Legal News
Page: 33
Jelly Roll is facing a federal lawsuit from a well-known Philadelphia wedding band called Jellyroll, claiming that the rapper’s stage name violates the group’s trademark rights.
In a complaint filed Monday in federal court, attorneys for Kurt Titchenell accused the rapper-turned-country singer (Jason DeFord) of infringing his trademark to Jellyroll — the name he’s used for decades for an act the Philadelphia Inquirer has labeled as “Philly’s favorite wedding band.”
The lawsuit claims that Jelly Roll’s increasing popularity — his “Need A Favor” reached No. 13 on the Hot 100 in November — has flooded the market with his name, making it difficult for prospective clients to find Titchenell’s band.
Trending on Billboard
“Prior to the defendant’s recent rise in notoriety, a search of the name of Jellyroll … returned references to the plaintiff,” his lawyers write in their complaint, obtained by Billboard. “Now, any such search on Google returns multiple references to defendant, perhaps as many as 18-20 references, before any reference to plaintiff’s entertainment dance band known as Jellyroll can be found.”
News of the lawsuit against Jelly Roll was first reported by Court Watch.
Titchnell claims he’s been using the name for his band since 1980. In a 2019 Inquirer article marking the band’s 40th anniversary, the newspaper described Jellyroll as a group that nearly every Philadelphian has likely heard at some point, at one of thousands of weddings, galas and other public events.
In media interviews, Jelly Roll has said that his mother gave him the nickname as a child. He used the name on a 2003 self-released mixtape called The Plain Shmear Tape, and then on dozens of subsequent releases over nearly two-decades as a little-known Nashville rapper.
The two artists appear to have peacefully co-existed until recently, when Jelly Roll climbed the charts and became a household name. Following his breakout 2021 hit “Son of a Sinner” and last year’s “Need A Favor,” he was nominated for Best New Artist at this year’s Grammy Awards, and won a trio of major awards at this year’s Country Music Awards.
In Monday’s lawsuit, Titchenell’s attorneys say they sent a cease-and-desist letter to Jelly Roll in February, which led to “several conversations” over the naming issue. But they say no resolution was reached – and they even suggested that they felt insulted in the process: “At one point defendant’s counsel inquired as to whether defendant really was in competition with plaintiff.”
Now, they’re seeking an immediate court order that would stop him from using the name “Jelly Roll.” They specifically pointed to an upcoming concert at Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Center in October.
“Despite his receipt of a demand to cease and desist using plaintiff’s registered service mark, defendant has ignored this demand and continues to use plaintiff’s registered service mark knowing that it continues to irreparably harm plaintiff but has nevertheless callously disregarded the rights of plaintiff to his own service mark,” Titchenell’s attorneys write.
An attorney for Jelly Roll did not immediately return a request for comment on Friday.
When licensing negotiations between TikTok and the Universal Music Group collapsed at the end of January, many official recordings from UMG artists vanished from the platform. UMG chief digital officer/executive vp Michael Nash told financial analysts in February that the company had been “providing notices to effectuate the muting of millions of videos every day for the last two weeks.” Yet a number of songs connected to UMG — or its publishing wing, Universal Music Publishing Group — remain available on TikTok anyway.
Some are user uploads, which might theoretically be harder to find and take down or mute. Others are official tracks, including recent releases from prominent stars and fast-moving viral hits. And much of Taylor Swift’s catalog returned to TikTok on Thursday (April 11), raising the question of how other artists may be able to find workarounds while the licensing dispute continues.
Trending on Billboard
One possible reason that some songs are staying on TikTok: Several artist lawyers tell Billboard they are devising contractual carve-outs to allow their clients to keep their music on the platform. Others note that even though they haven’t added these clauses to recording agreements yet, it has become a topic of conversation with their clients.
“Some labels are allowing some of their artists to exclude newly created music from the grant of rights until the label has a deal in place” with TikTok, says David Fritz, founding partner at Boyarski Fritz. “Because the issue is so new, we are developing on the fly to meet the needs of talent — songwriters and artists — that want their music on TikTok. This is an issue, and workaround, that came about solely as a result of UMG taking down its catalog from TikTok.”
Reps for UMG and TikTok declined to comment.
Some artists have invested years of their life building a following on TikTok. (Predecessor Musical.ly was acquired by Bytedance in 2017 and then relaunched in the United States as TikTok the year after.) For more than two months now, they’ve been unable to share official recordings with those fans on the platform — the same fans who may have earned them their major-label deal in the first place.
“Some artists are concerned about this,” says Josh Binder, founding partner at Rothenberg Mohr & Binder. “They don’t want to be uncompetitive, unable to use TikTok to muster up an audience.”
“TikTok is mostly used as a new-music discovery tool — discover a clip on TikTok, listen to it on a DSP,” Fritz adds. “So those who are trying to get their music discovered are the most concerned” about being unable to promote new songs on the app.
In 2022, MIDiA Research found that TikTok was the second-biggest driver of music discovery for Gen Z, after YouTube. In recent months, TikTok popularity has helped little-known acts like Dasha, Good Neighbours and the Red Clay Strays explode at streaming services — leading to major-label deals — and contributed to breakout hits for Djo, Flo Milli and Benson Boone, among others.
UMG pushed back against the idea that TikTok has a lock on discovery during its most recent earnings call. Chairman/CEO Lucian Grainge told financial analysts that TikTok was “not a material part of the multidisciplinary jigsaw where we promote and market our music globally.” And UMG CFO/executive vp Boyd Muir said that UMG would “focus on accelerating [its] partnerships” with other social media platforms, including Meta, Snap and YouTube, to provide alternative promotional avenues for its artists.
But the job of an artist lawyer — a good one, at least — is to help their client get what they want. Labels typically aim to control as many rights as they can for as long as they can. In the modern music business, artists have more ability to push back; because they can generate momentum on their own, without a record company’s help, more aspects of a record deal are negotiable. “You can cherry-pick what you want to be in your contract to some degree,” Scott Booker, the longtime manager of The Flaming Lips, recently told Billboard.
As with any negotiation, artists’ ability to get their preferred terms comes down to their leverage — for stars especially, there are few rules that can’t be bent — and the skill of the lawyers involved. “If you successfully reserve the right to license to TikTok directly in your contract with UMG, you would be able to do so directly or via a third-party service,” says Leon Morabia, a partner at Mark Music & Media Law. “It would be a difficult point to win in a deal, but it is contractually feasible.”
Josh Love, partner at Reed Smith, says he has been able to get “a carve-out” in the past that allowed an artist “to do a direct license with a DSP” — a digital service provider like TikTok or another social media or streaming service — “if the label or distributor is ever not licensed with that DSP and [the artist] wants to remain on the platform.” This is meant to act as interim coverage for an artist; if the label or distributor were to form a new licensing agreement, that would likely supersede that deal made between the artist and the DSP in the meantime.
Some clauses that are already in record deals could also be expanded by artist attorneys to ensure their clients’ music remains available on TikTok. “Release commitments,” for example, are put in place to “force the label to guarantee that a record will be released within certain months after delivery so that the artist’s record doesn’t get ’shelved,’ with the artist stuck in the deal,” says Gandhar Savur, a music attorney.
These clauses have become increasingly comprehensive, stretching “to cover commitments by the label over more specific aspects of the release — the exact countries in which the album will be distributed, formats that the album will be released in such as vinyl and digital, and even including specific major DSPs by name like Spotify and Apple Music.” After negotiations between UMG and TikTok unraveled, Savur continues, “it would be a natural response that artist attorneys will gradually start to require release commitments to cover all platforms generally so that if a label is not licensed with a particular platform for any reason, the artist can deal with that platform directly.”
Savur believes that artists who are signed to labels that are distributed by UMG, rather than signed directly, probably have more latitude to try to deal with platforms like TikTok on their own. “Although I believe that what Universal is doing overall is a good thing for the industry, Universal-distributed labels might be more sympathetic to their artists’ desire to stay on TikTok because the increased streaming and ticket sales [that] result from any tracks going viral on the platform can be a big win for the artist and label alike,” Savur says.
If the UMG-TikTok deadlock rolls on, Fritz says, “smart lawyers” with leverage will find “a workaround that enables their clients to continue to use the most popular discovery tool while the large-scale license gets worked out.”
NewJeans is asking an American court to force Google to unmask an anonymous YouTube user so that the person can be criminally prosecuted under South Korea’s strict libel laws for posting “false and defamatory videos” about the K-pop band.
In court documents filed last month, attorneys for NewJeans requested that a California federal judge issue a subpoena requiring Google to reveal the user’s identity. The band wants the info because they are seeking criminal charges in South Korea – a far more serious penalty for defamation than exists under U.S. law.
“The applicants are members of a female K-Pop group, who have come under attack by an anonymous individual posting false and defamatory videos on YouTube,” the group’s lawyer wrote in the March 27 petition, which was obtained by Billboard. “Unfortunately, without the YouTuber’s personally identifiable information the criminal case cannot be fully prosecuted.”
Trending on Billboard
The band’s target is the anonymous owner of a YouTube account called “7th Grade in Middle School,” which attorneys for NewJeans say has “engaged in name-calling or other mocking behavior” and has posted as many as 33 defamatory videos that have been viewed more than 13 million times. They cited one particularly “derogatory” post, which allegedly claimed that NewJeans member Min-ji Kim was the “eldest daughter of a Vietnamese farmer.”
HYBE, the parent company of NewJeans’ label ADOR, did not immediately return a request for comment on the legal proceedings. The recent court filings, which were refiled in court last week, were first reported by The New York Times.
The case illustrates striking differences between U.S. and South Korean protections for free speech. Under American law, defamation is a civil wrong that can lead to damages, but one that’s sharply limited by the First Amendment. To win such a case, public figures like the members of NewJeans would need to prove that the YouTube user knowingly made false statements, a burden that’s intentionally difficult to satisfy.
In South Korea, on the other hand, defamation is a criminal offense that can be “punished by imprisonment with labor for up to seven years,” and even fully true statements can face criminal penalties. In 2015, a United Nations watchdog called out South Korea‘s “increasing use of criminal defamation laws to prosecute persons who criticize government action.” In 2022, a U.S. State Department report warned that public figures in Korea had used the country’s libel laws to “restrict public discussion and harass, intimidate, or censor private and media expression.”
NewJeans isn’t the first K-pop group to use those laws. In 2019, HYBE (then Big Hit Entertainment) filed criminal defamation cases over BTS, alleging the targets had behind “personal attacks” on the band. In 2022, Big Hit did so again over “malicious postings” about BTS, asking the group’s famous fan “army” to help gather evidence. YG Entertainment, the label behind Blackpink, has also filed its own complaint against “internet trolls,” accusing them of “spreading groundless rumours about our singers.”
According to the recent U.S. court filings, NewJeans’ label ADOR filed a criminal complaint with police in Seoul in March, but the case has stalled because they cannot identify the actual person behind the YouTube account. The group’s attorneys say they sent a request for such information to Google, but that the American tech giant has refused to hand it over.
A spokesman for Google declined to comment when reached by Billboard on Thursday. In a policy statement regarding government requests for personal information, the company says: “Google carefully reviews each request to make sure it satisfies applicable laws. If a request asks for too much information, we try to narrow it, and in some cases we object to producing any information at all.”
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: Mary J. Blige’s 1992 “Real Love” draws a new copyright case over an oft-sampled funk song with a long history in both hip hop and music law; Madonna strikes back against angry fans who sued over delayed concerts; Morgan Wallen is charged with multiple felonies after allegedly throwing a chair from the roof of a Nashville bar; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Sampling Saga
If you’ve listened to any significant amount of rap music over the past 30 years, you’ve probably heard “Impeach the President” by the Honey Drippers — a legendary piece of hip-hop source material with a drum track that’s been sampled or interpolated literally hundreds of times, including by Run-DMC, Biggie, Tupac, Dr. Dre and many others.
Trending on Billboard
And, allegedly, by Mary J. Blige.
In a lawsuit filed last week, Tuff City Records claimed that Blige’s 1992 classic “Real Love,” which spent 31 weeks on the Hot 100 in 1992, featured an unlicensed sample from “Impeach.” The case claims that Universal Music Publishing has “repeatedly refused” to pay for the underlying composition, even though UMG Recordings has already agreed to a deal covering the master.
The new lawsuit is the latest chapter in a story dating back several decades, starting with a seminal 1991 case over an LL Cool J song that also featured “Impeach” – a legal battle that would ultimately prove to be the beginning of fundamental changes to how the music industry and the courts treated sampling.
Other top stories this week…
MADONNA CONCERT CLASH – The Material Girl fired back at a class action lawsuit filed by New York City fans who are angry that her concerts started later than scheduled, asking for the case to be dismissed. Madonna’s attorneys argued that needing to “wake up early the next day for work” is not the kind of “cognizable injury” someone can sue over, and that “no Madonna fan” has a “reasonable expectation” that her shows will start on time.
LAST NIGHT (ALLEGEDLY) – Morgan Wallen was arrested in Nashville and charged with three felony counts of reckless endangerment over accusations that he threw a chair off the six-story roof of a popular bar on the city’s bustling Broadway street, allegedly narrowly missing several police officers. He was later released on bond, and his lawyer told Billboard he was “cooperating fully with authorities.”
RAMONES MOVIE LAWSUIT – Joey Ramone‘s brother (Mickey Leigh) responded to a lawsuit filed by Johnny Ramone’s widow (Linda Cummings-Ramone) over a planned Netflix movie about the pioneering punk band, calling the case “baseless and flimsy” and arguing that she actually signed off on such a project years ago.
AI COPYRIGHT DISCLOSURE BILL – Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced new legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives that would require AI companies to disclose which copyrighted works were used to train their models, or face a financial penalty. The measure would not directly require payment to artists, but would certainly make it easier for copyright owners to file infringement cases against AI companies demanding such compensation.
NEW DIDDY ABUSE CASE – Sean “Diddy” Combs was hit with yet another sexual abuse case, this time centering on allegations that his son Christian “King” Combs assaulted a staffer on a luxury yacht in the Caribbean. The case, one of many against Diddy over the past six months, claimed that he “encouraged an environment of debauchery” that enabled his son’s behavior.
ACCUSER’S LAWYER CRITICIZED – Tyrone Blackburn, an attorney who has filed two of the pending sexual abuse cases against Combs, could be facing potential discipline himself. In a scathing ruling last week, a federal judge in an unrelated lawsuit referred him to the court’s grievance committee over his “pattern of behavior” in which he allegedly “improperly files cases in federal court to garner media attention, embarrass defendants with salacious allegations, and pressure defendants to settle quickly.”
ROD WAVE ARRESTED OVER SHOOTING – The rapper was arrested on gun charges in Florida over alleged connections to a shooting last month at a sports bar in St. Petersburg. At a press conference after the arrest, police claimed that the alleged assailants used a getaway car registered to Wave and fled to a house he had rented, where they later discovered two assault rifles and other evidence.
MORE BIZARRE DONDA CLAIMS – Kanye West was hit with another lawsuit filed by a former employee at his Donda Academy, this time accusing him of discriminating against Black staffers. Like the several previous cases from former staffers, the case included bizarre allegations about conditions inside the school – including that West told students to “shave their heads” and that he “intended to put a jail at the school” where students could be “locked in cages.”
Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced new legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday (April 9) which, if passed, would require AI companies to disclose which copyrighted works were used to train their models, or face a financial penalty. Called the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act, the new bill would apply to both new models and retroactively to previously released and used generative AI systems.
The bill requires that a full list of copyrighted works in an AI model’s training data set be filed with the Copyright Office no later than 30 days before the model becomes available to consumers. This would also be required when the training data set for an existing model is altered in a significant manner. Financial penalties for non-compliance would be determined on a case-by-case basis by the Copyright Office, based on factors like the company’s history of noncompliance and the company’s size.
Generative AI models are trained on up to trillions of existing works. In some cases, data sets, which can include anything from film scripts to news articles to music, are licensed from copyright owners, but often these models will scrape the internet for large swaths of content, some of which is copyrighted, without the consent or knowledge of the author. Many of the world’s largest AI companies have publicly defended this practice, calling it “fair use,” but many of those working in creative industries take the position that this is a form of widespread copyright infringement.
Trending on Billboard
The debate has sparked a number of lawsuits between copyright owners and AI companies. In October, Universal Music Group, ABKCO, Concord Music Group, and other music publishers filed a lawsuit against AI giant Anthropic for “unlawfully” exploiting their copyrighted song lyrics to train AI models.
“In the process of building and operating AI models, Anthropic unlawfully copies and disseminates vast amounts of copyrighted works,” wrote lawyers for the music companies at the time. “Publishers embrace innovation and recognize the great promise of AI when used ethically and responsibly. But Anthropic violates these principles on a systematic and widespread basis.”
While many in the music business are also calling for compensation and the ability to opt in or out of being used in a data set, this bill focuses only on requiring transparency with copyrighted training data. Still, it has garnered support from many music industry groups, including the Recorded Industry Association of America (RIAA), National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), ASCAP, Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC), and Human Artistry Campaign.
It is also supported by other creative industry groups, including the Professional Photographers of America, SAG-AFTRA, Writers Guild of America, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) and more.
“AI has the disruptive potential of changing our economy, our political system, and our day-to-day lives,” said Rep. Schiff in a statement. “We must balance the immense potential of AI with the crucial need for ethical guidelines and protections. My Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act is a pivotal step in this direction. It champions innovation while safeguarding the rights and contributions of creators, ensuring they are aware when their work contributes to AI training datasets. This is about respecting creativity in the age of AI and marrying technological progress with fairness.”
A number of rights groups also weighed in on the introduction of the bill.
“Any effective regulatory regime for AI must start with one of the most fundamental building blocks of effective enforcement of creators’ rights — comprehensive and transparent record keeping,” adds RIAA chief legal officer Ken Doroshow. “RIAA applauds Congressman Schiff for leading on this urgent and foundational issue.”
“We commend Congressman Schiff for his leadership on the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act,” NMPA president/CEO David Israelite said. “AI only works because it mines the work of millions of creators every day and it is essential that AI companies reveal exactly what works are training their data. This is a critical first step towards ensuring that AI companies fully license and that songwriters are fully compensated for the work being used to fuel these platforms.”
“Without transparency around the use of copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence, creators will never be fairly compensated and AI tech companies will continue stealing from songwriters,” ASCAP CEO Elizabeth Matthews said. “This bill is an important step toward ensuring that the law puts humans first, and we thank Congressman Schiff for his leadership.”
“Protecting the work of music creators is essential, and this all begins with transparency and tracking the use of copyrighted materials in generative AI,” Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC) co-chair Willie “Prophet” Stiggers said. “BMAC hopes Rep. Schiff’s Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act helps garner support for this mission and that author and creator rights continue to be protected and preserved.”
“Congressman Schiff’s proposal is a big step forward towards responsible AI that partners with artists and creators instead of exploiting them,” Human Artistry Campaign senior advisor Dr. Moiya McTier said. “AI companies should stop hiding the ball when they copy creative works into AI systems and embrace clear rules of the road for recordkeeping that create a level and transparent playing field for the development and licensing of genuinely innovative applications and tools.”
Morgan Wallen was arrested and jailed on Sunday night (April 7) in Nashville after the chart-topping country singer allegedly hurled a chair off the six-story roof of a popular bar on the city’s bustling Broadway street. On Monday morning (April 8), Billboard received a statement from Wallen’s attorney, Worrick Robinson of Worrick Robinson Law, confirming […]
Universal Music Group (UMG) is facing a lawsuit that claims a 1992 Mary J. Blige hit featured an unlicensed sample from a 1973 funk song that’s famous for being sampled in dozens of other tracks, including releases from Biggie and Tupac as well as a recent Doja Cat tune.
In a complaint filed Thursday (April 4) in Manhattan federal court, Tuff City Records accused Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG) of copyright infringement over Blige’s “Real Love,” which spent 31 weeks on the Hot 100 in 1992 and reached a peak of No. 7 on the chart.
The allegedly-copied song? “Impeach the President” by the Honey Drippers — a legendary piece of hip-hop source material with a drum track that’s also been sampled or interpolated by Run-DMC, Dr. Dre and many others. Most recently, it was featured in Doja Cat’s 2023 track “Can’t Wait.”
Trending on Billboard
In the complaint, Tuff City’s attorneys say they have “advised defendant repeatedly of the presence of the uncleared sample” in “Real Love” but that Universal has done nothing about it.
“Defendant has repeatedly refused to engage plaintiff in substantive negotiations to rectify the foregoing, let alone agreed to compensate Plaintiff for the past infringement or on an ongoing basis,” wrote Tuff City’s attorney Hillel Parness in the complaint.
Blige herself is not named in the lawsuit nor accused of any wrongdoing.
In a bizarre wrinkle, Tuff City claims that UMG Recordings — a subsidiary of UMG and the owner of the master to “Real Love” — has already reached an agreement regarding the use of the uncleared sample on the sound recording. But they say the music giant’s publishing arm has refused to do the same as it relates to the underlying composition.
“Defendant’s refusal to cooperate with plaintiff is difficult to reconcile with the fact that plaintiff reached an agreement with UMG Recordings,” Tuff City’s attorneys write.
Tuff City, which owns a large catalog of old songs, is no stranger to copyright litigation. Over the past fifteen years, the company has sued over tracks by Jay-Z, Beastie Boys, Christina Aguilera, Frank Ocean and others, typically alleging that they featured unlicensed samples or interpolations.
That process has not always gone smoothly. In 2014, a judge dismissed a case over Jay-Z’s “Run This Town” on the grounds that any alleged sample was “barely perceptible” after multiple listens. In 2018, another judge ordered Tuff City to repay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees spent by Beastie Boys defending a case that was “clearly without merit.”
The new case is also not the first time Tuff City has sued over “Impeach the President.” Way back in 1991, the company sued Sony Music and Def Jam over claims that producer Marley Marl had illegally sampled the track on LL Cool J tracks “Around the Way Girl” and “Six Minutes of Pleasure.”
At the time, the lawsuit was a novel legal attack on sampling, which had long been at the core of hip-hop but had rarely involved paying for licenses or seeking authorization. In a 1992 article, the New York Times warned that Tuff City’s lawsuit over “Impeach the President” could fundamentally change hip hop, forcing rappers and producers to clear every element used in their albums — a formidable idea at the time.
“A single rap album can include dozens of samples, from single drumbeats to full musical phrases,” the New York Times article reads. “Finding the copyright owners, negotiating fees or royalties and gaining legal clearance is time consuming and can add tens of thousands of dollars to the production costs.”
Tuff City’s case eventually settled on confidential terms, but it proved to be a sign of things to come. In the years since, federal courts have ruled that nearly any amount of sampling of sound recordings counts as copyright infringement. As a result, labels and artists today attempt to clear almost any direct sampling in their songs and will typically remove those elements if a deal can’t be reached.
Of course, Blige’s “Real Love” came out just months after Tuff City filed its case against LL Cool J, and well before such practices had become universal. It’s unclear why the company waited more than 30 years to sue over it, but copyright law has a so-called “rolling” statute of limitations that allows for such long-delayed actions.
A spokesman for UMG did not immediately return a request for comment.
Sean “Diddy” Combs and his son Christian “King” Combs are facing a new lawsuit claiming the younger Combs sexually assaulted a staffer on a luxury yacht in the Caribbean.
In a complaint filed Thursday in Los Angeles court, Grace O’Marcaigh says that she was working as a stewardess on a superyacht charted by the Combs family in December 2022 when an intoxicated Christian served her “spiked tequila shots” and then assaulted her.
“Prior to being sexually assaulted by defendant Christian Combs, plaintiff planned to work the entirety of her career in hospitality and the yachting industry,” O’Marcaigh’s attorneys write. “Unfortunately, those plans have been derailed due to the trauma plaintiff continues to have as a result of the assault.”
The new lawsuit was filed by the same attorney, Tyrone Blackburn, who filed a similar case against Combs in February on behalf of producer Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones. The new complaint claims that Jones was present for the alleged attack, and that he recorded some of the incident.
Trending on Billboard
In addition to those two cases, Combs has been hit with a slew of other allegations of sexual assault and other wrongdoing over the past six months, including a quickly-settled case filed by his ex-girlfriend Cassie and a still-pending lawsuit filed a woman who claims Combs raped her when she was 17. The rapper is also facing an apparent federal criminal investigation, which led to raids of his homes last month. Combs has strongly denied all allegations of wrongdoing.
In the new lawsuit, O’Marcaigh claims that Christian Combs arrived to the chartered yacht via smaller boat at 5 am on Dec. 28, 2022. She says he then “insisted” that she take shots of tequila, which she quickly came to suspect had been spiked with drugs. After she attempted to exit the situation, O’Marcaigh says he “violently” grabbed her and began to grope and assault her.
Because Jones was present and recording, O’Marcaigh says she has a recording in which she tells the younger Combs “excuse me, you don’t touch my legs like that” and “you can take your hand off my ass.”
Later in the same evening, O’Marcaigh says Combs demanded that she find him a place to sleep. When she took him to the yacht’s cinema, she says he “blocked her from exiting,” then “became physical and aggressive” even as she “pushed him back constantly.”
“Defendant C. Combs then took off all of his clothes,” O’Marcaigh’s attorney says. “His penis was erect, and he grabbed her arms and was trying to force plaintiff to perform oral copulation on him.”
The lawsuit does not claim that the elder Combs participated in the assault. But she says he orchestrated a “coverup” that resulted in her eventual firing from her job. And she says he bears ultimate responsibility for his son’s actions because he chartered the yacht.
“Defendant S. Combs fostered and encouraged an environment of debauchery,” O’Marcaigh’s attorneys write. “He intentionally created an unsafe environment that gave license to [Christian] to believe that he was free to sexually assault plaintiff.”
A representative for Sean Combs did not immediately return a request for comment.
An attorney who filed one of the several sexual abuse lawsuits against Sean “Diddy” Combs is now facing potential discipline himself after a federal judge in another case sharply criticized him for filing suits designed to “garner media attention” and “embarrass defendants.”
In an order issued Wednesday (April 3) in a separate lawsuit, Judge Denise Cote referred Tyrone Blackburn to the grievance committee for New York’s federal court district – an entity that decides whether attorneys have violated court rules. She cited his conduct in five different lawsuits, saying Blackburn’s filings in those cases had featured “glaring deficiencies.”
“A reasonable inference from Blackburn’s pattern of behavior is that he improperly files cases in federal court to garner media attention, embarrass defendants with salacious allegations, and pressure defendants to settle quickly,” Judge Cote wrote. “Indeed, his submissions to this court have been rife with disturbing allegations against the defendants and defense counsel.”
Trending on Billboard
The order, which came in a legal malpractice lawsuit Blackburn filed last year, referred him to the grievance committee for the Southern District of New York for “such action as it deems appropriate.”
Judge Cote’s ruling is notable because Blackburn is currently serving as lead counsel to Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones, a producer who filed a sweeping abuse lawsuit against Combs in February. The lawsuit is one of several such cases filed against Combs, in addition to a federal criminal investigation that led to raids of his homes last month. Combs has strongly denied all allegations of wrongdoing.
In an email to Billboard on Thursday, Blackburn said: “Not sure how this is at all relevant to Rodney Jones’ case, or any other case I have. This will not have any impact on my ability to proceed in Mr. Jones’ case. Although Judge Cote’s decision was a referral to the SDNY’s grievance committee, and not a sanction, I plan on appealing the decision.”
In his lawsuit last month, Jones accused Combs of repeated sexual assault and harassment while Jones was working as a producer on the rapper’s 2023 The Love Album. But he also went further, claiming that Diddy and others had violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the federal RICO statute best known for criminal cases against the Mafia. As part of those claims, he named several other prominent people as members of that alleged illegal conspiracy, including Universal Music Group CEO Lucian Grainge and former Motown CEO Ethiopia Habtemariam.
Blackburn has already faced scrutiny over those accusations filed on Jones’ behalf. In her response to the lawsuit, Combs’ attorney, Shawn Holley, took the unusual step of calling out her opposing counsel by name, saying that Blackburn had “ignored” evidence of Combs’ innocence before filing the case.
“Our attempts to share this proof with Mr. Jones’ attorney, Tyrone Blackburn, have been ignored, as Mr. Blackburn refuses to return our calls,” Holley said at the time. “We will address these outlandish allegations in court and take all appropriate action against those who make them.”
Last week, attorneys for UMG took similar aim at Blackburn. Arguing that Grainge had “utterly nothing to do” with the allegations against Diddy, the label’s lawyers said the claims were so “offensively false” that they would seek to punish Blackburn himself for filing them.
“A license to practice law is a privilege,” wrote Donald Zakarin, a longtime music industry litigator who represents UMG and Grainge. “Mr. Blackburn, plaintiff’s lawyer, has misused that license to self-promote, gratuitously, falsely and recklessly accusing the UMG defendants of criminal behavior.”
UMG’s filing last week said the company would seek legal sanctions against Blackburn under federal Rule 11, which requires lawyers to make a “reasonable inquiry” into allegations they file in court. That’s the same rule that Judge Cote cited Wednesday in her ruling against Blackburn, saying “his actions in this and prior cases indicate a repeated failure to meet his Rule 11 obligations.”
In arriving at that conclusion, the judge cited multiple instances in which Blackburn allegedly filed cases in the wrong court without properly investigating whether it was the right jurisdiction, as well as an incident in which he called a defense attorney “a disgusting racist” amid a dispute over picking a mediator. The judge also cited an allegation from an opposing lawyer that Blackburn had specifically filed a case in federal court, rather than state court, “because doing so would make the press more likely to pick up on it.”
“Significant resources have been spent by judges of the court and defendants named in actions he has filed to address glaring deficiencies in his filings,” Judge Cote wrote in her ruling on Wednesday. “A referral to this court’s Grievance Committee is warranted.”
It’s unclear how long such a case will take before the grievance committee renders a decision, or what kind of disciplinary measures the body might hand down.
Madonna is firing back at a class action lawsuit filed by New York City fans who are angry that her concerts started later than scheduled, arguing that needing to “get up early to go to work” the next day is not the kind of legal “injury” someone can sue over.
In a motion filed Wednesday, the Material Girl’s lawyers urged a federal judge to dismiss the case, in which ticket buyers Michael Fellows and Jonathan Hadden accused her of breaking the law by starting three December shows in Brooklyn more than two hours later than the scheduled.
That lawsuit made headlines because the plaintiffs justified their claims in part by arguing that they “had to get up early to go to work” the next day. But in their response, Madonna’s lawyers said that’s hardly the kind of legal “injury” that can result in a lawsuit.
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiffs speculate that ticketholders who left the venue after 1 a.m. might have had trouble getting a ride home or might have needed to wake up early the next day for work,” wrote Madonna’s lawyers. “That is not a cognizable injury.”
Far from suffering harm, Madonna’s lawyers say Hadden “raved” about the show in question on social media, posting that the concert was “incredible, as always!” on his Facebook page. “In other words, the concert met or exceeded his expectations.”
An attorney for the defendants did not immediately return a request for comment.
Fellows and Hadden filed their case in January, claiming Madonna and concert giant Live Nation breached contracts with buyers and violated state laws covering false advertising and unfair business practices by starting the shows late. The case, a proposed class action, aims to represent thousands of others who allegedly faced a similar experience.
At issue are three concerts at Brooklyn’s Barclays Center, stops on Madonna’s Celebration Tour, that had originally been scheduled for July but were shifted to December due to the singer’s illness. Fellows and Hadden said they expected their show to start on time, and “would not have paid for their tickets had they known that the concerts would start after 10:30 p.m.”
“Defendants failed to provide any notice to the ticketholders that the concerts would start much later than the start time printed on the ticket and as advertised,” attorneys for the two men wrote.
But in Wednesday’s response, attorneys representing both Madonna and Live Nation said that anyone buying a concert ticket is well aware that the show likely won’t start at the exact time printed on the ticket.
“Nowhere did Defendants advertise that Madonna would take the stage at 8.30 p.m., and no reasonable concertgoer—and certainly no Madonna fan—would expect the headline act at a major arena concert to take the stage at the ticketed event time,” the star’s lawyers wrote. “Rather, a reasonable concertgoer would understand that the venue’s doors will open at or before the ticketed time, one or more opening acts may perform while attendees arrive and make their way to their seats and before the headline act takes the stage, and the headline act will take the stage later in the evening.”
Rather than suffering harm, they say Fellows and Hadden “got just what they paid for: a full-length, high-quality show by the Queen of Pop.”
“Plaintiffs do not allege Madonna’s performance was subpar, that her performance was worth less than what they paid, or that they left the concert before watching her entire performance,” her lawyers wrote. “Indeed, plaintiffs do not plead any injury that they themselves suffered by spending the night at an ‘incredible’ concert.”