — much less the tattoo of a firearm — in their closing arguments.”
Trending on Billboard
There’s a new front in the nasty legal war between hip-hop producer Madlib and his longtime manager Eothen “Egon” Alapatt: The many songs recorded during their decade-long partnership.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (Nov. 11) against Madlib (Otis Lee Jackson Jr.), Egon asked a federal judge to decide who owns the rights to the masters created over the years at their Madicine Show label — tracks that feature Madlib’s beats under vocals by Mac Miller, Freddie Gibbs, Four Tet and others.
Related
“Jackson now claims those works as his personal property and seeks to withdraw them entirely from Madicine Show’s catalog,” writes Egon’s attorney Kenneth Freundlich. “That is not how the law works.”
In a statement to Billboard, Madlib responded to Egon’s new claims: “I trusted someone who didn’t value the art the way I do. This is a reminder that not everyone who stands beside you is standing for you. When you move with truth, you don’t have to defend yourself. Time and integrity do the talking.”
Madlib, a critically-acclaimed producer known for his work with Kanye West (now Ye) and the late MF Doom, went to court first in 2024 — accusing Egon of “rank self-dealing” and “pervasive mismanagement.” The case, filed in California state court, claimed the manager had abused his power over Madicine Show to profit at Madlib’s expense.
Egon hit back in May, filing a countersuit blasting Madlib for “having the audacity to bring this mean-spirited personal action.” In one notable claim, Egon said Madlib’s new label was interfering with music projects that legally belong to Madicine Show, including the release of a years-old recording of the late Miller that has long been rumored to be in the works.
Related
In the new case on Tuesday, Egon said he needed “immediate federal intervention” in that legal battle because of a key new development in the earlier lawsuit.
Last month, a Los Angeles judge sided with Madlib and ruled that a court-appointed receiver should oversee the corporate dissolution of Madicine Show. The ruling came over objections from Egon, who said he himself should oversee the company’s wind-down. “Defendant is not the appropriate person to oversee the dissolution process,” the judge said at the time. “The court will appoint a receiver.”
But now, weeks later, Egon says in his new lawsuit that the breakup process cannot move ahead until it’s clear who owns the company’s “most valuable assets”: its catalog of recorded music. And since copyright law is handled exclusively by federal courts, he says that decision must be made by a U.S. district judge.
“The recordings at issue were created and exploited pursuant to a licensing relationship between Jackson and Madicine Show,” Egon writes. “They remain company assets, and their ownership must be determined under the Copyright Act.”
Related
According to the lawsuit, the tracks recorded by Miller and others over Madlib’s beats were “facilitated, supervised, and produced” by Egon under a longstanding arrangement in which the company controlled them. The producer’s recent claim that “he alone owns all copyrights” is “mystifying” and legally incorrect, the suit says.
“This position ignores the parties’ mutual understanding and Alapatt’s creative, financial, and managerial contributions,” Egon’s lawyers write. “After benefiting from that arrangement, Jackson cannot revoke or withdraw those rights or claim exclusive ownership of works that were created, produced, and marketed under Madicine Show’s direction.”
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment on the new case.
Trending on Billboard
A$AP Relli has abandoned plans to retread his shooting claims against A$AP Rocky at a second trial early next year, telling Billboard through a lawyer that he’s instead “focusing on rebuilding his life.”
Rocky (Rakim Mayers) was acquitted at a criminal trial this past February of shooting Relli (Terrell Ephron), his childhood friend and onetime A$AP Mob collaborator, in 2021. Relli brought an assault lawsuit in 2022 seeking financial damages from the star rapper over the same alleged incident.
Related
The civil case was scheduled to go to trial in January, with Relli facing a lower burden of proof than the one prosecutors failed to meet in their criminal case against Rocky. But an attorney for Relli, Aaron Morris, tells Billboard on Tuesday (Nov. 11) that his client has decided to drop the assault claims.
“At this point, he’s ready to simply move on from the shooting,” Morris said. “The ordeal has been a nightmare for him, and the statements calling him a ‘liar’ and worse effectively eliminated his chances of a career in the industry.”
Morris said his team will file court papers officially dismissing the assault lawsuit later this week. Relli is still pursuing a separate defamation lawsuit against both Rocky and his lawyer, Joe Tacopina, over press interviews in which they called the shooting claims “extortion” and a “get-rich-quick-scheme.” Relli alleges these statements harmed his reputation and career as an artist manager.
“He’s going to litigate the defamation action because of the damages it caused, but as to the shooting, he’s thankful he wasn’t hurt worse and is focusing on rebuilding his life,” says Morris.
Rocky’s reps did not immediately return a request for comment.
Rocky and Relli were involved in a now-infamous altercation near a Hollywood hotel in November 2021. Relli alleges Rocky fired a handgun at him twice during the argument, while the rapper maintains it was a prop gun filled with blanks.
Prosecutors charged Rocky with two felony assault counts in 2022. The Grammy-nominated Harlem rapper rejected a plea offer from prosecutors and went to trial, risking a maximum of 24 years in prison if convicted. Rocky’s bet ultimately paid off, with a Los Angeles jury fully acquitting him of both counts.
Trending on Billboard
A new lawsuit alleges Downtown Music Holdings threw a licensing partner under the bus as a “sacrifice” to lessen regulatory scrutiny of its controversial acquisition by Universal Music Group (UMG).
The $375 million complaint, filed on Monday (Nov. 10) in Manhattan federal court, centers on Downtown’s relationship with YouTube music provider Blast Off Media. According to the lawsuit, Downtown unlawfully ended its distribution contract with Blast Off — and destroyed an entire music catalog in the process — over concerns regarding the European Commission’s review of Downtown’s proposed $775 million merger with UMG’s Virgin Music Group.
Related
“This case exemplifies precisely the type of conduct that opponents of the UMG/Downtown acquisition warned about: a major-label-owned entity destroying an independent operator’s business when it became inconvenient, using pretextual compliance concerns as cover for bad faith economic motivations,” writes Blast Off’s lawyer, JP Kernisan of Quinn Emanuel.
In a statement provided to Billboard on Tuesday (Nov. 11), a Downtown spokesperson said the company properly terminated the Blast Off contract upon realizing that Blast Off’s music catalog was being “widely leveraged to monetize reused or unlicensed content on YouTube.”
“We will defend ourselves vigorously against these baseless and frivolous claims,” the Downtown spokesperson added.
Blast Off’s business model centers on a library of roughly 800 free backing tracks on YouTube. The company allows creators to add these songs to their videos, then runs advertisements on the content and shares music royalties with the creators. Blast Off signed a distribution deal with Downtown in August, tapping the indie music heavyweight to run point on monetizing its sound recordings and navigating YouTube’s copyright claims process.
Related
But Downtown ended the contract after little more than a month in early October amid what it said were concerns about supposed copyright infringement in videos that used Blast Off’s music. However, Blast Off alleges in Monday’s lawsuit that this was an “absurdly disproportionate” reaction to just two user-generated videos that were flagged and quickly dealt with.
“Defendants failed to identify any wrongdoing by Blast Off as opposed to by third-party content creators over whom Blast Off has no control [and] ignored Blast Offs extensive good-faith compliance efforts, including proactive identification and removal of problematic content and implementation of Al-powered monitoring systems,” reads the complaint.
Blast Off alleges that Downtown’s “true motives” in terminating the contract were tied to regulatory approval of the UMG merger; according to the complaint, Downtown needed to maintain favorable “compliance optics” to get the deal through.
“Any issues with its key platform partner YouTube — whether legitimate or not — could negatively impact the acquisition,” writes Blast Off’s counsel. “Downtown preemptively chose to sacrifice Blast Off’s rights rather than work through routine compliance matters out of an abundance of caution to protect its larger financial interests during a sensitive period.”
Related
The “catastrophic” result of all this, claims the lawsuit, is that Downtown has since delisted the entire Blast Off catalog from YouTube. This is allegedly depriving Blast Off of more than $40,000 in revenue per day — and worse, the company says, its music library now carries a “permanent stigma” and will never bounce back to its original worth.
Blast Off estimates its financial damages to be at least $375 million, citing a $250 million valuation for its catalog before the delisting. The company is accusing Downtown of fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, among a slew of other civil claims.
Downtown’s spokesperson denies all of Blast Off’s allegations and maintains that the contract termination was “appropriate and necessary” after they “determined that BlastOff Media’s content was in flagrant violation of YouTube’s terms of service.”
According to Downtown’s reps, the issues with Blast Off went far beyond just two YouTube videos, as the lawsuit claims. They say instead that Downtown determined, via a thorough review, that a significant amount of the videos incorporating Blast Off’s music were unoriginal or unlicensed, and that, in some cases, the music was embedded inaudibly, thus monetizing ineligible video content in violation of YouTube’s content policy.
“Downtown is proud to uphold the highest trust and safety standards on behalf of our clients, our partners and the broader industry,” said the company’s spokesperson. “This includes our role as one of the founders of the Music Fights Fraud Alliance, which was launched to help combat content abuse, including the parasitic exploitation exemplified by Blast Off Media.”
Trending on Billboard BERLIN — The first serious European court decision on AI and music is in – and rightsholders won. On Nov. 11, the Munich Regional Court ruled that OpenAI’s ChatGPT software infringed copyrights to compositions represented by GEMA, the German collective management organization. The judge ordered OpenAI to pay damages but did not […]
Trending on Billboard
Since subscribing to Spotify in 2023, Genevieve Capolongo says she’s mostly listened to “lesser-known artists” like Próxima Parada, Julia Cooper and Brusco. But she says the streamer’s recommendation tools keep serving her “mainstream, major-label tracks” by Drake, Zach Bryan and Justin Bieber.
According to her lawyers, that’s because Spotify was paid to do so.
Related
In a lawsuit filed last week, Capolongo claims the streamer’s Discovery Mode and editorial playlists amount to a “modern form of payola,” allowing labels to secretly boost their tracks with a “deceptive pay-for-play” program. She says she wouldn’t have subscribed if she knew that Spotify’s recommendations had been sold “to the highest bidder.”
The case is sometimes light on specifics, like citing unnamed “industry insiders” about alleged illicit payments or “disproportionate” rates of major-label music. Spotify, for its part, called the lawsuit “nonsense” and said it was “riddled with misunderstandings and inaccuracies.”
But it targets a program that has raised eyebrows for years — and comes at a time when Spotify has faced multiple accusations about manipulation on the platform. For more, go read our full story here.
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…
DRAKE’S APPEAL – As Drake asks an appeals court to revive his lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us,” I asked legal experts what his lawyers might argue — and whether it’ll work.
TAYLOR V. TRUMP? – Taylor Swift fans want her to sue the Trump administration after it used “The Fate of Ophelia” in a TikTok video. She probably could, but almost certainly won’t.
DISJOINT VENTURE – 10K Projects, the Warner-owned label founded by Elliot Grainge, is facing a lawsuit claiming it owes millions to Taz Taylor’s Internet Money Records under a joint venture.
FAST & FREE SONGS – How did New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani get clearance to use Bob Dylan’s iconic anthem “The Times They Are A-Changin’” in a campaign ad? It turns out he didn’t.
MJ LITIGATION – Michael Jackson’s estate is locked in a legal battle over abuse allegations from the Cascio siblings, who spent much of their childhoods with the King of Pop.
GORDIAN SLIPKNOT – Slipknot’s lawsuit against a group that has owned slipknot.com for decades has hit an unexpected snag: The shadowy entity has hired a lawyer and is fighting back.
ATLANTA ARREST – Rod Wave was arrested in Atlanta on weapon and drug charges. His lawyer — star defense attorney Drew Findling — says Wave was “unjustly profiled and unlawfully arrested.”
NAME REVEAL? – A “Jane Roe” woman who accused Garth Brooks of sexual assault is refusing to concede defeat in her fight to remain pseudonymous, filing an appeal to avoid disclosing her real name.
NOVEMBER LITIGATION – An ex-manager of Guns N’ Roses is suing the band, claiming it has unfairly blocked the release of his memoir by threatening to sue him and his publisher over a decades-old NDA.
Trending on Billboard A federal judge rejected a lawsuit claiming the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame broke the law by using a copyrighted photo of Eddie Van Halen in a museum exhibit. Dismissing a case filed by rock photographer Neil Zlozower, Judge Christopher A. Boyko said the Rock Hall made legal “fair use” of […]
Trending on Billboard
For years, the Cascio family was one of Michael Jackson’s fiercest defenders against ugly pedophilia claims. The five siblings from New Jersey, whom Jackson considered a “second family” and who spent much of their childhoods with the King of Pop, publicly denied that he was ever inappropriate with them.
That all changed in 2019, when the HBO documentary Leaving Neverland amplified child sex abuse claims against Jackson from two men in disturbing detail. As the Cascio siblings tell it, the film led them to reflect and reveal to each other for the first time that they had all been abused by Jackson as children across “hundreds of instances.” The estate of Jackson, who died in 2009, says the Cascios fabricated these claims and were seeking to cash in on the cultural moment.
Related
Whether the Cascios’ allegations were true or not, one thing is for sure: The siblings signed a multimillion-dollar settlement, including a strict nondisclosure agreement, with the Jackson estate in late 2019. Now, the validity of this settlement is the subject of a bitter legal battle in court.
The Jackson estate alleged in a court petition this summer that the Cascios violated the settlement with an “extortionate” threat that they would go public with the claims unless they were paid an additional $213 million. Last month, the Cascio siblings responded by asking a judge to declare the settlement void.
The Cascios — Frank, Aldo, Marie-Nicole, Edward and Dominic — said the estate “exploited their confusion and vulnerability” upon coming to terms with the alleged abuse by pressuring them to quickly sign a deal they didn’t understand.
According to the Cascios’ Oct. 6 court filing, the siblings didn’t have their own lawyer and were told by the Jackson estate that the deal “would not get done” if they hired counsel and took time to review the papers. They also said the estate misrepresented the nature of the settlement, telling them it was a “life rights” agreement.
Related
“Exploiting the same patterns of trust, fear and conditioned loyalty that Michael Jackson had cultivated for decades, the estate manipulated respondents’ emotional state to extract their silence through coercive and deceptive means,” wrote the Cascios’ attorney Mark Geragos. “The rushed process was intended to, and did, in fact, take advantage of the Cascio siblings’ shock and trauma upon realizing this had happened to all of them.”
The estate, meanwhile, says the Cascios were not pressured to sign anything. To the contrary, the estate claims in court filings that the Cascio siblings were the ones who demanded a settlement for their “specious allegations” — and that the estate reluctantly paid to avoid public pain and harm to Jackson’s children.
“Frank inaccurately depicts the negotiations leading up to the execution of the Agreement as one-sided strong-arming,” wrote the estate’s attorney, Jonathan Steinsapir, on Oct. 30, referring to Frank Cascio.
The truth, argues the estate, is that the settlement was “extensively negotiated” and “voluntarily executed” by the Cascio siblings. It is now urging a judge to enforce all provisions of the agreement, including a mandatory arbitration clause.
Related
A court hearing on the dispute is scheduled for Dec. 3 in Los Angeles County. Geragos and a rep for the Jackson estate both declined to comment on the matter on Friday (Nov. 7).
Jackson was never convicted or held legally liable for any accusation of child sex abuse during his lifetime; he settled a civil claim in 1994 without admitting any wrongdoing, and he was acquitted at a criminal trial in 2005. But such allegations have continued to dog his legacy, most notably when Leaving Neverland hit screens in 2019.
The Jackson estate called Leaving Neverland a “one-sided hit job” and sued HBO, leading the documentary to be removed from the streaming platform. Yet the subjects of Leaving Neverland, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, are continuing to pursue civil sexual assault claims against the estate.
Meanwhile, the Jackson estate has been extraordinarily successful at monetizing the singer’s legacy. Jackson died with $500 million in debt, but the estate has since generated more than $3 billion with catalog deals and new live shows exploiting the King of Pop’s intellectual property.
The estate’s latest endeavor is Michael, a long-developed biopic tracing Jackson’s rise to stardom. After years of setbacks and delays, Michael finally has a release date of April 24, 2026.
The movie’s first teaser trailer dropped on Thursday (Nov. 6) with scenes of Jackson’s real-life nephew, Jaafar Jackson, recording and performing Michael’s record-smashing 1982 album Thriller. The teaser does not allude to any of the abuse claims against Jackson.
