Legal News
Page: 40
Roddy Ricch has defeated a copyright lawsuit that claimed the rapper stole key elements of his chart-topping 2019 song “The Box” from a decades-old soul song, with a judge ruling “no reasonable jury” would find the two songs similar.
Songwriter Greg Perry sued Ricch (real name Roderick Wayne Jr.) and Atlantic Records in 2022, claiming the hit track (which spent a whopping 11 weeks at the top of the Billboard Hot 100) had been ripped off from Perry’s 1975 “Come On Down” — an oft-sampled song in the hip-hop world.
But in a decision Monday (Feb. 12), Judge Analisa Torres ruled that the two songs were clearly very different: “No reasonable jury could find that the works are substantially similar,” the judge wrote, noting “significant dissimilarities” between the “aesthetic appeal” of each track.
While Perry’s track is a “soul song that contains a melodic tune” and is performed with acoustic instruments, Judge Torres said, Roddy’s track is “a hip-hop song delivered in a monotone rap” created primarily with a synthesizer. The tempo of the older song is “significantly faster” than that of “The Box,” the judge added, and the overall “feel” of the two songs is also clearly distinct.
“[‘Come On Down’] is a sentimental song about ‘love and heartbreak,’ while ‘The Box’ is a braggadocious song about ‘amassing wealth, sleeping with multiple women, and being more skilled than other rappers’,” the judge wrote.
Perry’s lawyers filed the case back in December 2022, claiming an average music fan would be able to hear the “strikingly similar” aspects of the two tracks simply by listening to them, but that more thorough investigation by music experts has more conclusively proven the theft.
“Comparative analysis of the beat, lyrics, hook, rhythmic structure, metrical placement, and narrative context by a musicology expert demonstrates clearly and convincingly that ‘The Box’ is an unauthorized duplication and infringement of certain elements of ‘Come On Down,’” the suit read.
“Come On Down” is a popular sample in hip-hop — featured in both Young Jeezy’s 2008 “Wordplay” and Yo Gotti’s 2016 “I Remember.” Perry’s lawyers said both of those songs had been fully cleared and licensed by giving him a songwriting credit and an ownership stake.
“Other [artists] in the rap world that have chosen to copy elements of ‘Come On Down’ have done so legally and correctly,” Perry’s lawyers wrote. “Defendants chose not to license the musical composition from plaintiffs and instead chose to intentionally infringe upon the copyright.”
But in Monday’s decision, Judge Torres said there was no need for Ricch to secure such a license because his song did not infringe Perry’s tune. She said that the central alleged similarity — a so-called “ascending minor scale played by violin” that Perry claimed was repeated 24 times in Ricch’s song — was “expressed differently” in the two works. Other important elements of Perry’s work, like a so-called tremolando, are “notably absent” from “The Box,” she added.
“The musical composition … differs from ‘The Box in each of the components where plaintiff claims similarity,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that defendants copied any protectable portion of the musical composition.”
With her ruling, Judge Torres dismissed Perry’s case permanently, ending the lawsuit entirely. Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment on Tuesday.
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: Snoop Dogg sues Post and Walmart for allegedly sabotaging his brand of breakfast cereal, Taylor Swift threatens to sue a college student for tracking her private jet; Kanye West is accused of illegal sampling by Ozzy Osbourne and the estate of Donna Summer; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Snoop Says Post & Walmart Were Cereal Killers
If you had “Snoop Dogg,” “cereal” and “lawsuit” on your 2024 bingo card, congrats.
Broadus Foods, a company owned by Snoop and Master P, filed a lawsuit last week accusing food giant Post of sabotaging the rollout of the company’s Snoop Cereal brand. As you might expect, the complaint had some rhetorical flair — leveling charges of “underhanded dealing” and “diabolical actions.”
The case claims that Post signed a deal to produce and distribute the brand, but then secretly “ensured that Snoop Cereal would not be available to consumers.” The rappers claim the move was payback after Snoop (Calvin Broadus) and Master P (Percy Miller) refused to sell their company to Post.
“Essentially, because Snoop Dogg and Master refused to sell Snoop Cereal in totality, Post entered a false arrangement where they could choke Broadus Foods out of the market, thereby preventing Snoop Cereal from being sold or produced by any competitor,” lawyers for Snoop’s company wrote.
The case – filed by prominent civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump — also named Walmart as a defendant, claiming that the retail giant played a key role in “the most egregious example” of Post’s alleged wrongdoing.
For more information, go read our full story on the lawsuit, including access to the actual docs filed in the case.
CALLING ALL MUSIC LAWYERS! For the first time, Billboard is expanding its peer-voted Power Players’ Choice Award to cover music’s top lawyers, and we’re asking industry members from all sectors to honor the attorney they believe had the most impact across the business in the past year. Voting is now open to all Billboard Pro members, both existing and new, with one vote per member per round.
Other top stories…
TAYLOR SWIFT PLANE TRACKER – Days before her big Super Bowl appearance, news broke that Taylor’s lawyers had threatened to sue a Florida college student named Jack Sweeney who runs social media accounts that track celebrity private jets, including Swift’s. In their cease-and-desist letter, her lawyers called Sweeney’s posts “stalking and harassing behavior” and warned that they “have no choice but to pursue any and all legal remedies” if he did not stop posting the locations of Swift’s private jet. What might those remedies actually be? It wasn’t specified.
SWIFT STALKER WON’T STAND TRIAL – Whether or not it’s illegal to track her plane, Taylor’s lawyers have good reason to be concerned about stalkers. On Friday, a man criminally charged for lurking outside the star’s Manhattan apartment was declared mentally unfit for trial, meaning his case will be dismissed and he will be transferred to a mental health facility until doctors clear him to be released.
KANYE SAMPLES SNAFU – Both rocker Ozzy Osbourne and the estate of legendary singer Donna Summer publicly accused Kanye West of using their songs without permission on his new album, even after they had specifically rejected his requests for licenses. Calling West an “antisemite,” Ozzy took to social media to blast the rapper: “I want no association with this man!” The Summer estate, meanwhile, claimed the embattled rapper had committed “copyright infringement” by seemingly interpolating her song. In an interview with Billboard’s Robert Levine, Ozzy’s wife and manager Sharon Osbourne explained the backstory: “We get so many requests for these songs, and when we saw that request, we just said no way.”
PANDORA SUED BY MLC – The Mechanical Licensing Collective – the group created by Congress in 2018 to collect royalties – filed a lawsuit against Pandora, alleging that the internet radio platform has been failing to adequately pay and report its monthly royalties. The case could dive into tricky questions about whether or not Pandora’s free ad-supported service is an “interactive” platform like Spotify, or more similar to a “noninteractive” radio broadcast – a key distinction under the law.
TIKTOK DISCRIMINATION CASE – With the social media giant currently at the center of a high-profile showdown with Universal Music Group, the company was hit with a gender discrimination lawsuit from a top female executive named Katie Ellen Puris, who says she was fired because TikTok’s upper leadership required “docility and meekness” from women.
CABO WABO IN COURT – Sammy Hagar‘s company demanded that a federal judge shut down an allegedly unauthorized Hollywood location of his Cabo Wabo Cantina, claiming that a former franchisee had effectively gone rogue and was damaging the rock star’s reputation.
KANYE CLASS ACTION – Adidas AG asked a federal judge to dismiss a class action that claims the company violated securities laws by failing to sufficiently warn investors about Ye’s offensive behavior and the risk it posed to the company’s share price. “This lawsuit is a misguided attempt to transform the dramatic and unfortunate end of the commercial partnership between Adidas and Ye… into a claim for securities fraud,” the company’s lawyers wrote.
Kanye West is no longer facing a copyright lawsuit that claimed he illegally posted a 2021 viral video clip of a public speech about his then-wife Kim Kardashian, after his accuser dropped the case.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The embattled Donda rapper (now legally named Ye) has been repeatedly sued over the past two years, and he might soon be hit with new lawsuits over allegations of illegal sampling from Ozzy Osbourne and Donna Summer. But at least one such lawsuit is now in the rearview mirror.
In court papers filed last week, videographer Elijah Graham agreed to voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit he filed against West last year. The case claimed the rapper had stolen Graham’s clip — which captured West speaking candidly about Kardashian and his kids while serving a Thanksgiving meal to homeless people on Skid Row in Los Angeles – and posted it to Instagram without permission.
“We’ve made mistakes. I’ve made mistakes. I’ve publicly done things that were not acceptable as a husband, but right now today, for whatever reason — I didn’t know I was going to be in front of this mic — but I’m here to change the narrative,” West says in the video, which went viral after he posted it.
In a complaint filed in October in Los Angeles federal court, Graham’s lawyers claimed that West’s post amounted to willful copyright infringement. But since filing the case, they have done little to move the case forward; in an order last month, the judge overseeing the lawsuit threatened to dismiss the case entirely because it was not being “prosecuted diligently.”
An attorney for Graham did not return a request for comment on why he was dropping the case. A rep for West did not immediately return a request for comment.
Graham’s case might be over, but Ye is still in legal hot water. He’s currently facing two separate lawsuits filed by employees at his Donda Academy over allegations of unsafe conditions and wrongful termination; he’s also defending against another copyright case that claims his “Life of the Party” illegally sampled a song by the pioneering rap group Boogie Down Productions.
And more copyright cases could be on the way. Last week, both Ozzy Osbourne and the estate of Donna Summer publicly accused West of using their songs without permission on his new album ‘Vultures 1’, even after they had specifically rejected his requests for licenses. In an interview with Billboard, Osbourne’s wife and manager Sharon said they had “been in touch with his team” about legal issues, while Summer’s estate directly alleged “copyright infringement.”
A man accused of stalking Taylor Swift outside her Manhattan apartment has been declared mentally unfit for trial, prosecutors say, meaning his criminal charges will be dismissed and he will be transferred to a mental health facility.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office said Friday it had confirmed the results of a psychiatric examination that found David Crowe “unfit to stand trial” on misdemeanor charges of stalking, harassment and contempt. Crowe was arrested three times last month outside Swift’s TriBeCa building.
“The criminal case is now dismissed by function of law,” a spokeswoman for the Manhattan District Attorney’s office said in the statement. “He will now be committed to the custody of the Office of Mental Health to receive necessary treatment.”
In a statement, Crowe’s public defender, Katherine LeGeros Bajuk, said: “We are pleased that all parties now agree to the obvious truth that Mr. Crowe is too ill to proceed, and that he requires treatment, not jail. We look forward to ensuring Mr. Crowe is provided with the psychiatric treatment and supportive social services he needs to achieve a successful and stable re-entry into society.”
Though he will not face charges, Crowe will not simply be released. He will committed to a mental health treatment facility, where he will be confined for an undefined time period until deemed fit to be released by doctors. Prosecutors can argue against any potential future release, and often seek civil court protection orders barring defendants like Crowe from contacting victims like Swift after they’re released.
In charging documents, prosecutors alleged that Crowe had been spotted roughly 30 times near Swift’s apartment building since late November, and that on multiple occasions he had stated that he was there to speak to the superstar.
The Seattle native was first arrested on January 20, after police responded to a 911 call regarding a “disorderly person” near Swift’s apartment. Crowe had allegedly “attempted to open a door to a building at the location” and was taken into custody on a previous arrest warrant. After he was released, Crowe was arrested again just two days later in the same area, after witnesses reported an “emotionally disturbed male acting erratically” and police spotted him “harassing multiple complainants.”
Crowe was released from custody again on Jan. 24 after he was arraigned on stalking and harassment charges. Though the judge imposed a strict protection order, Crowe then apparently bee-lined back to the vicinity of Swift’s apartment, where he was arrested for a third time and charged with criminal contempt.
After Crowe’s third arrest, prosecutors warned the judge that he had willfully disobeyed her previous ruling and made clear that he would not abide by future restrictions. Following that hearing, the judge ordered Crowe to remain in custody while he awaited further proceedings.
If he had gone to trial on the original stalking charges — all misdemeanors — Crowe could have faced up to 18 months in prison if convicted. If also convicted on the later charges — two counts of second-degree criminal contempt for breaching his protection order, also misdemeanors — he could have faced an additional two years in prison.
For the first time, Billboard is expanding its peer-voted Power Players’ Choice Award to cover music’s top lawyers, asking industry members from all sectors to honor the attorney they believe had the most impact across the business in the past year. Explore Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest videos, charts and news […]
Snoop Dogg and Master P are suing Walmart and Post Consumer Brands over allegations that the two huge companies sabotaged the rappers’ cereal brand with “underhanded dealing” and “diabolical actions.”
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (Feb. 6), the rappers’ company, Broadus Foods, claimed that after they struck a partnership deal with Post, the company secretly “ensured that Snoop Cereal would not be available to consumers” or would “incur exorbitant costs that would eliminate any profit.”
Broadus Foods, represented by prominent attorney Benjamin Crump, claims the move was payback after Snoop (Calvin Broadus) and Master P (Percy Miller) refused to sell their company to Post.
“Essentially, because Snoop Dogg and Master refused to sell Snoop Cereal in totality, Post entered [a] false arrangement where they could choke Broadus Foods out of the market, thereby preventing Snoop Cereal from being sold or produced by any competitor,” Crump wrote in Tuesday’s complaint.
The lawsuit also named Walmart as a defendant, saying the retail giant played a key role in “the most egregious example” of Post’s alleged wrongdoing: “Post essentially worked with Walmart to ensure that none of the boxes of Snoop Cereal would ever appear on the store shelves.”
According to Snoop and Master P, the duo launched Broadus Foods and Snoop Cereal in 2022 in an effort to “add diversity to the food industry” and create a “legacy” that they could leave behind for their families. When they approached Post about a production and distribution partnership, they say the “breakfast juggernaut” attempted to buy the company outright, but that they refused.
Spurned from acquiring the upstart company, they claim Post agreed to a partnership whereby it would not only produce the products but also “treat Snoop Cereal as one of its own brands” and distribute it to major retailers, including Walmart, Target, Kroger and Amazon. But behind the scenes, they claim that Post was working to sabotage the new company.
“Unbeknownst to Broadus Foods, Post was not on board with their goals and dreams and had no intention of treating Snoop Cereal equally as its own brands,” Crump writes. “Instead, Post intended to only give appearances that they were following the Agreement.”
The worst case of such alleged mistreatment, according to the lawsuit, was the situation at Walmart. Snoop and Master P claim that Snoop Cereal initially sold well at the massive chain, but that Walmart’s system soon began to falsely show that the product was out of stock.
“However, upon further investigation by store employees, each of these stores had several boxes of Snoop Cereal in their stockrooms that were coded to not be put out on the store shelves,” the company’s lawyers write. “Unlike the other Post branded boxes of cereal around them, these Snoop Cereal boxes had been in the stockrooms for months without ever being made available to customers.”
In technical terms, the lawsuit claims that Post breached its agreements with and fiduciary duty to Broadus Foods, as well as defrauded the smaller company and made negligent misrepresentations. The case claims that Walmart committed so-called tortious interference by going along with Post’s scheme and that it aided and abetted Post in breaching its fiduciary duty. And the lawsuit claims that both companies committed civil conspiracy by working together.
Reps for both Post and Walmart did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday evening.
Taylor Swift’s lawyers are threatening to sue a Florida college student who runs social media accounts that track celebrity private jets, calling it “stalking and harassing behavior.”
According to a report Tuesday (Feb. 6) by the Washington Post, Jack Sweeney received a cease-and-desist letter from Swift’s attorneys in December, warning they would have “have no choice but to pursue any and all legal remedies” if he did not stop posting the locations of Swift’s private jet.
Sweeney runs social media accounts that track flights by celebrities and other public figures, ranging from Kim Kardashian to Bill Gates to Donald Trump. In 2022, he was banned from X (formerly Twitter) after he posted such info for billionaire Elon Musk, the site’s owner. He cites publicly-available government flight data, alongside estimates of carbon emissions from each flight.
In the legal letter, Swift’s lawyers (led by Katie Wright Morrone of the firm Venable LLP) warned Sweeney that his posts posed an “imminent threat” to Swift’s “safety and wellbeing.” The letter said Sweeney’s posts were “in violation of several state laws,” but did not specify which ones.
“While this may be a game to you, or an avenue that you hope will earn you wealth or fame, it is a life-or-death matter for our Client,” Morrone wrote, according to the Post. “Ms. Swift has dealt with stalkers and other individuals who wish her harm.”
The letter also referenced the earlier dispute with Musk, including Sweeney’s offer to delete the account for $50,000: “We are aware of your public disputes with other high-profile individuals and your tactics in those interactions, including offering to stop your harmful behavior only in exchange for items of value.”
News of the dispute with Sweeney comes just weeks after a man named David Crowe was arrested outside Swift’s Manhattan home and charged with stalking; prosecutors say Crowe was spotted more than 30 times outside her apartment and had repeatedly attempted to enter the building. In 2022, another man was arrested after he crashed his car into her building and attempted to get inside.
In a statement Tuesday on the letter to Sweeney, Swift’s spokeswoman, Tree Paine, stressed the risk of stalkers: “We cannot comment on any ongoing police investigation but can confirm the timing of stalkers suggests a connection. His posts tell you exactly when and where she would be.”
According to the Post’s report, many of Sweeney’s posts are derived from government data compiled by the Federal Aviation Administration. Though celebrities can request to hide their planes from those databases — and Swift appears to have done so — volunteer hobbyists can still track such aircraft via the signals they broadcast, and they often upload such info to independent public websites.
In the Post report, Sweeney said that he was merely posting public information that’s “already out there.” His attorney went further, calling the claims from Swift’s attorneys “hyperbolic and unfounded” and saying the posts posed “no threat” to the superstar.
Sammy Hagar‘s company is demanding that a federal judge shut down an allegedly unauthorized Hollywood location of his Cabo Wabo Cantina, claiming that a former franchisee has gone rogue and is damaging the rock star’s reputation.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Attorneys for Hagar’s company (Red Head Inc.) sued last month, claiming that franchisee Robert Azinian had opened a new Cabo Wabo on Hollywood Blvd across from the TCL Chinese Theatre even though his licensing deal had been terminated. Now, in a new filing Monday, they asked for an immediate injunction blocking Azinian from continuing to use the name or any other company branding on his new eatery.
“Every day that the Cabo Wabo Cantina at the new Hollywood location continues to operate under the ‘Cabo Wabo’ brand, it soils the name, reputation, and goodwill that Red Head has developed,” the company’s lawyers write. “Defendants were instructed to discontinue any and all use of the marks, but they have ignored that request.”
Hagar and his Van Halen bandmates opened Cabo Wabo Cantina in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico in 1990; after buying out his partners, he later launched a line of tequila under the same name. Hagar sold the liquor brand to Gruppo Campari for $101 million, but his Red Head Inc. continues to operate the restaurant in Cabo and later franchised locations in Las Vegas and Los Angeles.
Last month, Red Head sued Azinian in California federal court, claiming he had essentially gone rogue after years of successfully running the Los Angeles location. The lawsuit claimed that Azinian had closed his original spot on Hollywood Blvd and “surreptitiously” relocated across the street, all without seeking the required approvals. They warned the new Cabo Wabo was already causing confusion with customers, citing Instagram comments like one in which a user wondered “is Sammy Hagar still affiliated?”
In Monday’s filing, Red Head echoed those arguments in asking for a preliminary injunction, which will block Azinian from continuing to use any Cabo Wabo branding while the case plays out. Without such an order, Hagar’s company warned that the unauthorized eatery could cause severe damage to Cabo Wabo’s reputation.
“Defendants’ continue to use the Cabo Wabo marks in connection with their operation of the restaurant — but Red Head has no oversight, control, or even visibility as to the quality of any one aspect of Defendants’ business, such as the quality of décor, the quality of staff, the quality of materials, or the quality of food,” the lawyers write. “Red Head currently has no control over any of it.”
Neither side immediately returned requests for comment on Tuesday.
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: A judge denies Lizzo’s request to dismiss a bombshell harassment lawsuit filed by her backup dancers; an ugly flood of Taylor Swift deepfakes highlights a growing problem; an update on Earth Wind & Fire’s trademark lawsuit against a tribute band; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Lizzo Harassment Case Moves Forward
Two days before Lizzo showed up to present an award at the Grammys on Sunday night, a Los Angeles judge ruled that the singer’s legal problems would not be going away any time soon.
In a decision Friday, Judge Mark H. Epstein denied Lizzo’s motion to toss out a bombshell sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit, filed by three of her former backup dancers last year. Though he dismissed certain accusations – including a particularly loaded charge that Lizzo fat-shamed one of her dancers – the judge ruled that the remainder of the case could go forward.
Lizzo argued in October that that case should be dismissed under California’s so-called anti-SLAPP statute — a special law that makes it easier to quickly end meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech, known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” Her attorneys said the dancers’ case was a “brazen attempt to silence defendants’ creative voices.”
As I said at the time, that argument was an unusual one. Anti-SLAPP motions are used quite frequently in defamation lawsuits that have been filed by powerful people against their critics; I can’t ever remember seeing one used by an employer who has been sued by their workers for violating labor laws.
In his decision last week, Judge Epstein largely agreed. Though he said that finding the balance – between free speech and illegal worlkplace conduct – was “no easy task,” he ultimately decided that many of the allegations against Lizzo did not fit under the anti-SLAPP law’s protections.
Go read why in our full story on the Lizzo ruling, including a detailed breakdown of the decision and access to the actual ruling issued by the judge.
Other top stories this week…
TAYLOR SWIFT DEEPFAKES – After X was flooded with fake, sexually-explicit images of Taylor Swift, I dove deep and tried to get an understanding of the legal lay of the land. Were these deepfake images illegal? Should new laws be passed to stop them? Are social media sites doing enough to stop them? Turns out, legal experts say the ugly incident is a sign of things to come, as artificial intelligence tools make deepfakes easier to create and tech companies scale back content moderation. Go read the whole story here.
‘GEORGE & TAMMY’ CASE – Showtime was hit with a lawsuit over the 2022 television series centered on country music legends George Jones and Tammy Wynette, filed by the estate of Wynette’s later husband George Richey. The lawsuit claims that the producers presented a “disparaging” portrayal of Richey that turned him into the “villain” of the show. But it’s not a defamation lawsuit…
RAP ON TRIAL? NOT IN BK – A federal judge overseeing Jam Master Jay’s murder trial in Brooklyn ruled that prosecutors could not cite rap lyrics written by the rapper’s alleged killer as evidence against him – in the process, wading into one of music law’s thorniest issues. After offering a sweeping historical overview of hip hop’s past, the judge warned that general themes of violence and crime have become “so prevalent within the genre that they have little, if any, probative value at trial.” As a result, she said they should only be admitted if they have a clear, direct connection to the facts of the case: “Music artists should be free to create without fear that their lyrics could be unfairly used against them.”
TRIBUTE TRADEMARKS – A tribute band that was sued last year by Earth, Wind & Fire for using the name “Earth Wind & Fire Legacy Reunion” won a small ruling in the ongoing trademark infringement case, allowing them to continue pursuing their eyebrow-raising counterargument: That the legendary R&B group somehow abandoned the intellectual property rights to its name.
SUBLIME MALPRACTICE SUIT – The 90s rock band filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against the prominent music law firm King Holmes Paterno & Soriano LLP, accusing its former attorneys of a “pattern of self-dealing.” Sublime’s surviving members say the firm’s lawyers – including legendary music attorneys Howard King and Peter Paterno – had undisclosed conflicts of interest on numerous matters, including brokering a merchandise deal with one of the firm’s other clients that the band claims cost it millions of dollars. When reached for comment on the allegations, King told Billboard simply: “Welcome to Fantasyland. Please enjoy the ride.”
NIRVANA’S SMILEY FACE FIGHT – A years-long legal battle over the grunge band’s famed smiley face logo could be headed for a major showdown, sparked by a former record label art designer named Robert Fisher who says he, and not Kurt Cobain, created the famed drawing.
A Los Angeles judge on Friday (Feb. 2) denied Lizzo’s motion to toss out a bombshell sexual harassment lawsuit filed by three of her former backup dancers, dismissing certain accusations but allowing the case as a whole to move forward toward a trial.
Facing allegations of harassment and discrimination, Lizzo argued last year that case should be dismissed under California’s anti-SLAPP statute — a special law that makes it easier to quickly end meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech (known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation”). Her lawyers argued that the accusers were using the lawsuit to “silence” her.
But in a detailed, 34-page decision, Judge Mark H. Epstein ruled that the anti-SLAPP statute didn’t quite fit all of the lawsuit’s allegations. He tossed out some claims – including a particularly loaded charge that Lizzo fat-shamed one of her dancers – but ruled that remainder of the case could go forward.
Figuring out the proper balance – between protected speech and illegal discrimination – was “no easy task,” Judge Epstein wrote, but he said he had “tried to thread this needle.”
“It is dangerous for the court to weigh in, ham-fisted, into constitutionally protected activity,” the judge wrote. “But it is equally dangerous to turn a blind eye to allegations of discrimination or other forms of misconduct merely because they take place in a speech-related environment.”
The case against Lizzo, filed in August by dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez, accuses the singer (real name Melissa Jefferson) and her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. of creating a hostile work environment through a wide range of legal wrongdoing, including not just sexual harassment but also religious and racial discrimination. The alleged weight-shaming, the lawsuit claims, amounted to a form of disability discrimination.
In one particularly vivid allegation, Lizzo’s accusers claimed she pushed them to attend a live sex show at a venue in Amsterdam’s famed Red Light District called Bananenbar, and then pressured them to engage with the performers, including “eating bananas protruding from the performers’ vaginas.” After Lizzo herself allegedly led a chant “goading” Davis to touch one performer’s breasts, the lawsuit says, Davis eventually did so.
Repped by Hollywood defense attorney Martin D. Singer, Lizzo fired back in October, arguing that Davis, Williams and Rodriguez had “an axe to grind” against the star because they had been reprimanded over “a pattern of gross misconduct and failure to perform their job up to par.”
“Plaintiffs embarked on a press tour, vilifying defendants and pushing their fabricated sob story in the courts and in the media. That ends today,” Singer wrote. “Instead of taking any accountability for their own actions, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants out of spite and in pursuit of media attention, public sympathy and a quick payday with minimal effort.”
The filing came with sworn statements from 18 members of Lizzo’s touring company who dispute many of the lawsuit’s specific factual accusations. That included several who challenged the headline-grabbing claim that Lizzo fat-shamed some of her dancers — a particularly loaded allegation against a singer who has made body positivity a key part of her brand.
Lizzo’s counter-attack came under the anti-SLAPP law. Anti-SLAPP motions are filed every day, but it was unusual to see one aimed at dismissing a harassment and discrimination lawsuit filed by former employees against their employer. They’re more common in precisely the opposite scenario: filed by an individual who claims that they’re being unfairly sued by a powerful person to silence accusations of abuse or other wrongdoing.
In their filings, Lizzo’s lawyers argued that the anti-SLAPP law could still apply to the current case because of the creative nature of the work in question. They called the lawsuit “a brazen attempt to silence defendants’ creative voices and weaponize their creative expression against them.”
But in his ruling on Friday, Judge Epstein largely rejected that argument. He said that conduct relating to speech is protected and that California law “law wisely disfavors chilling such conduct.” But he cautioned that free speech was not a magic wand against allegations of employer wrongdoing.
“The fact that the alleged incidents take place in the entertainment or speech world is no shield of invulnerability or license to ignore law enacted for the protection of California’s citizens,” the judge said.
The judge dismissed a sexual harassment allegation involving a nude photoshoot on the set of the reality competition series Lizzo’s Watch Out for the Big Grrrls; a disability discrimination accusation around one dancer’s allegation that she was fired from Lizzo’s tour after disclosing her mental health issues; and another allegation stating that Lizzo’s camp intentionally interfered with the dancers’ other job prospects after placing them on a “soft hold” and telling them they could not accept other work.
Lizzo and Shirlene Quigley, the captain of the singer’s dance team, will still have to face other allegations of sexual harassment, as well as accusations of racial and religious discrimination.
“We’re very pleased with the judge’s ruling, and we absolutely consider it a victory on balance,” said the dancers’ lawyer, Ron Zambrano, in a statement. “He did dismiss a few allegations, including the meeting where Arianna was fat shamed, the nude photo shoot, and dancers being forced to be on ‘hold’ while not on tour. However, all the other claims remain, including sexual, religious and racial discrimination, sexual harassment, the demeaning visits to the Bananenbar in Amsterdam and Crazy Horse in Paris, false imprisonment, and assault. The ruling also rightfully signals that Lizzo – or any celebrity – is not insulated from this sort of reprehensible conduct merely because she is famous. We now look forward to conducting discovery and preparing the case for trial.”
In his own statement, Lizzo’s lawyer, Stefan Friedman, said: “We are pleased that Judge Epstein wisely threw out all or part of four of the plaintiffs’ causes of action. Lizzo is grateful to the judge for seeing through much of the noise and recognizing who she is – a strong woman who exists to lift others up and spread positivity. We plan to appeal all elements that the judge chose to keep in the lawsuit and are confident we will prevail.”