Legal News
Page: 47
A bipartisan coalition of high-profile U.S. senators introduced a sweeping ticketing reform bill today that backers say would significantly improve transparency in concert and sports ticketing, better manage and enforce laws around ticket resale and ban deceptive sales tactics designed to trick consumers into overpaying for access to major events.
The Fans First Act, sponsored by U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and co-sponsored by Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Peter Welch (D-VT) is the most comprehensive ticketing industry reform package ever introduced in Congress. It could lead to needed reforms long championed by consumer rights groups, advocacy groups and live music companies including both Live Nation and Ticketmaster, as well as members of the Fix The Tix coalition: the National Independent Venue Association, the Recording Academy, the National Independent Talent Organization, the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and the Association of Performing Arts Professionals.
“The current ticketing system is riddled with problems and doesn’t serve the needs of fans, teams, artists, or venues,” Sen. Cornyn said in a statement. “This legislation would rebuild trust in the ticketing system by cracking down on bots and others who take advantage of consumers through price gouging and other predatory practices and increase price transparency for ticket purchasers.”
Klobuchar added, “Buying a ticket to see your favorite artist or team is out of reach for too many Americans. Bots, hidden fees, and predatory practices are hurting consumers whether they want to catch a home game, an up-and-coming artist or a major headliner like Taylor Swift or Bad Bunny. From ensuring fans get refunds for canceled shows to banning speculative ticket sales, this bipartisan legislation will improve the ticketing experience.”
The Fans First Act boasts more than a dozen reform proposals aimed at protecting consumers, including requiring sites like StubHub and Ticketmaster to disclose the full price of tickets including fees at the beginning of the sale and detail if tickets are being sold by a primary seller or a reseller.
The bill would also strengthen the Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act, signed into law in 2016 by President Barack Obama, which prohibits the use of automated bots to purchase tickets online. It would additionally require sellers and resellers to provide proof of purchase to consumers within 24 hours of purchase and refund consumers the full cost of their tickets when events are canceled. If passed, the bill would also commission a Government Accountability Office study to investigate the marketplace and make recommendations.
Among other provisions, the Fans First Act would also ban the sale of a ticket that the reseller claims they possess but don’t acquire until they have already secured a sale for the ticket. Known as speculative ticket sales, the practice is often the subject of complaints from consumers who later learn they significantly overpaid for tickets.
Those who violate the law could face civil penalties and be added to a reporting website for fans to file complaints about illegal ticket sales tactics that would then be investigated by the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general.
“Fans have become increasingly frustrated with how difficult it has been to obtain affordable tickets to see their favorite artists perform,” said Sen. Blackburn. “Bots are snatching up tickets and selling them for exorbitant prices on secondary markets, while some ticketing companies are selling speculative event tickets that don’t even exist. This bipartisan legislation builds upon my work to safeguard artists and their fans in the online ticket marketplace.”
Sen. Luján stated that the “current ticketing system is limiting access to live entertainment,” adding, “That’s why I’m proud to join my colleagues in introducing the Fans First Act to ensure the sale of tickets is accessible to all consumers.” Sen. Wicker added, “Deceptive ticketing practices have become far too common. This bipartisan effort would result in more transparency and less price gauging.”
The Fan First Act is expected to be heard by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Earlier this week, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce passed a similar bill called the Speculative Ticketing Oversight and Prohibition (STOP) Act, which is now eligible for a vote by the full House.
The STOP Act also bans speculative ticketing, and like the Fans First Act, addresses a range of deceptive ticketing practices and pricing transparency issues. Live Nation and other groups have also expressed support for the STOP Act.
Earlier today, Live Nation officials issued a statement endorsing the Fans First Act.
“We support the Fans First Act and welcome legislation that brings positive reform to live event ticketing. We believe it’s critical Congress acts to protect fans and artists from predatory resale practices, and have long supported a federal all-in pricing mandate, banning speculative ticketing and deceptive websites, as well as other measures. We look forward to our continued work with policymakers to advocate for even stronger reforms and enforcement,” the statement reads.
Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason jr. also came out with a statement supporting the bill on Friday. “With the introduction of the Fans First Act today, the Recording Academy applauds Senators Klobuchar, Cornyn, Blackburn, Luján, Wicker and Welch for taking this important step towards comprehensive ticketing reform,” he said. “As we work together to improve the ticket marketplace, we urge Congress to act on this bill quickly and continue its effort to protect both artists and fans by increasing transparency and limiting bad actors that take away from the joyous experience of live music.”
Youtuber and rapper Trevor Hurd, who goes by the name Crip Mac, was arrested in LA County court Tuesday (Dec. 5) on federal gun charges and is currently being held on pretrial detention, according to an indictment and other court records obtained by Billboard.
The 30-year-old’s arrest came moments after an LA County judge agreed to drop gun charges against the South Los Angeles resident and expectant father for a Sept. 3 arrest for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Seconds after learning the state charges were dropped, Hurd was arrested by waiting U.S. Marshals who informed him that his case had been transferred to the US Attorney’s office where he would face the gun charges in federal court.
Shortly before Tuesday’s arrest, a two-month-old indictment against Hurd was unsealed. It showed that he was charged with being a felon in possession of an unregistered weapon and ten rounds of ammo.
“Defendant HURD possessed such ammunition knowing that he had previously been convicted of at least one of the following felony crimes,” the indictment reads, laying out five arrests since 2014. Hurd was also arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm in LA County on July 27, 2022, and Oct. 12, 2021. On Nov. 8, 2017, Hurd was arrested for attempted second-degree armed robbery; on Aug. 12, 2015, he was arrested for grand theft; and on Oct. 20, 2014, he was arrested for transportation of a controlled substance.
California defense attorney Curtis Briggs, who is not involved with the Crip Mac case, tells Billboard it’s not uncommon for federal officials to take over state criminal cases in coordination with local authorities.
“Sometimes, local authorities become frustrated by lenient sentencing for people who are prolific [offenders] so they request the feds review for prosecution. This puts more prison time in the discussion,” Briggs explains.
The feds also could be working on a larger case, like a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) case involving multiple defendants and a superseding indictment, Briggs explained.
“The worst case is he gets folded into a larger gang conspiracy and RICO case involving murders. In that case, it’s likely life in prison,” Briggs adds. If he’s just facing the gun charges, “it’s possible, depending on the specific facts of his case, he could do 10 years. It depends on various individual factors” and details of the case, Briggs says.
Hurd is currently being held in pretrial custody. His next hearing is scheduled for Monday (Dec. 11).
Crip Mac
Courtesy Photo
Lil Durk is facing a lawsuit that claims he signed deals with two different entities for the same song rights — a move that one of the buyers now calls a “manifest fraud.”
In a complaint filed Wednesday (Dec. 6) in Manhattan federal court, a fintech firm called Exceed Talent Capital says Durk (real name Durk Derrick Banks) agreed to grant the company the recording royalties from his song “Bedtime” even though he had already signed an exclusive deal with Sony’s Alamo Records.
“Despite defendants’ unambiguous contractual representations and warranties regarding their rights in the Banks recording, Exceed has now learned that Banks previously had assigned to a third party the exact same rights,” the company’s lawyers wrote.
The lawsuit claims that the move by Durk — who reached No. 2 on the Hot 100 earlier this year with his “All My Life” — caused Exceed to incur more than $12 million in damages.
“As defendants have failed and refused to acknowledge any responsibility for their intentional misrepresentations and material contractual breaches, let alone take action to rectify the same, Exceed was compelled to bring the present action to obtain legal redress,” the company wrote.
According to the complaint, Exceed agreed to pay Durk $600,000 for the recording rights to “Bedtime.” The company says it wanted to package Durk’s track into a fractional investment vehicle, which would allow investors to buy the right to receive ongoing royalties to the song.
“Where I’m from, few own anything,” the rapper said in a press release announcing Exceed’s royalties investment product. “As The Voice of the Trenches and for my label OTF, I’m always looking for ways to expand and give back to my people. Exceed makes it possible for my fans to become part of my team and share in our success together.”
But in May, Exceed received a cease-and-desist from Alamo. The label informed the fintech firm that Durk was “signed to an exclusive recording agreement with Alamo” and that he did not possess the right to sell his recording royalties to anyone.
“Rather, as Alamo informed Exceed, Alamo possesses those (and a number of further) exclusive rights pursuant to an agreement that Alamo entered into with Banks [in 2021], well over a year before defendants entered into, respectively, the [agreement with Exceed].”
Exceed says it demanded that Durk either fix the situation or refund $450,000 that had already been paid, but that he “utterly ignored” those requests. The lawsuit says the debacle forced Exceed to cancel the sale after it had already “expended significant time, effort and financial resources” in getting it approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
“Exceed was compelled … to return the funds that had been invested by third parties in the Offering, further significantly damaging Exceed’s reputation and relationships with its partners and investors,” the company wrote.
Buying concert tickets could become an easier, more straightforward process after the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce passed the Speculative Ticketing Oversight and Prohibition (STOP) Act on Wednesday (Dec. 6). The bill is now eligible for a vote by the full House.
The STOP Act, which Rep. Gus Bilirakus (R-Fla.) called the “biggest ticket reform in years,” does far more than prevent speculative ticketing, though. The bill also addresses a range of deceptive ticketing practices and transparency issues that perplex, aggravate and annoy consumers.
For starters, the bill requires ticket sellers to conspicuously show the final ticket price at the beginning of the purchase process rather than at check-out. “The first price that you see when you order the ticket is the price that you pay — not a penny more,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) during Wednesday’s hearing.
The bill also ensures ticket buyers can get refunds when concerts are cancelled or postponed. Ticket buyers will have the option of receiving a full refund or, subject to availability, a replacement ticket if the event is postponed and rescheduled in the same or a “comparable” location.
“Consumers should not be left on the hook if an event is canceled or postponed and should have the option to receive a full refund or comparable ticket to a rescheduled show or game,” said Rep. Frank Pallone (C-NJ).
The STOP Act also helps consumers know if they’re buying a ticket from the primary seller or a secondary marketplace. The bill would require ticket sellers to provide buyers with a “a clear and conspicuous statement” that the provider is engaged in the secondary sale of the ticket. In addition, the secondary ticket marketplace cannot state that it is “affiliated with or endorsed by a venue, team, or artist” unless a partnership agreement exists.
Deceptive websites that could mislead ticket buyers are also banned. Ticket providers are prevented from using a domain name or subdomain that contains the name of a specific team, league, venue, performance or artist — including “substantially similar” and misspelled names — unless authorized by the owner of the name. Ticket sellers must also make their refund policies known up front.
Finally, as the name of the bill implies, the STOP Act bans speculative ticketing, in effect barringprimary and secondary ticketing marketplaces from selling tickets they do not possess.
For its part, Live Nation, owner of the country’s largest ticketing company, Ticketmaster, welcomes the new measures. “We’ve long supported a federal all-in pricing mandate, along with other measures including banning speculative ticketing and deceptive websites that trick fans,” the company said in a statement. “We’ll continue working with policymakers, advocating for even stronger reforms and enforcement to stop predatory practices that hurt fans and artists.”
Even if the STOP Act passes in the full House, the U.S. Senate must pass a version of the bill for it to become law. Two similar bills have already been introduced in the Senate. Like the STOP Act, the TICKET Act, introduced by Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), would prevent hidden ticket fees, require upfront pricing and stop speculative ticket selling. The Unlocking Ticketing Markets Act, introduced by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), would limit exclusive, multi-year ticketing contracts in live entertainment.
Former Grammys CEO Mike Greene and the Recording Academy are facing a lawsuit alleging Greene sexually assaulted an Academy employee in the 1990s.
In a complaint filed Wednesday (Dec. 6) in Los Angeles court, Terri McIntyre claims that during her tenure at the Academy from 1994 to 1996, she was “forced to endure pervasive, incessant and routine sexual harassment and/or sexual assault” from Greene, who oversaw the Grammys ceremony for 14 years.
The lawsuit accuses Greene of sexual assault and battery and accuses the Academy itself of negligence and other forms of wrongdoing for allegedly enabling the abuse, including by trying to “actively cover-up, conceal and/or repeatedly excuse Greene’s sexual misconduct.”
Greene did not immediately return a request for comment. In a statement, the Academy said: “In light of pending litigation, the Academy declines to comment on these allegations, which occurred nearly 30 years ago. Today’s Recording Academy has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual misconduct and we will remain steadfast in that commitment.”
The new case comes just weeks after another former Recording Academy CEO, Neil Portnow, was sued by an unnamed female musician who says he drugged and sexually assaulted her in 2018. That case, which also named the Academy as a defendant, was filed by the same law firm as Wednesday’s new suit.
Greene, who transformed the Grammy Awards from an industry ritual into a global television event, abruptly resigned from the Academy in 2002 amid accusations of sexual harassment. Though an internal Academy investigation cleared him of wrongdoing and he was paid an $8 million severance, Greene had long been dogged by criticism that ran the organization “almost as a personal fiefdom.”
In Wednesday’s lawsuit, McIntyre says that shortly after starting her “dream job” as the Academy’s Los Angeles chapter executive director in 1994, Greene began to sexually harass her — including by allegedly telling her directly that “he expected plaintiff to perform sex acts for defendant Greene in order to remain employed and progress at defendant Academy.”
“Defendant Greene repeatedly told plaintiff that she needed to ‘give some head to get ahead’,” her lawyers write in the complaint.
According to the lawsuit, harassment then progressed into assault. McIntyre claims that after she drank champagne with Greene and others in his hotel room during a May 1994 work trip to Hawaii, she “quickly began to feel unwell and began to lose control of her physical movements.” She says she then awoke nude in his bed the next morning.
“Plaintiff knew what defendant had done to her,” her lawyers write. “Plaintiff felt wetness between her legs and smelled of intercourse.”
McIntyre says she did not report the incident because Greene “held the power to effectively block her from any further positions in the music industry.” But she claims that he continued to subject her to harassment and unwanted touching, including “groping her buttocks” and breasts.
In another incident, McIntyre says Greene brought her to his home under the guise of a work meeting but then forced her to perform oral sex on him, including by grabbing her by the back of the head and forcing her to continue as she “tried to get away.”
When she finally reported Greene’s behavior to her supervisor, McIntyre says she was told that she “should just find a way to get along” with Green and that if she could not do so, she “would not be successful, or employed, at defendant Academy for very long.”
The lawsuit says McIntyre later resigned and was forced to quit the music industry entirely, moving to her hometown and applying for entry-level jobs. “Plaintiff came to understand that her hopes, dreams, and aspirations to work in the music industry were defunct and unreachable,” her lawyers say, after she spent two years “being prey to a predator that defendant Academy could have stopped.”
McIntyre’s case was filed under California’s AB 2777, a state law that created a temporary window for survivors of sexual assault to file lawsuits that would normally be barred by the statute of limitations. The law, which doesn’t expire until 2026, is similar to New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which led to a flurry of sexual abuse cases in that state over the past month.
Another woman – the fourth in three weeks – is suing Sean “Diddy” Combs over allegations of sexual assault.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in New York federal court, an unnamed Jane Doe accuser claims she was “sex trafficked” and “gang raped” by Combs, former Bad Boy Records president Harve Pierre and another man in 2003 when she was 17 years old.
“Ms. Doe has lived with her memories of this fateful night for 20 years, during which time she has suffered extreme emotional distress that has impacted nearly every aspect of her life and personal relationships,” the woman’s lawyers write. “Given the brave women who have come forward against Ms. Combs and Mr. Pierre in recent weeks, Ms. Doe is doing the same.
The new case comes just weeks after Combs was hit with explosive allegations of rape by R&B singer and longtime romantic partner Cassie. That case quickly settled, but Combs was then sued by two other women who say they were sexually assaulted by the hip hop mogul. Combs has strongly denied all of the allegations. Another case was filed against Pierre and Bad Boy, alleging sexual assault.
In the complaint filed in court Wednesday, the accuser’s lawyer Douglas Wigdor (the same attorney who represented Cassie) says the new allegations “are in many ways even more egregious” than the prior cases. “Given the brave women who have come forward against Ms. Combs and Mr. Pierre in recent weeks, Ms. Doe is doing the same.”
In a public statement in response to the new allegations, Combs said: “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.”
“For the last couple of weeks, I have sat silently and watched people try to assassinate my character, destroy my reputation and my legacy,” Combs wrote. “Sickening allegations have been made against me by individuals looking for a quick payday. Let me be absolutely clear: I did not do any of the awful things being alleged. I will fight for my name, my family and for the truth.”
Pierre could not immediately be reached for comment.
The new lawsuit contains graphic allegations of sexual assault.
The alleged victim claims that she met Pierre at a Detroit club in 2003, when she was just a junior in high school. After he “smoked crack cocaine” and “sexually assaulted Ms. Doe by forcing her to give him oral sex,” she says she flew to New York on Combs’ private jet to visit him in his Manhattan recording studio.
While at the studio, the lawsuit claims that Combs, Pierre and an unnamed third man “plied Ms. Doe with drugs and alcohol” until she was so inebriated that she “she could not possibly have consented to having sex with anyone, much less someone twice her age.”
“While at the studio, Ms. Doe was gang raped by Mr. Combs, the Third Assailant and Mr. Pierre, in that order,” Wigdor writes in the lawsuit. The lawsuit claims the unnamed man “raped Ms. Doe as she told him to stop,” and that Pierre “violently forced her to give him oral sex, during which Ms. Doe was choking and struggling to breathe.”
After the attack, the lawsuit says the accuser “could barely stand up” and “had to be helped to walk out of the building and back into a car.” She says she was then flown back to Michigan.
“Defendants preyed on a vulnerable high school teenager,” Wigdor said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “The depravity of these abhorrent acts has, not surprisingly, scarred our client for life.”
The previous cases against Combs – as well as the flurry of other high-profile sexual assault cases filed over the last month – were brought under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, a law that temporarily suspended the statute of limitations for bringing such cases.
Wednesday’s case was not filed under the ASA, because that law expired on Thanksgiving. Instead, it was filed under the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law, a New York City provision that created a similar “lookback” window that doesn’t expire until 2025.
A federal appeals court has sided with Vans and ruled that Tyga‘s “Wavy Baby” sneakers – a parody of the company’s classic Old Skool – likely violate the shoe company’s trademarks.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Released last year by a New York art collective called MSCHF, the sneakers were a clear riff on the Vans shoe – a warped, surreal version of the Old Skool. Vans filed a lawsuit calling it “blatant trademark infringement, but the creators claimed that it was legal parody protected by the First Amendment, designed to criticize “sneakerhead” consumerist culture.
In a ruling Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit didn’t buy that argument, upholding an earlier ruling that banned MSCHF from selling any more pairs of Wavy Baby. The court said that “no special First Amendment protections apply” and that the sneaker likely violates Vans’ trademark rights.
“If a parodic use of protected marks and trade dress leaves confusion as to the source of a product, the parody has not ‘succeeded’ for purposes of the [federal trademark law], and the infringement is unlawful,” the court wrote.
Tyga announced the Wavy Baby in April 2022, sparking plenty of buzz but also immediate comparisons to Vans. Footwear News said the shoe “appears to be loosely based on the classic Vans Old Skool” that had been altered with a “wave-like aesthetic.” The site HighSnobiety went with a bolder headline: “MSCHF & Tyga’s Insane Skate Shoes Look Like Liquified Vans.”
Three days before the shoes were set to drop on April 18, Vans filed a lawsuit – claiming MSCHF’s sneakers violated its trademark rights and demanding an immediate restraining order. (The lawsuit did not name Tyga, whose real name is Micheal Stevenson, as a defendant.) Legal trouble was nothing new for MSCHF: the group had previously partnered with Lil Nas X to release a “Satan Shoe” that looked like a pair of Nikes – and had been promptly hit with a similar infringement lawsuit from that sneaker giant.
In the case over Tyga’s sneaker, Vans that consumers would think Wavy Baby was an authorized product artist endorsement deal rather than a parody by a separate company. The company cited previous partnerships with A$AP Rocky, Metallica and Foo Fighters.
“Given Vans’ history of collaborations with musical artists, on information and belief, the collaboration between MSCHF and Michael Stevenson is intended to deceive consumers into believing they arepurchasing a product made by, sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise associated with Vans,” the company’s lawyers wrote at the time.
MSCHF fired back with the First Amendment. It admitted that the Wavy Baby was based on the Old Skool, but said it had a legal right to use the shoe as “the cultural and physical anchor when creating its art.” The company said it wanted to critique “consumerism inherent in sneakerhead culture” and “the phenomenon of sneaker companies collaborating with anyone to garner clout and shoe sales.”
Weeks later, a federal judge rejected those arguments and issued a restraining order banning MSCHF from selling any more Wavy Babys. In issuing his ruling, Judge William F. Kuntz said that he – and, more importantly, consumers – didn’t quite get the joke.
“Whatever the actual artistic merits of the Wavy Baby shoes, the shoes do not meet the requirements for a successful parody,” the judge wrote at the time. “While the manifesto accompanying the shoes may contain protected parodic expression, the Wavy Baby shoes and packaging in and of themselves fail to convey the satirical message.”
On Tuesday, the Second Circuit upheld Judge Kuntz’s ruling and injunction. Among other reasons, the court cited a recent Supreme Court ruling in which the justices ruled that Jack Daniels could sue over dog toys that parodied its whiskey bottles – a decision that lowered First Amendment protections for such parodies.
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment.
BERLIN — SUISA Digital Licensing is suing Twitter International in Munich District Court for copyright infringement on X, the online platform formerly known as Twitter. The suit alleges that music compositions controlled by SUISA Digital are found on the platform, and that the company has made no effort to license them or act promptly to remove the infringing content.
“SUISA Digital is using all of the resources at its disposal to defend the interests of authors and publishers it represents,” said SUISA Digital CEO Fabian Niggemeier in a press release about the lawsuit. “This is the only way we can effectively represent the interests of authors and publishers and ensure that they are compensated fairly by Twitter International.”
Rights to the songs in question, many of which were found in full videos on X, are represented by SUISA Digital, a subsidiary of SUISA, the Swiss collecting society. (SUISA Digital represents both public performance rights and mechanical rights for the works in question.) SUISA Digital says that it has tried to get in touch with X/Twitter in order to negotiate licensing arrangements, but it has yet to receive a serious response.
SUISA Digital also works closely with the U.S. performing rights society SESAC, as partners in their joint venture MINT. “SUISA Digital has our full backing in its lawsuit against Twitter International,” said SESAC International president Alexander Wolf in the press release.
Although SUISA Digital is officially based in Switzerland and Liechtenstein, the organization filed the lawsuit in Munich, since it’s part of a larger market, as well as one that has traditionally been friendly to copyright.
This isn’t the only music infringement lawsuit against X/Twitter. In June, dozens of music publishers sued the company for similar behavior. But there are several important differences between the two cases. In the U.S., X operates under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which offers online platforms “safe harbor” for infringement committed by their users, as long as they act to remove unauthorized content. (The publishers’ suit alleges that the company didn’t do that, or have a policy to ban repeat infringers.)
In Germany, the equivalent law falls under the European Copyright Directive, which is broadly similar but requires platforms to make efforts to license content – which the SESAC lawsuit alleges that Twitter did not do.
The other difference is damages. While the music publishers’ suit could be worth as much as $255 million, although that’s a maximum based on statutory damages, in Germany the case would have to establish damages based on the value of the licenses Twitter needed but did not get. Presumably, the idea behind this lawsuit is to force the Elon Musk-led company to enter into serious licensing negotiations.
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 issues a ruling in the Hall & Oates lawsuit after the dispute turns public and personal, Young Thug’s RICO trial gets underway in Atlanta with opening statements and witness testimony, Kelly Clarkson wins a California labor law ruling against her ex-husband, and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Hall v. Oates Goes Public
The mysterious legal battle among Hall & Oates got a lot clearer last week – with detailed filings from each artist, a hearing in open court, and a judge’s ruling on how the case will proceed.
To catch you up: After a decades-long, highly-lucrative musical partnership, Daryl Hall sued John Oates last month in Nashville court. The case was initially filed under seal, leading to days of speculation about why the beloved duo had become a house divided. Eventually, unsealed documents showed that Hall had sued Oates to block him from selling part of their joint venture to Primary Wave.
Last Wednesday, the case burst fully into the open. First, Hall filed court papers accusing partner John Oates of leaving him “blindsided” by secretly arranging the Primary Wave deal – an act he called the “ultimate partnership betrayal.” Oates responded hours later, saying he was “tremendously disappointed” that Hall had chosen to make “inflammatory, outlandish, and inaccurate statements about me.”
The filings were packed with new details – not just about the exact contours of the legal dispute, but also about the duo’s broader “divorce,” about Hall’s problems with Primary Wave in particular, and about each man’s personal feelings toward his former partner. Go read our full story here.
A day later, attorneys for the pair headed to court for their first showdown. Hall was repped by Christine Lepera of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, who urged a judge to extend a restraining order preventing Oates from completing the Primary Wave sale until an arbitrator can hear Hall’s objections. Oates was repped by Derek Crownover from Loeb & Loeb LLP, who argued that no such order was necessary.
On Thursday afternoon, Chancellor Russell Perkins agreed to extend the restraining order, blocking Oates from selling to Primary Wave until February or until the arbitrator tackles the case – whichever comes first. Go read our full story explaining why.
The case will now head to private arbitration, for which an arbitrator has already been selected but an initial hearing has not yet been scheduled. Stay tuned…
THE OTHER BIG STORY: YSL RICO Trial Begins
More than 18 months after chart-topping rapper Young Thug was indicted on accusations that he ran a violent Atlanta street gang, he finally headed to trial last week.
In their opening statements, Atlanta prosecutors claimed that Thug was “King Slime,” a powerful boss operating his “Young Slime Life” gang like a “pack” of wolves – even reading a passage from The Jungle Book for jurors. And they defended their controversial use of his music to help prove it.
“We didn’t chase any lyrics to solve any murders,” Adriane Love told jurors. Instead, she said prosecutors in this case “chased the murders and found the lyrics” that pointed to true, specific events.
A day later, Thug’s lawyer responded by telling jurors that his client had been “born into a society filled with despair” and had merely rapped about violent crime because “these are the stories he knew” — and that prosecutors had cherry-picked lyrics that matched the crimes they hoped to pin against him.
“This is the environment he grew up in. These are the people he knew, these are the stories he knew. These are the words he rhymed,” Brian Steel told the jury. “This is art. This is freedom of speech.”
After opening statements concluded, prosecutors began presenting witnesses – a process that is expected to last months.
Other top stories this week…
SINCE U BEEN GONE – Kelly Clarkson won a legal ruling in California that said her ex-husband Brandon Blackstock owes her more than $2.6 million in commissions she paid to him while he serving as her manager. The decision, issued by California’s labor commissioner, said Blackstock had “unlawfully procured” a number of business deals for Clarkson, including her lucrative role as a judge on The Voice, that should have been handled by her talent agents at Creative Artists Agency (CAA).
‘FICTITIOUS’ CONCERTS? – Rapper Polo G sued a European tour booking firm over canceled plans for a string of concerts, claiming that the company continued to advertise the shows anyway — actions he calls “a shocking and outrageous fraud.”
YOUTUBER SLAPPS BACK – YouTube personality Spencer Cornelia — known for his investigative video series on the music industry — prevailed in a defamation lawsuit filed by wealth coach Derek Moneyberg. The case, which concerned YouTube interviews in which Moneyberg was termed a “Charlatan,” was tossed out under California’s anti-SLAPP law – a statute aimed to quash lawsuits that threaten free speech.
TIKTOK BAN BLOCKED – Montana’s first-in-the-nation law banning the video-sharing app TikTok in the state was blocked by a federal judge who ruled that the statute likely violates the First Amendment. The judge ruled that the law “oversteps state power and infringes on the Constitutional right of users and businesses.”
ARETHA ESTATE BATTLE – A judge overseeing the estate of Aretha Franklin awarded real estate to the late star’s sons, citing a handwritten will from 2014 that was found between couch cushions. The ruling came months after a Detroit-area jury said the document was a valid will under Michigan law, despite scribbles and many hard-to-read passages. Franklin had signed it and put a smiley face in the letter “A.”
An appeals court upheld the disorderly conduct convictions Friday (Dec. 1) of actor Jussie Smollett, who was accused of staging a racist, homophobic attack against himself in 2019 and lying about it to Chicago police.
Smollett, who appeared in the TV show Empire, challenged the role of a special prosecutor, jury selection, evidence and many other aspects of the case. But all were turned aside in a 2-1 opinion from the Illinois Appellate Court.
Smollett had reported to police that he was the victim of a racist and homophobic attack by two men wearing ski masks. The search for the attackers soon turned into an investigation of Smollett himself, leading to his arrest on charges he had orchestrated the whole thing.
Authorities said he paid two men whom he knew from work on Empire, which filmed in Chicago. Prosecutors said Smollett told the men what slurs to shout, and to yell that he was in “MAGA Country,” a reference to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign slogan.
A jury convicted Smollett in 2021 on five felony counts of disorderly conduct, a charge that can be filed in Illinois when a person lies to police.
He now will have to finish a 150-day stint in jail that was part of his sentence. Smollett spent just six days in jail while his appeal was pending.
Lawyers for Smollett, who is Black and gay, have publicly claimed that he was the target of a racist justice system and people playing politics.
“We are preparing to escalate this matter to the Supreme Court,” Smollett spokeswoman Holly Baird said, referring to Illinois’ highest court and also noting that the opinion at the appellate court wasn’t unanimous.
Appellate Justice Freddrenna Lyle would have thrown out the convictions. She said it was “fundamentally unfair” to appoint a special prosecutor and charge Smollett when he had already performed community service as part of a 2019 deal with Cook County prosecutors to close the case.
“It was common sense that Smollett was bargaining for a complete resolution of the matter, not simply a temporary one,” Lyle said.
Special prosecutor Dan Webb was appointed to look into why the case was dropped. A grand jury subsequently restored charges against Smollett in 2020, and Webb concluded there were “substantial abuses of discretion” in the state’s attorney office during the earlier round.
Smollett was not immune to a fresh round of charges, appellate Justices David Navarro and Mary Ellen Coghlan said in the majority opinion.
“The record does not contain any evidence that (prosecutors) agreed Smollett would not be further prosecuted in exchange for forfeiting his bond and performing community service,” they said.