Legal News
Page: 5
George Clinton is suing his one-time business partner, Armen Boladian, over allegations that he fraudulently obtained the rights to the vast majority of the funk pioneer’s music catalog.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (March 11) in Florida federal court, attorneys for Clinton accused Boladian and his Bridgeport Music of “abusive, deceptive, and fraudulent practices” that were aimed at stealing from Clinton and “capitalizing on his success.”
“I’m fighting for my life’s work and to ensure future generations of artists are treated fairly,” Clinton said in a statement released by his lawyers. “When you’re young and just starting out in the music industry, it’s easy for others to take advantage of you.”
Trending on Billboard
The sweeping complaint accuses Boladian of carrying out a “decades long scheme to defraud Clinton,” including improperly using the star’s signature to grant himself rights to Clinton’s music and fabricating key legal agreements. The conduct has left Boladian and Bridgeport in control of 90 percent of Clinton’s catalog, the lawsuit says.
“For decades, George Clinton has shaped the sound of music and inspired generations of artists, yet he has been systematically deprived of the rights and royalties he rightfully deserves,” said Ben Crump, an attorney who is representing Clinton in the lawsuit.
In a statement to Billboard, Boladian’s attorney Richard Busch sharply denied the allegations: “This is just the latest in a series of lawsuits that Mr. Clinton has filed against Armen Boladian and his companies over the last 30 years raising the same exact issues. He has lost each and every time, including in the very courthouse in which he has filed this latest lawsuit. We will obviously therefore be moving to dismiss this lawsuit and will be seeking sanctions.”
Notably, in addition to seeking damages, the lawsuit is seeking an injunction to stop Boladian from shopping Clinton’s catalog to potential buyers — something the star’s lawyers suggest he’s actively doing: “Plaintiff has reason to believe that Boladian is soliciting the sale of assets including the rights and ownership interests in Plaintiff catalog.”
Bridgeport Music is well-known in the world of music law. The company has filed huge numbers of copyright infringement lawsuits against major artists who allegedly sampled songs by Clinton and others, including one case against Jay-Z and another case over an N.W.A. song that resulted in an influential decision on sampling.
In Tuesday’s lawsuit, Clinton’s attorneys cited that litigation campaign in his allegations against Boladian, calling his foe a “copyright troll” who uses lawsuits to exploit songs “he looted the rights to.”
“Interestingly, Clinton, the rightful owner of said catalog, has never been included as a plaintiff in these lawsuits nor has he received any portion of the millions secured by Boladian,” Clinton’s attorneys wrote.
Read the entire lawsuit here:
A federal judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by R. Kelly’s former assistant against Netflix and Lifetime over how she was portrayed in the documentary “Surviving R. Kelly,” ruling that the networks are protected by the First Amendment.
The lawsuit from Diana Copeland, who says she worked for Kelly for more than a decade, claimed that the doc series “depicts her in a sinister and defamatory light” – including falsely suggesting that she had helped the now-convicted singer prey on young women.
But in a ruling Tuesday, Judge Stephanos Bibas said Copeland had failed to clear the “high bar” for filing libel cases over newsworthy subjects: “The First Amendment demands ‘adequate breathing space’ for the free flow of ideas, especially about public figures on matters of public controversy.”
Trending on Billboard
The judge dismissed the lawsuit, but gave Copeland a chance to refile an updated version of her lawsuit. In a statement to Billboard, her attorney said she would successfully do so: “In this new streaming world, platforms like Netflix and documentarians need to be held accountable for any damages caused to people by slander in their content.”
An attorney for Lifetime and Netflix did not immediately return a request for comment.
Released in early 2019 as a six-part documentary series, “Surviving R. Kelly” helped push the longstanding abuse allegations against Kelly back into the public eye. Later that same year, the singer was indicted by federal prosecutors on a slew of criminal charges, eventually resulting in convictions on racketeering, sex trafficking and child pornography and decades-long prison sentences.
Copeland sued last year, with her attorneys claiming that episodes of the Lifetime documentary, which was later added to Netflix’s catalog, “paint Ms. Copeland as Mr. Kelly’s co-conspirator and accomplice in victimizing children and young women.”
But in Tuesday’s decision dismissing those claims, Judge Bibas ruled that Copeland was a so-called public figure — a status that makes it very hard to win a defamation lawsuit.
Under landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings, someone like Copeland must show that Lifetime acted with “actual malice,” meaning the network either knew its claims were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. That difficult-to-meet standard is designed to prevent government officials, business execs and other powerful people from abusing libel suits to stifle free speech.
Copeland had argued that she was no celebrity and simply wanted to “lead a private life” despite her work for Kelly. But Judge Bibas pointed out that she had appeared on Good Morning America to discuss the allegations and defend her conduct: “By going on national TV to discuss Kelly, Copeland voluntarily injected herself into the public discourse [and] invited public attention, comment, and criticism.”
As a public figure, the judge said Copeland’s case would only succeed if she could show “actual malice” – and he said had not done so in her court filings.
“The actual-malice standard shields publishers from liability for mistakes, while still preserving defamation remedies where the publisher knew that he was publishing falsehoods or deliberately ignored the truth,” the judge wrote. “Copeland fails to clear that high bar. The complaint offers only conclusions and speculation of ill will, not allegations of actual malice.”
For similar reasons, the judge also tossed out other allegations of the case, including that the documentary inflicted emotional distress and misappropriated her name and likeness. But the entire ruling came “without prejudice,” meaning Copeland can refile her case with changes in an effort to fix the problems Judge Bibas identified: “Perhaps Copeland can cure these defects.”
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Daddy Yankee sues his ex-wife for $250 million; Jay-Z’s dispute with his former accuser and her lawyer goes on; prosecutors say Taylor Swift tickets were stolen and resold by hackers; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Daddy Yankee Goes Back To Court
Daddy Yankee’s legal war with ex-wife Mireddys González isn’t over yet.
The pair finalized their divorce last month, but in a lawsuit filed last week in Puerto Rico, the reggaetón superstar (Ramón Luis Ayala Rodríguez) accused her and her sister Ayeicha González Castellanos of mismanaging two of his companies to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Trending on Billboard
“Mireddys and Ayeicha … proceeded to concentrate in themselves a greater power than authorized and, together, made negligent and selfish decisions that were detrimental to both the companies and [Daddy Yankee] in his personal capacity and as an artist,” the star’s lawyers wrote.
The lawsuit follows, and often echoes, the allegations Yankee made in December when he sought an injunction against González – namely that the two women had withdrawn $100 million from his companies’ bank accounts without authorization. Now, Yankee claims that after regaining control of the companies, his team discovered many new irregularities, including the “disappearance” of key records.
For all the details, go read the full story from Billboard’s Griselda Flores.
Other top stories this week…
FIGHT GOES ON – Jay-Z’s rape accuser is standing by her story, according to court documents filed last week — directly contradicting a recent lawsuit in which the superstar claimed the woman had admitted to fabricating the allegations. Later in the week, the star’s lawyers filed sworn statements from private investigators to whom the accuser allegedly recanted, and suggested that she and her lawyer should sit for depositions.
HACKED TICKETS – Members of a “cybercrime crew” stole more than 900 tickets to the Taylor Swift Eras Tour and other events and then resold them for more $635,000 in illegal profit, according to charges handed down by New York prosecutors. The tour, which wrapped in December with a record-shattering haul of more than $2 billion in face-value ticket sales over a two-year run, spawned an infamously pricy resale market – something the accused fraudsters were allegedly able to exploit.
“FLOWERS” UPDATE – Miley Cyrus seems unlikely to immediately escape a copyright lawsuit filed over allegations that her Grammy-winning “Flowers” infringed the Bruno Mars song “When I Was Your Man.” At a court hearing, a Los Angeles federal judge indicated that would likely deny a motion to dismiss the case filed last year by attorneys for Cyrus.
SHEERAN CASE AT SCOTUS – The legal battle over whether Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” infringed Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On” has reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In a petition for certiorari filed last week, a company that owns a stake in the rights to Gaye’s 1973 song urged the justices to overturn a November ruling by a lower appeals court that rejected the lawsuit, arguing that “the rights of thousands of legacy musical composers and artists” were at stake in the case.
ANTITRUST SHOWDOWN – A lyrics service called LyricFind filed an antitrust lawsuit against Musixmatch, claiming that the larger rival has reached an exclusive licensing deal with Warner Music Group (WMG) that’s “unprecedented in the music industry” and is aimed at securing an illegal monopoly for providing lyrics to streamers like Spotify.
Miley Cyrus seems unlikely to immediately escape a copyright lawsuit filed over allegations that her Grammy-winning “Flowers” infringed the Bruno Mars song “When I Was Your Man.”
A Los Angeles federal judge “repeatedly indicated” at a live court hearing Monday that he would likely deny a motion to dismiss the case filed last year by attorneys for Cyrus, according to a report by Rolling Stone.
In that motion, the singer had argued that the plaintiff in the case – not Mars himself, but an financial entity called Tempo Music Investments that bought out the rights of one of his co-writers – lacked the necessary legal “standing” to pursue its claims.
Trending on Billboard
But at the hearing, Judge Dean D. Pregerson appeared skeptical, according to RS – at times seeming to endorse arguments from Tempo’s lawyers that granting the motion would gut longstanding music industry practices. He reportedly asked Cyrus’ lawyer why anyone would buy partial shares in songs “knowing they could never enforce it” without the consent of all the other songwriters.
The judge did not immediately decide the motion at Monday’s hearing and will instead issue a written ruling in the weeks or months ahead.
“Flowers,” which spent eight weeks atop the Hot 100, has been linked to “Your Man” since it was released in January 2023. Many fans immediately saw it as an “answer song,” with lyrics that clearly referenced Mars’ song. The reason, according to internet sleuths, was that “Your Man” was a favorite of Cyrus’ ex-husband Liam Hemsworth – and her allusions were a nod to their divorce.
When “Flowers” was first released, legal experts told Billboard that Cyrus was likely not violating copyrights simply by using similar lyrics to fire back at the earlier song – a time-honored music industry tradition utilized by songs ranging from Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Sweet Home Alabama” to countless rap diss records.
But Tempo sued in September, claiming “Flowers” had lifted numerous elements beyond the clap-back lyrics, including “melodic and harmonic material,” “pitch ending pattern,” and “bass-line structure.” Tempo, which had purchased a fractional share in the song from co-writer Philip Lawrence, argued it was “undeniable” that Cyrus’ hit “would not exist” if not for “Your Man.”
In her first response in November, attorneys for Miley said that the total lack of involvement from Mars and the song’s two other co-writers was not some procedural quirk in the case, but rather a “fatal flaw” that required the outright dismissal of the lawsuit.
“Plaintiff unambiguously [says] that it obtained its claimed rights in the ‘When I Was Your Man’ copyright from only one of that musical composition’s four co-authors,” wrote Peter Anderson, the star’s lead attorney. “That is a fatal and incurable defect in plaintiff’s claim.”
In a statement at the time, Tempo Music lead counsel Alex Weingarten told Billboard that the argument from Cyrus was “intellectually dishonest” and that the group clearly had standing to pursue the lawsuit: “They’re seeking to make bogus technical arguments because they don’t have an actual substantive defense to the case.”
If the motion is denied, lawyers for Cyrus will likely shift focus to those substantive arguments. In previous filings, they have argued that the two songs have “striking differences” and that any similarities are not covered by copyright law: “The songwriter defendants categorically deny copying, and the allegedly copied elements are random, scattered, unprotected ideas and musical building blocks.”
The legal battle over whether Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” infringed Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On” has reached the U.S. Supreme Court more than a decade after Sheeran’s hit was released.
In a petition filed last week, a company that owns a stake in the rights to Gaye’s 1973 song urged the justices to overturn a November ruling by a lower appeals court, which said Sheeran had done nothing wrong and that the two tracks shared only “fundamental musical building blocks.”
The company, Structured Asset Sales (SAS), says that the ruling unfairly restricted its allegations to written sheet music rather than all elements included in Gaye’s iconic recorded version. That thorny issue, which has also cropped up in other major cases over “Blurred Lines” and “Stairway To Heaven” in recent years, must finally be resolved by the high court, the company says.
Trending on Billboard
“The rights of thousands of legacy musical composers and artists, of many of the most beloved and enduring pieces of popular music, are at the center of the controversy,” SAS’s lawyers write in the petition, filed with the high court Thursday (March 6).
Such an appeal, known as a petition for a writ of certiorari, faces long odds. The Supreme Court takes less than 2% of the roughly 7,000 cases it receives each year, hearing only the disputes it deems most important to the national legal landscape.
Sheeran has faced multiple lawsuits over “Thinking,” a 2014 track co-written with Amy Wadge that reached No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 and ultimately spent 58 weeks on the chart. He was first sued by the daughter of Ed Townsend, who co-wrote the famed 1973 tune with Gaye. That case ended in a high-profile jury verdict that cleared Sheeran of any wrongdoing.
Thursday’s petition came in a separate case filed by SAS, an entity owned by industry executive David Pullman that controls a different stake in Townsend’s copyrights to the legendary song. That suit was rejected in November by the federal Second Circuit appeals court, which said the lawsuit was essentially seeking “a monopoly over a combination of two fundamental musical building blocks.”
“The four-chord progression at issue—ubiquitous in pop music—even coupled with a syncopated harmonic rhythm, is too well-explored to meet the originality threshold that copyright law demands,” the appeals court wrote. “Overprotecting such basic elements would threaten to stifle creativity and undermine the purpose of copyright law.”
Appealing that ruling to the Supreme Court last week, attorneys for SAS argued the lower court had botched the case by relying only on the “deposit copy” — a bare-bones written version of music sent to the U.S. Copyright Office for many old songs. Doing so was not only legally erroneous but also out of step with reality, the company’s lawyers wrote.
“Nobody who understands the music industry would ever suggest that songwriters consult the deposit copies on file with the Copyright Office as part of their creative (or clearance) process,” SAS wrote to the justices. “To the extent they are aware of the music that preceded them, it is from hearing it on the radio, in movies, television and—for the last quarter century—the Internet.”
That ruling was even more legally problematic, SAS’s lawyers write, because it came in the wake of a Supreme Court decision last year that said courts should afford less deference to legal guidance from federal agencies. By siding with Sheeran — and an agency interpretation from the Copyright Office — SAS says the lower appeals court “openly defied this Court.”
Sheeran’s attorneys can file a response brief in the weeks ahead. The court will decide whether or not to hear the case at some point in the next several months.
LyricFind is suing Musixmatch over allegations that its rival struck an exclusive licensing deal with Warner Music Group (WMG) that’s “unprecedented in the music industry” and is aimed at securing an illegal monopoly for providing lyrics to streamers like Spotify.
In a complaint filed Wednesday (March 6) in San Francisco federal court, LyricFind accuses Musixmatch and private equity owner TPG Global of violating federal antitrust laws by signing the deal with Warner Chappell Music (WCM), the publishing division of WMG, claiming it was designed to crush competition.
“TPG’s and Musixmatch’s goal was simple: make sure that Spotify, and other [streamers], have no choice but to obtain [lyrics] from Musixmatch despite its higher fees — a plainly anticompetitive result,” the company’s attorneys write. “LyricFind brings this lawsuit to stop defendants’ unlawful conduct, which has eliminated competition and raised prices.”
Trending on Billboard
The three major music companies have typically licensed their vast catalogs of lyrics to companies like Musixmatch on a non-exclusive basis, LyricFind says, allowing rival companies to compete to offer the best lyric services to streamers. But Musixmatch’s new deal with Warner allegedly shuts out competitors from offering the music giant’s lyrics — an “unprecedented” approach.
“To compete effectively, LyricFind and Musixmatch must be able to provide Lyric Data Services for all major publishers’ song titles,” the company’s attorneys write. “Defendants’ scheme had the intended effect [and] the only remaining practical choice for [digital services providers] is to contract with Musixmatch, at whatever price Musixmatch demands.”
In a statement to Billboard, a spokesman for Musixmatch said: “It’s our policy not to discuss legal matters publicly. We believe these are meritless accusations and choose to concentrate on what matters most: our customers & partners.”
A spokesman for WMG, which was not named in the lawsuit nor accused of any wrongdoing, did not immediately return a request for comment.
In early 2024, LyricFind says it was “very far along in negotiations” to replace Musixmatch as the lyrics provider for Spotify, the world’s largest music streamer and “Musixmatch’s largest customer.” When TPG and Musixmatch learned of the talks, they allegedly became “desperate” and struck the licensing agreement with Warner in an effort to kill the deal.
The move worked, LyricFind’s attorneys say: After the Warner agreement was in place, Spotify said it “had no choice” but to break off the negotiations with the lyrics provider. Instead, the streamer re-upped its previous agreement with Musixmatch despite “having already negotiated a significantly better price and service with LyricFind.”
“LyricFind was robbed of an opportunity to partner with Spotify on a contract worth tens of millions of dollars to LyricFind, and that would have strengthened LyricFind’s competitive position in the rest of the market,” the company’s attorneys write in the lawsuit.
The Musixmatch-Warner deal is also scuttling other business for LyricFind, the lawsuit says, including prompting iHeartRadio to break off renewal talks “when it learned that LyricFind would no longer be able to service WCM’s catalog.” Instead, the radio giant signed with Musixmatch “at a price over five times higher.”
“Other DSPs that have already invested great sums to integrate LyricFind’s system will also be forced to switch to Musixmatch, and nobody else, at a significant cost, while paying Musixmatch’s monopoly fees,” the suit says. “LyricFind’s viability as a business is now in jeopardy, as it can no longer compete for DSPs’ business.”
In a statement announcing the case, LyricFind CEO Darryl Ballantyne said the company was “taking action now to protect every music streaming service’s right to partner with the lyric provider of their choice.”
“Musixmatch is now effectively the gatekeeper to any DSP that wants to have a complete lyric offering,” Ballantyne said. “There is simply no way around having to work with Musixmatch.”
Read the entire complaint here:
Jay-Z’s rape accuser says in court filings that she stands by her story, directly contradicting his recent lawsuit that claims she admitted to fabricating the allegations — prompting the star’s lawyers to offer testimony from private investigators and demand that the accuser sit for a deposition.
In Los Angeles court filings Monday (March 3), the unnamed Jane Doe stated that she had flatly refused to recant her story when approached last month by investigators for Jay-Z — an experience she said left her “intimidated and terrified.” She also denied that her attorney, Tony Buzbee, had pushed her to sue.
Those statements, which Doe made in a sworn affidavit, directly contradicted allegations leveled by Jay-Z (Shawn Carter) in a separate lawsuit filed earlier on Monday. In that case, he claimed Doe had “voluntarily admitted” directly to his team that her now-dropped lawsuit was premised on a false accusation.
“Although I ultimately chose not to pursue them, I stand by my claims in the New York action and believe that I had a meritorious claim against Jay-Z,” the woman wrote in Monday’s filing. “I ultimately decided to dismiss the [case] because I was frightened by the reaction of Jay-Z and his supporters, and the likelihood that I would have to be publicly named and subjected to public attacks.”
In the same sworn statement, the unnamed woman stressed that Buzbee had not sought her out, nor had he urged her to add Jay-Z to her allegations: “I told them that neither of those things ever happened, and I asked them to leave me alone.”
Monday’s statement from Doe quickly prompted a response from Jay-Z’s lawyers. In a flurry of new filings on Wednesday (March 5), they offered up sworn statements from the actual private investigators who allegedly talked to her, asking the judge for permission to add them to the case record.
In those statements, one of the investigators said, “Jane Doe stated to me that Mr. Carter did not sexually assault her.” At another point, the same investigator added: “Jane Doe stated ‘Buzbee brought Jay Z into it,’ and ‘he was the one that kind of pushed me towards going forward with him.’” Another investigator said Doe had told him that “lawyers at Mr. Buzbee’s law firm told her that, if she pursued Mr. Carter, she would get a payout.”
In the same filings, Jay-Z’s lawyers also made an alternative request: that the judge permit them to depose both the accuser and Buzbee under oath. “The new declaration only further reinforces the need for Jane Doe and Mr. Buzbee to sit for a deposition regarding their conversations, including her conversations with his colleagues who convinced Jane Doe to drop her lawsuit,” they wrote.
Depositions are not typically granted at the outset of such a case; instead, they are conducted during the later “discovery” phase as a case moves toward trial. But Jay-Z’s lawyers say Doe’s filing has opened the door to those issues and that the rapper is now “entitled to find out” what the woman knows.
In a detailed statement to Billboard on Wednesday, Buzbee strongly denied the various claims advanced by Jay-Z’s investigators in the new court filings. He said he believes they “flat out made all of this up” and that he “can’t wait to see what they have been paid and who is paying them.”
“Jane Doe’s case was signed up in October by another law firm to pursue allegations against Jay-Z and P. Diddy. Apparently it came in through Facebook to that firm’s page. After it was vetted it was sent to my firm weeks later,” Buzbee said. “The allegation that I sat with Jane Doe and suggested a suit against Jay-Z is not only a lie, it’s proveably and demonstrably false and is contrary to the documentation from referring counsel’s intake process and our own firm documents.”
The blockbuster case against Jay-Z, filed in December, claimed that he and Sean “Diddy” Combs drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl at an after-party following the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards. It represented a shocking expansion of the already-sprawling claims against Combs and came amid speculation that other stars might be implicated in Diddy’s alleged decades of abusive behavior.
Jay-Z forcefully denied the allegations, calling them a “blackmail attempt.” He accused Buzbee of trying to extort settlements from innocent celebrities by falsely tying them to Diddy and vowed to fight back and never pay his accuser.
Last month, Doe abruptly dropped the case — without explanation and without any kind of payment from Jay-Z. Two weeks later, Jay-Z sued both Doe and Buzbee for defamation, malicious prosecution and other wrongdoing, claiming they had carried out an “evil conspiracy” to extort a settlement from him by making the “false and malicious” rape allegations.
“Mr. Carter does not commence this action lightly,” his lawyers wrote in Monday’s lawsuit. “But the extortion and abuse of Mr. Carter by Doe and her lawyers must stop.”
The recent filing from Doe rebutting those allegations, also filed Monday, was lodged in a separate lawsuit in California in which Jay-Z is suing Buzbee for extortion and defamation over the same rape allegations. At a hearing in that case last week, a Los Angeles judge said he would likely dismiss the star’s extortion claims but likely allow the defamation claims against the lawyer to proceed.
Reggaetón icon Daddy Yankee filed a massive lawsuit on Tuesday (March 4) against his ex-wife, Mireddys González Castellanos, and her sister, Ayeicha González Castellanos, for financial mismanagement, defamation, irregularities and negligence in the management of his music companies El Cartel Records and Los Cangris.
The 23-page lawsuit, filed in the Tribunal de Primera Instancia in Carolina, Puerto Rico, amounts to $250 million and accuses the sisters of breach of fiduciary duties, breach of contract and more. According to the complaint, after Yankee regained control of the companies, his team discovered administrative and fiscal irregularities. One claim detailed in the lawsuit states that Yankee (Ramón Luis Ayala Rodríguez) found uncashed checks — some for royalty payments dating back to the early 2000s — that had expired because the defendants never deposited them.
“Due to this gross and stubborn negligence of the defendants’ administrative management, the plaintiffs lost thousands of dollars,” the lawsuit states.
Trending on Billboard
The lawsuit follows an injunction Yankee filed in December against his then-estranged wife, whom he officially divorced last month, claiming she had withdrawn $100 million from the companies’ bank accounts without authorization. According to that legal filing, the alleged theft of company funds occurred after Yankee had already revoked Mireddys and Ayeicha’s authority and “warned that they could not carry out any transactions on behalf of the companies.”
A few days later, both parties agreed that the Puerto Rican star would regain the presidency of El Cartel Records and Los Cangris, where his ex-wife allegedly served as CEO and her sister as secretary/treasurer.
Now, Yankee claims that after regaining control of the companies in December, his team discovered irregularities, including the “disappearance” of key documentation related to the companies’ finances and his successful La Última Vuelta World Tour. The lawsuit also alleges that between Dec. 26 and Dec. 30, just before the completion of the court-ordered administrative transition, the sisters “deleted or removed essential emails related to the operation of the companies and migrated the information to devices that have not been turned over or identified.”
Furthermore, Yankee alleges that the sisters’ “disorganized, unprofessional and irresponsible handling of matters related to Ayala Rodríguez’s career” and a “defamatory campaign promoted by the co-defendants and their agents and legal representatives with their endorsement” has caused him to lose income and damaged his “career, good name and personal prestige as one of the most important international Latin music figures.”
Billboard reached out to Mireddys González’s attorneys for comment but did not hear back at press time.
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: Jay-Z goes on the legal offensive to clear his name of rape allegations, Drake’s lawyers cite Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl show in legal filings, Cardi B wins a re-payment plan from a bankrupt gossip blogger and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Jay-Z Strikes Back
When an unnamed woman accused Jay-Z in December of taking part in one of Sean “Diddy” Combs’ alleged sexual assaults, it was a shocking expansion of the already-sprawling claims against the hip-hop mogul — made all the more explosive by the claim that she was only 13 years old at the time.
But less than three months later, the case against Hov has already been dropped without explanation and without a settlement — and now the superstar is filing his own case aimed at fully clearing his name.
Trending on Billboard
In a lawsuit filed in Alabama federal court, he accused the Jane Doe plaintiff and her lawyer, Tony Buzbee, of carrying out an “evil conspiracy” to extort a settlement from him by leveling the “false and malicious” allegations of rape. Notably, the new lawsuit said the Doe accuser had “voluntarily admitted” directly to Jay-Z’s team that the star did not assault her and that Buzbee “pushed” her to make those allegations.
“Mr. Carter does not commence this action lightly,” his lawyers wrote. “But the extortion and abuse of Mr. Carter by Doe and her lawyers must stop.”
Go read the full story here, including access to the actual lawsuit Jay-Z’s attorneys filed in court.
Other top stories this week…
THAT DIDN’T TAKE LONG – Just two weeks after Kendrick Lamar’s blistering Super Bowl performance, Drake’s attorneys called out the halftime show in court documents filed in their defamation lawsuit against UMG over Lamar’s “Not Like Us.” The star’s lawyers cited the show as evidence of the ongoing harm that Drake is “continuing to suffer” while the case is delayed in court. And it paid off: Following Drake’s filing, the federal judge overseeing the case sided with the rapper and refused to let UMG postpone an initial hearing.
DEFAMATION DEBT – Gossip blogger Tasha K agreed in bankruptcy court to pay Cardi B more than $1 million in small installments over the next five years — a plan necessary to start paying down a $3.9 million defamation judgment Cardi won against her for making outlandish claims about drug use, STDs and prostitution. Under the terms of the deal, Tasha will still owe the rest of the damages award even after she finishes the repayment plan, and she is barred from “derogatory, disparaging, or defamatory statements” about the superstar while the plan is in effect.
LILES ABUSE LAWSUIT – Kevin Liles was hit with a lawsuit alleging the 300 Entertainment CEO sexually harassed and raped an unnamed executive assistant while serving as the general manager of Def Jam Recordings in the early 2000s. Liles immediately denied the “outrageous claims,” vowing to “fully clear my name” and file a defamation lawsuit against the accuser and her attorneys.
GRACELAND SCAMMER – A Missouri woman named Lisa Jeanine Findley pleaded guilty to a bizarre plot to defraud Elvis Presley’s family by trying to auction off his Graceland mansion. According to prosecutors, Findley falsely claimed that Presley’s daughter had pledged the home as collateral for a loan before her death; Findley then threatened to sell Graceland to the highest bidder if Presley’s family didn’t pay $2.85 million. Following her guilty plea, Findley is scheduled to be sentenced on June 18 and faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
DRAKE DROPS IHEART – Drake and iHeartMedia reached a settlement to end a legal action claiming iHeart received illegal payments from UMG to boost radio airplay for Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” — a preliminary action that Drake filed last fall in the lead up to his defamation lawsuit against UMG. In a statement to Billboard, the radio giant said it had agreed to provide Drake’s attorneys with documents showing that iHeart had done nothing wrong and that no payments had been made by either party.
ROCKY NOT CLEAR YET – Just over a week after A$AP Rocky was acquitted on criminal charges that he shot former friend A$AP Relli, a Los Angeles judge lifted a hold on Relli’s civil lawsuit against Rocky. As reported by Rolling Stone, Rocky’s lawyer argued at a hearing that “there’s no longer a basis” for the case following the not guilty verdict, but Relli’s lawyer vowed to proceed: “The standard in a criminal case is much higher than … in a civil matter. We still believe that our claims have merit, and we intend on fully litigating them.”
THUG TOURING SETTLEMENT – Young Thug and concert giant AEG quietly settled a multi-million dollar legal battle over a touring partnership gone sour. The lawsuit, first filed in 2020 but delayed for years by Thug’s high-profile criminal case, claimed that the star owed more than $5 million under a 2017 touring agreement — and that he was obligated to hand over some of his music rights to pay down that debt. The settlement came as Thug is gearing up to start performing in concert again for the first time since he took a plea deal to end the years-long criminal drama in Atlanta.
A federal judge is refusing to allow Universal Music Group (UMG) to delay the start of Drake’s defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” — a decision that came after Drake’s lawyers filed court documents complaining about Lamar’s Super Bowl halftime show.
In a decision issued Tuesday (Mar. 4), Judge Jeannette Vargas denied UMG’s bid to postpone an initial hearing set for next month. The judge said that if UMG wants to push back the case — which claims “Not Like Us” defamed Drake by calling him a pedophile — it can argue for that request at the April hearing.
The procedural ruling came after Drake’s attorneys warned that further delays to the lawsuit would be unfair to their client, who they say is facing ongoing harm as the case works through the courts. In doing so, they cited one eye-catching piece of evidence: Lamar’s Super Bowl show.
Trending on Billboard
“Delaying discovery would unfairly prejudice plaintiff, who is continuing to suffer the consequences of UMG’s defamatory campaign,” Drake’s lawyers wrote. “At the same time UMG has been delaying here, UMG launched new campaigns to further spread the defamatory content, including at the 2025 Super Bowl halftime show, which had over 133.5 million viewers.”
Drake’s motion, filed last week, was the lawsuit’s first reference to the halftime show, in which Lamar avoided saying the word “pedophile” but otherwise directly attacked his rival. Since the Super Bowl, industry watchers have speculated over whether Lamar’s performance might spark additional legal claims or be used as fresh legal ammo by Drake’s legal team.
Lamar released “Not Like Us” last May amid a high-profile beef with Drake that saw the two stars exchange stinging diss tracks. The song, a knock-out punch that blasted Drake as a “certified pedophile” over an infectious beat, eventually became a chart-topping hit in its own right.
In January, Drake sued UMG over “Not Like Us,” claiming the label had defamed him by boosting the track’s popularity. The lawsuit, which doesn’t name Lamar himself as a defendant, claims that UMG “waged a campaign” against its own artist to spread a “malicious narrative” about pedophilia that it knew to be false.
UMG has strongly denied the lawsuit’s allegations, saying that it would be “illogical” for the company to conspire against one of its own artists in whom it had made a “massive” investment.
“We have not and do not engage in defamation—against any individual,” UMG said in its statement. “At the same time, we will vigorously defend this litigation to protect our people and our reputation, as well as any artist who might directly or indirectly become a frivolous litigation target for having done nothing more that write a song.”
In the lead up the Super Bowl, it was unclear if Lamar would play the song under a cloud of looming litigation. But when he took the stage on Feb. 9, he mocked the lawsuit and rapped the song’s key lyrical insults, including the line, “say, Drake, I hear you like ’em young.”
In a motion last month, UMG’s attorneys asked Judge Vargas to postpone the April hearing, arguing that the company would soon move to dismiss the case and that any exchanges of evidence (known as discovery) would be “premature” if the case were going to be tossed out entirely.
Drake’s lawyers quickly responded, claiming UMG was unfairly trying to halt the case without actually asking the judge: “UMG has neither moved to dismiss nor moved for a stay of discovery, and its attempt to achieve the latter by delaying the former are inappropriate.”
On Tuesday, Judge Vargas sided with Drake’s team, saying that it is “not the practice of this Court to routinely stay discovery pending the outcome of a motion to dismiss.” She said that UMG can seek to postpone discovery at the hearing, which is now set for April 2.