Legal News
Page: 6
Johnny Ramone’s widow, Linda Cummings-Ramone, has won a legal victory over Joey Ramone‘s brother, Mickey Leigh, in their never-ending feud over control of the pioneering punk band’s legacy.
In a decision made public on Tuesday (Dec. 10), an arbitrator ruled that Leigh’s manager, David Frey, must be terminated as a director on the board of Ramones Productions Inc., the corporate entity that controls the Ramones’ music and other assets.
Ruling that Frey had breached his fiduciary duty to the company, the arbitrator said Leigh’s manager had “fostered a dysfunctional and disruptive relationship” with Cummings-Ramone and had engaged “in conduct that harms the Ramone brand, rather than promoting that brand.”
Trending on Billboard
“Mr. Frey has repeatedly engaged in disruptive and negative conduct that has been detrimental to RPI and promoting the legacy of the Ramones,” wrote Shira Scheindlin, a former federal district judge, in a ruling privately issued Dec. 5. “Undoubtedly this conduct has prevented RPI from achieving greater financial success. Mr. Frey’s conduct has harmed RPI.”
One of the major missteps cited by the arbitrator was Frey’s failure to seek Cummings-Ramone’s approval for a planned movie based on Leigh’s memoir, I Slept with Joey Ramone — a film project that Netflix announced in 2021 with actor Pete Davidson attached to star in the title role.
Scheindlin said Frey was “well-aware” of his obligation to obtain Cummings-Ramone’s consent “before agreeing to this project” since the movie would almost certainly feature the band’s music — the rights to which are owned by Ramones Productions. The judge also cited an email from Netflix that described the planned movie as not just a Joey biopic, but “the story of the Ramones.”
“Based on the preponderance of the credible evidence, Mr. Frey breached his duty of care, honesty and loyalty, in failing to present the [Netflix] deal to Ms. Cummings-Ramone and/or the Board of RPI for their approval,” the judge wrote.
In a statement to Billboard on Wednesday (Dec. 11), Cummings-Ramone said she was “thrilled” that they “will now finally be able to move forward and create and expand the legacy of the best band ever.”
“Preserving this legacy is not just a responsibility but a deeply personal mission for me,” she said. “I have dedicated my life to honoring and safeguarding the extraordinary contributions my husband and his band have made to music, culture, and the lives of millions around the world.”
An attorney representing both Hyman and Frey did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday.
Joey Ramone (real name Jeffrey Ross Hyman) and Johnny Ramone (John William Cummings) were not actually brothers, and they had a notoriously chilly relationship during their decades as bandmates. In the years since the two died in the 2000s, that feud has seemingly continued between Leigh and Cummings-Ramone.
As the executors of Joey’s and Johnny’s respective estates, Leigh and Cummings-Ramone each own half of Ramones Productions. But that partnership has not gone smoothly, with multiple lawsuits and arbitrations over the past decade.
The latest scuffle began in January, when Cummings-Ramone sued Leigh in New York state court, including allegations that he and Frey had “covertly” developed the “unauthorized” biopic. In the lawsuit, Cummings-Ramone said that any “authoritative story of the Ramones” would require her sign-off: “To permit defendants alone to tell the authoritative story of the Ramones would be an injustice to the band and its legacy.”
As one key part of that case, Cummings-Ramone demanded the removal of Frey as a director on the board of Ramones Productions — arguing that his “continued involvement and obfuscation remains a significant hurdle toward resolving even the most straightforward of operational issues.” In May, the judge overseeing the case ordered that issue to be resolved in arbitration before Scheindlin.
In her ruling granting that request, the arbitrator cited statements from Marky Ramone (Marc Bell) that Frey had been “extremely disruptive” and from C. J. Ramone (Christopher Joseph Ward) that “I do not believe he was ever working in the best interest of the Ramones’ legacy.” Scheindlin also cited an email from the company’s former accountant telling Frey: “You have made it impossible to do what needs to be done.”
“While I agree that there are two sides to every story, the overwhelming weight of the evidence establishes that Mr. Frey has fostered a dysfunctional and disruptive relationship with Ms. Cummings-Ramone, former band members, and RPI’s vendors and partners,” Scheindlin wrote in her decision. “This conduct has harmed RPI and its shareholders.”
In one particularly colorful passage, the judge described an incident this past summer in which the New York Mets had offered to let the Queens-based band celebrate its 50th anniversary by having Cummings-Ramone throw out a ceremonial first pitch at an August game. But Frey ultimately refused to grant approval for her to take part under the simpler name “Linda Ramone” — a key point of contention in their various legal wranglings over the years.
In her decision, Scheindlin said Frey had had “no credible basis to refuse to agree to Ms. Cummings-Ramone throwing out the first pitch using the name Linda Ramone” and had cost the band a valuable chance to boost its public profile.
“This was obviously a very high-profile opportunity to celebrate the band’s 50th Anniversary,” the arbitrator wrote in her ruling. “There was no reason to lose this opportunity other than to continue the animosity and dysfunction between the two shareholders and their representatives.”
The ruling, which must be confirmed by a New York judge, resolves only a single issue in the larger lawsuit and leaves other issues to be resolved in court. Leigh has also sued Cummings-Ramone in a separate lawsuit in federal court, accusing her of trademark infringement and other violations; that case also remains pending.
Trigger warning: the following story describes allegations of sexual abuse and illicit drug use.
An anonymous accuser who claims he was sexually assaulted by jailed music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs at one of the Bad Boy Records founder’s infamous White Party gatherings in 2007 has broken his silence to speak to CNN. The man — who the network ID’d as a John Doe to protect his anonymity –first filed a civil suit against Combs on October 14, claiming he was drugged and sodomized at the party in 2007.
The man said he kept the alleged assault a secret all these years, even from his then-wife due to the shame he carried from the incident at Diddy’s estate in East Hampton, N.Y., where he was hired to provide security. “The full gravity of it lives with me to this day,” the New Jersey man told the network, which obscured his voice and face in a video of the interview. “It affects every single thing you do for the rest of your life.”
CNN said that reps for Combs initially declined to comment on Doe’s allegations, noting that at the time of the original complain’s filing in October the rapper’s lawyers issued a blanket statement about that complaint and others filed that same day.
“Mr. Combs and his legal team have full confidence in the facts, their legal defenses, and the integrity of the judicial process. In court, the truth will prevail: that Mr. Combs has never sexually assaulted anyone—adult or minor, man or woman,” read the original statement. The Doe complaint was one of a series of similar ones filed by attorneys Tony Buzbee and Andrew Van Arsdale, who’ve said they represent up to 120 accusers who plan to file suits against Combs; to date the pair have filed 20 such lawsuits.
“At first he was incredibly friendly, very gracious,” the man said of Combs’ demeanor that night, adding that later in the night Combs handed him a drink that made him feel off. He said that feeling was intensified after a second drink, which he believes were spiked with the strong party drugs GHB and ecstasy. “Sadly, Sean Combs was waiting in the wings. He was watching from some sort of vantage point, and once I was in a helpless position and he was sure that he was in a position of power, then he took advantage of the situation,” the man said.
After the second drink, the man claimed in the suit that he felt “extremely ill,” at which point Combs allegedly approached him with what he initially “interpreted as concern,” before allegedly forcing the man into an empty car. Once inside, Doe’s suit claims that Combs held him down, ignoring pleas for help, and sodomized him.
“It was just an amazing level of incapacitation that I had never experienced before and I felt powerless,” said the man of the two spiked drinks that he said “felt more like 15,” leaving him unable to stand up.
CNN noted a number of inconsistencies between details shared by Doe in his interview with the network and the original complaint’s language, including discrepancies on the year the alleged assault took place and location and whether Doe had ever been married; Doe’s attorneys reportedly filed an amended complaint withe court afterwards, acknowledging mistakes made during the rushed filing.
Doe said that after the alleged assault he struggled to leave the party due to the effects of the drugs and the pain in his body, later allegedly reporting the incident to his supervisor, according to the suit. “I was screaming, I was telling him to stop. It was incredibly painful and he was acting like it was nothing… it was abusive beyond belief,” the man told CNN.
He was allegedly never asked to work for that security firm again. “He just dismissed it and said, ‘I’ll talk to him,’” Doe said about a conversation he recalled with his manager about the alleged sexual assault. “After that, he didn’t talk to me again, he cut me out of everything … I was totally blacklisted after that. I had to find a different field.”
Combs has been denied bail three times to date ahead of his sex trafficking and racketeering trial set for next year. The once high-flying music and fashion tycoon has been behind bars since his arrest in September following an indictment on charges that he ran a sprawling criminal operation predicated on satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.”
Combs, 55, has denied and pleaded not guilty to charges that he coerced and abused women for years with the help of a network of associates and employees, allegedly silencing his victims via blackmail and violence that included kidnapping, arson and physical assault.
The allegations against Combs first began in November 2023 when former longtime girlfriend singer Cassie filed a lawsuit accusing him of years of sexual misconduct and abuse; that suit was settled in a private manner within 24 hours. That legal action unleashed a flood of more than two dozen similar sexual misconduct-related lawsuits alleging sexual abuse and coercion, allegations that Combs has categorically denied to date.
Combs’ homes in Miami and Los Angeles were raided by Homeland Security in March and since then his once-formidable multi-media and fashion empire has begun to wither amid the avalanche of shocking claims about incidents that accusers have said ruined their lives and left them traumatized.
Doe told CNN that he no longer works security and that his marriage ended as a result of the alleged abuse because of the negative impacts of the trauma on his personal relationships. He also said for the first time that an unnamed “high-profile” celebrity witnessed the alleged abuse, claiming the person “saw what happened and found it amusing.”
“Nothing could give me back the person I was before that evening,” the man told CNN.
While Combs’ reps initially declined comment on Doe’s claims, they issued a statement following the airing of the CNN interview. “After Buzbee was exposed this week for pressuring clients to bring bogus cases against Mr. Combs, and after public records showed that — contrary to his allegations — there was no white party in the Hamptons in 2006, Buzbee amended this complaint to walk back the allegations and now claim a different day and wholly different year,” Combs’ attorneys wrote.
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 shocking civil lawsuit against Jay-Z accusing him of raping a teen girl in 2000 alongside Sean “Diddy” Combs; a deep-dive into possible motives behind Drake’s legal actions against Universal Music Group; a threat of defamation lawsuits over “Y.M.C.A.” being labeled a “gay anthem”; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Jay-Z Pulled Into Diddy Debacle
Three months after Sean “Diddy” Combs was indicted on sprawling sexual abuse charges, a new civil lawsuit claims Jay-Z participated in one of Diddy’s assaults – a shocking allegation against one of the music industry’s most powerful figures.
In a complaint filed Sunday evening in New York federal court, an unnamed Jane Doe alleges the star (Shawn Carter) raped her as a 13-year-old girl in 2000 alongside Combs at an after-party following the MTV Video Music Awards. The case was filed by Tony Buzbee, a Texas attorney who has filed more than 20 such lawsuits against Combs and has threatened dozens more.
“Another celebrity stood by and watched as Combs and Carter took turns assaulting the minor,” the lawsuit reads. “Many others were present at the afterparty, but did nothing to stop the assault.”
To say that Jay-Z has denied the allegations would be putting it lightly. In a forceful statement Sunday night, he called the lawsuit a “blackmail attempt” filed by a “fraud” attorney. Then, less than a day after the case was filed, his attorneys responded in court by calling the case “extortionate” and arguing that the accuser should be required to litigate such “heinous allegations” under her real name. And in yet another filing on Tuesday, they accused Buzbee of pressuring another client to lie – a claim he has denied and called “nothing short of defamation.”
Beyond the lawsuit itself, the allegations against Jay-Z have also sparked a broader legal war — pitting the star’s team and his attorneys at the prestigious BigLaw firm Quinn Emanuel against Buzbee and his prolific plaintiffs’ firm.
For starters, it turns out that it was Jay-Z who filed the mysterious extortion lawsuit against Buzbee last month, accusing him of concocting a “cynical” scheme to extract settlements from innocent celebrities by threatening to link them to Diddy. Buzbee, meanwhile, has fired back with a lawsuit of his own, suing Quinn Emanuel in Texas over allegations that the firm has been harassing him and his clients with “bogus” lawsuits and other “outrageous” conduct.
Jay-Z’s lawyers have already asked for a fast-tracked hearing on their motions, so stay tuned at Billboard for more developments as the case moves forward.
Other top stories this week….
DRAKE’S MOTIVES – What could Drake possibly be thinking? That’s the question Billboard’s Steve Knopper set out to answer in his excellent piece examining the possible motives behind the rapper’s widely-ridiculed legal actions against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar‘s savage diss track “Not Like Us.” Is Drake perhaps seeking leverage to “alter his existing deal” with UMG? Or is it just a “publicity stunt”? Go read Steve’s whole story to find out what industry attorneys had to say.
DON’T SAY GAY? Village People singer Victor Willis is threatening to file defamation lawsuits against news outlets that describe his iconic 1978 disco hit “Y.M.C.A” as a “gay anthem,” saying there’s “nothing gay” about lyrics that have been widely interpreted as a double entendre about gay life. But legal experts told Billboard that such cases that would face serious obstacles in court, thanks largely to the First Amendment and its robust protections for free speech: “Mr. Willis’ threatened libel claim would be a nonstarter for numerous reasons,” one media attorney said.
NBA YOUNGBOY SENTENCED – YoungBoy Never Broke Again was sentenced to 23 months in prison after striking a deal with prosecutors to finally resolve all of his various legal entanglements. The plea deal, which also included 60 months of probation after his release, could see him released as soon as next year due to credit for time he has already served in jail awaiting trial.
BASSNECTAR TRIAL LOOMS – A federal judge refused to dismiss a civil lawsuit accusing electronic music producer Bassnectar of sexually abusing three underage girls, sending the long-running case to a jury trial. Ruling on claims made by one alleged victim, the judge noted that she was “only sixteen” at the time and the DJ was “obviously able to observe her in person,” meaning a jury could find that he had “recklessly disregarded” that she was under the age of 18.
STEREOPHONIC SETTLEMENT – The creators of the hit Broadway play Stereophonic reached a settlement to resolve a copyright lawsuit claiming they stole elements of the show from a memoir written by music producer Ken Caillat about the infamous recording of Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours. Caillat claimed that the play – widely seen as a winking reference to Fleetwood – was an “unauthorized adaptation” of his book.
YSL JURY VERDICT – After hearing more than a year of testimony, an Atlanta jury handed down a verdict that largely acquitted the final two remaining co-defendants (Deamonte “Yak Gotti” Kendrick and Shannon Stillwell) in a sweeping racketeering trial over accusations that Young Thug ran a violent street gang under his YSL moniker. Coming a month after Thug himself escaped the case by pleading guilty and receiving a sentence of only probation, the verdict marks the end of criminal trial that has captivated the music industry for nearly than two years – and a major loss for the Fulton County District Attorney filed it.
TIKTOK BAN RULING – A federal appeals court ruled against TikTok and upheld a law that could ban the service from the country, handing a resounding defeat to the popular social media platform that has become a crucial music promotion tool in recent years. The Chinese-owned company argued that the statute ran afoul of the First Amendment and its protections for the freedom of speech, but the court was unswayed: “The government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.”
YoungBoy Never Broke Again (a.k.a. NBA YoungBoy) has been sentenced to 23 months in federal prison, according to new documents filed in federal court on Tuesday (Dec. 10), followed by 60 months’ probation following his release. The sentence comes nearly four months after it was reported that the 25-year-old rapper, born Kentrell Gaulden, would plead […]
Attorneys for Jay-Z are claiming in new court filings that Tony Buzbee – the attorney behind a bombshell lawsuit accusing the superstar of raping a 13-year-old girl alongside Sean “Diddy” Combs – pressured a different alleged sex trafficking victim to falsely tie her case to Combs.
In court papers filed Tuesday, lawyers for Jay-Z (Shawn Carter) from the law firm Quinn Emanuel tell a federal judge they were approached on Monday by an unnamed woman who had “unsolicited” info to share about Buzbee’s firm.
The woman allegedly told Quinn Emanuel that after she contacted Buzbee’s firm in October about an unrelated celebrity sex abuse case, she was “pressed for a connection to Mr. Combs.” She also allegedly felt “directed and coached by Mr. Buzbee’s firm” to include “false” claims, including that she had been drugged and physically assaulted: “She felt forced to lie.”
“When the woman made clear she was unwilling to adapt to the narrative Mr. Buzbee’s firm laid out and wanted only to speak her truth, she was dropped as a client,” writes Mari Henderson, an attorney at Quinn who says she spoke to the alleged victim, in a sworn declaration. “This woman shared this information because she felt the conduct by Mr. Buzbee’s firm — specifically, to encourage lies — discredits those who are legitimate victims.”
The new filings did not reveal the woman’s name. Though the Quinn Emanuel attorneys say the woman disclosed her name to the firm, they says she currently “wishes to remain unnamed at this time for fear of retaliation by the Buzbee firm.”
In a statement to Billboard on Tuesday, Buzbee called the new accusations “ridiculous” and said the firm was pursuing “hundreds of cases” against people other than Combs. Though he said he could not comment on the specific case without the woman’s name, he strongly denied the allegations.
“We get a lot of calls from people who believe they are aggrieved but we just can’t help,” Buzbee said. “We certainly don’t need to ‘pressure’ anyone to pursue a case. We have plenty of cases. What we won’t do is pursue a case we perceive to be weak or insupportable.”
The new filings are the latest salvo from Jay-Z’s legal team in response to a bombshell lawsuit, filed by Buzbee’s firm late on Sunday, that alleges the rapper joined Combs in drugging and assaulting a 13-year-old girl in 2000 during an after-party following the MTV Video Music Awards.
Weeks ago, Jay-Z filed a preemptive lawsuit against Buzbee, accusing him of extortion over his threats to sue over “wildly false” claims. Then on Monday, they filed a scathing response to the new rape lawsuit, denying the allegations as “patently false” and arguing they were part of a “scheme” by Buzbee to extract settlements from innocent celebrities by falsely tying them to Diddy.
Buzbee has denied all such allegations, calling them a “coordinated and desperate effort” to avoid his client’s accusations: “We will not be bullied or intimidated by these shenanigans. And our clients won’t be silenced.” Buzbee has also filed his own lawsuit in Texas against Quinn Emanuel, accusing the firm of seeking to “intimidate” him and asking for a restraining order blocking their investigation; that request was denied by a Houston judge on Friday.
Over the past year, Combs has faced a flood of abuse accusations — starting with civil lawsuits and followed by a sweepingfederal indictment in September, in which prosecutors allege he ran a sprawling criminal operation for years aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.”
Weeks after Combs was arrested, Buzbee held a press conference in which he claimed to represent 120 individuals who had been victimized by Combs and threatened a flood of litigation. He has since filed more than 20 such civil lawsuits, all on behalf of unnamed Does.
In an updated complaint on Sunday, Buzbee added Jay-Z to one of those lawsuits. Calling the rapper a “longtime friend and collaborator” of Diddy, the case alleges that the victim was driven to the party and forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement before being given a drink that made her feel “woozy” and “lightheaded.” When she went to a bedroom to lie down, the lawsuit claims, she was assaulted by the two stars while an unnamed female celebrity looked on.
In Tuesday’s new filing, Jay-Z’s attorneys they say they were contacted on Monday by a Texas woman who had submitted a claim to Buzbee’s firm after seeing his October press conference. Though her allegations involved sex trafficking by different celebrities who were “entirely unrelated” to Combs or Carter, she allegedly told Quinn Emanuel that she felt pressured to tie them to Combs.
“After detailing her experiences to an attorney at Mr. Buzbee’s firm, he pressed for a connection to Mr. Combs, asking ‘at what point did you meet Diddy,’ even though she made clear that her case was unrelated to Mr. Combs,” writes Henderson in the affidavit, relaying her phone call with the alleged victim.
In addition to claiming she was press to link her case to Combs, the new filing says the woman also claimed Buzbee’s firm pressured her to pursue the claims anonymously as a “Jane Doe,” and to bring them as a civil lawsuit seeking damages rather than by contacting law enforcement over potential criminal charges.
In technical terms, the new filings came as added support for Monday’s initial response from Jay-Z’s team. In that motion, his attorneys had asked the judge to force his accuser to litigate the lawsuit under her real name, arguing it was necessary to mount a thorough defense of her claims.
“This information, which came to Quinn Emanuel unsolicited, is further evidence in support of Mr. Carter’s right to thoroughly investigate, test, and respond to the spurious allegations that have been leveled against him,” writes Jay-Z’s lead attorney Alex Spiro in Tuesday’s filings.
Jay-Z (Sean Carter) has filed his first response in court to a lawsuit accusing him of raping a 13-year-old girl in 2000 alongside Sean “Diddy” Combs, calling the case “extortionate” and arguing that the accuser should be required to litigate such “heinous allegations” under her real name.
In a motion filed less than a day after the shocking case was filed, Carter’s attorneys called the accusations “patently false” and part of “campaign of extortion” by attorney Tony Buzbee, a Texas attorney who has filed a slew of cases against Combs and threatened dozens more.
Allowing Buzbee’s clients to proceed under “Jane Doe” pseudonyms is a just a tactic in a “scheme” to extract settlements from innocent celebrities by falsely tying them to Diddy, Carter’s attorneys argue in the new filing — effectively allowing the attorney to “smear defendant’s good name” while his clients “hide beyond the shield of anonymity.”
“Mr. Carter should not have to defend himself in the brightest of spotlights against an accuser who hides in complete darkness,” writes Jay-Z’s attorney Alex Spiro. “Mr. Carter deserves to know the identity of the person who is effectively accusing him — in sensationalized, publicity-hunting fashion — of criminal conduct, demanding massive financial compensation, and tarnishing a reputation earned over decades.”
Plaintiffs in sexual abuse lawsuits can sometimes proceed under pseudonyms if there’s a strong risk of retaliation, but such treatment is granted in only rare cases. Already, in several of the other civil actions filed against Combs, judges have required Doe accusers to disclose their names, with one ruling that anonymity is “the exception and not the rule” and another citing the “fundamental unfairness” of allowing only one side to remain hidden.
In his filing on Monday, Carter’s attorneys cite those earlier rulings and argue that Buzbee and his accuser have not met any of the key requirements to litigate her case under a “Doe” pseudonym. In technical terms, he wants the judge to force her to reveal her name, or dismiss the case entirely.
“Mr. Carter now is entitled to defend himself against these allegations with benefit of all the protections and mechanisms available to defendants,” Spiro writes in Monday’s motion. “To be sure, attorney Buzbee’s game has been to prevent Mr. Carter from defending himself while punching below the belt. Today, that game is at an end and Mr. Carter’s defense has begun — starting with plaintiff’s unmasking.”
In an email to Billboard on Monday, Buzbee responded to Carter’s motion by saying, “I’m not doing a play by play commentary to every pleading filed in court. We will respond in due course.”
Combs has faced a flood of abuse accusations over the past year, starting with civil lawsuits and followed by a bombshell federal indictment in September, in which prosecutors allege he ran a sprawling criminal operation for years aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.”
Weeks after the indictment, Buzbee joined the fray by holding a press conference in which he claimed to represent 120 individuals who had been victimized by Combs and threatened a flood of litigation. He has since filed more than a dozen such lawsuits, all on behalf of unnamed Doe plaintiffs.
In a shocking complaint filed Sunday evening, Buzbee added Jay-Z as a defendant to an earlier lawsuit that had previously named only Combs. Calling the rapper a “longtime friend and collaborator” of Diddy, the lawsuit alleges Combs and Carter drugged and assaulted the victim during an afterparty following the MTV Video Music Awards in 2000.
After being driven to the party and forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement, the lawsuit says, the plaintiff was given a drink that made her feel “woozy” and “lightheaded.” After she went to a bedroom to lie down, the lawsuit claims, she was assaulted by the two stars.
“Another celebrity stood by and watched as Combs and Carter took turns assaulting the minor,” the lawsuit reads. “Many others were present at the afterparty, but did nothing to stop the assault.”
The lawsuit came weeks after Buzbee was sued for extortion by an unnamed celebrity who claimed he was threatening to unleash “wildly false horrific allegations” linked to Diddy if the anonymous bigwig didn’t pay up. In Monday’s filing, attorneys for Carter confirmed speculation that the mystery case had in fact been filed by Jay-Z.
“Mr. Carter sought to expose Attorney Buzbee’s latest extortion scheme in a California lawsuit … after receiving a demand letter from Attorney Buzbee,” Spiro writes in the new motion. “Because Mr. Carter called upon the courts rather than paying, he has now been sued. So be it.”
Drake, by common consensus, has been a smart and savvy businessman over the course of his music career. So some in the music business have been puzzled following the megastar rapper’s widely ridiculed legal filing last week against his own label, Universal Music Group (UMG), as well as Spotify, for an illegal “scheme” to boost the popularity of Kendrick Lamar‘s May 2024 diss track “Not Like Us.” They wonder if the move was a strategy for a potential future contract negotiation.
“Drake could be creating his own leverage by filing the suit against UMG,” says Josh Binder, an attorney who represents pop and hip-hop stars including Gunna, Marshmello, Lisa of BLACKPINK and Ivan Cornejo. “Most lawsuits are settled pre-litigation. My gut says this isn’t going to a jury. Drake could be using the suit to alter his existing deal.”
Trending on Billboard
Although Binder has no inside information on Drake’s filing, which alleges UMG “launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate the streaming services and airwaves” in its effort to amplify Lamar’s Drake diss track, he says the case could drag out and cause bad publicity for both Drake and UMG: “Settling it would, at a certain point, be worthwhile to both parties.”
In the Nov. 25 filing, Drake alleged that UMG used bots and other means to boost the prominence of “Not Like Us” on streaming services; the rapper’s attorneys accused the label of giving Spotify a deal on licensing rates in exchange for recommending the song to users who’d played non-Lamar tracks. They also alleged a civil violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, frequently employed against organized crime, as well as deceptive business practices and false advertising — including allegedly paying Apple to have Siri steer users to the Lamar track. The legal action states that the label “conspired with and paid currently unknown parties to use ‘bots’ to artificially inflate the spread of ‘Not Like Us’ and deceive consumers into believing the song was more popular than it was in reality.”
In a second filing the following day, which alleged payola to iHeartMedia to boost the song at radio, he went even further, saying UMG knew Lamar was defaming Drake by “falsely” accusing him of being a “certified pedophile,” yet released the track anyway. This filing reads in part: “UMG designed, financed and then executed a plan to turn ‘Not Like Us’ into a viral mega-hit with the intent of using the spectacle of harm to Drake and his businesses to drive consumer hysteria and, of course, massive revenues.”
Of the legal filings, Universal Music released a statement saying that the “suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue,” and several music-business attorneys echoed that sentiment to Billboard. “I can’t believe this is anything more than a publicity stunt,” says Howard King, who has represented Metallica, Dr. Dre and Pharrell in high-profile cases. “I don’t see how Drake has standing to challenge the record industry for doing what he knows they also do for him — using all available resources to promote an artist’s profile and music.”
But others in the business agreed Drake could be using the widespread publicity he generated from last week’s legal actions as a negotiating point for a future record deal negotiation with UMG. (Drake initially signed with Young Money, an imprint distributed by Universal-owned Republic Records, then later became a Republic artist.) One source tells Billboard that Drake’s latest deal, signed in 2021 and described as “LeBron-sized” by Variety at the time, isn’t far from expiring, and the most logical explanation for Drake damaging his reputation so publicly with the legal filings was to communicate his unhappiness to UMG and aim for a lucrative new deal, or even equity in UMG.
“It’s possible that it was done to have some leverage against his label,” says Gandhar Savur, a New York music attorney, adding that he has no knowledge of Drake or UMG’s affairs. “However, my initial impression was that he’s just trying to publicly discredit the track.”
Drake is one of the streaming era’s most successful stars, having passed the 50 billion mark in 2018. Lamar’s latest album, GNX, scored 364 million Spotify streams in its first week, in late November, but Drake holds the record for first-week hip-hop albums, with 589 million for 2018’s Scorpion and 497 million for 2021’s Certified Lover Boy.
If contract negotiations with UMG were to break down, sources say, an artist of Drake’s stature could follow the lead of Kanye West, who did not renew his contract with Def Jam/Universal after it expired and has since released albums on his own label via DIY distribution services, scoring a two-week No. 1 in February with Vultures 1 and a No. 2 debut in August with Vultures 2. “He could move forward without a deal,” King says of Drake. “He can certainly distribute the music without a label, especially domestically, and would need to have a management team capable of promotion and marketing. Of course, he would give up the big advance and have to fund production costs himself.”
Drake, however, as a viable global superstar, is in a different situation from Ye, whose prior antisemitic comments made getting into business with him a publicity headache for most labels. Binder doesn’t see the dominant rapper following West’s DIY path. “I would imagine [Drake] would want the infrastructure of a label,” he says.
Jay-Z (Sean Carter) was accused in a civil lawsuit filed Sunday of raping a 13-year-old girl in 2000 alongside Sean “Diddy” Combs — allegations that he immediately called a “blackmail attempt” filed by a “fraud” lawyer.
In a complaint filed in New York federal court, the unnamed Jane Doe alleges Combs and Carter drugged and assaulted her during an after-party following the MTV Video Music Awards. The case came as an updated version of an earlier lawsuit that had previously named only Combs.
The allegations were filed by Tony Buzbee, a Texas attorney who has filed a slew of lawsuits against Combs in recent months and has warned that he reps dozens more alleged victims. Earlier this month, Buzbee was sued for extortion by an unnamed celebrity who claimed he was threatening to unleash “wildly false horrific allegations” linked to Diddy if the anonymous bigwig didn’t pay up.
In a response statement on Sunday evening, Carter strongly denied the allegations and called the lawsuit a “blackmail attempt” aimed at securing a settlement. He called Buzbee a “fraud,” a “deplorable human” and an “ambulance chaser in a cheap suit.”
“You have made a terrible error in judgement thinking that all ‘celebrities’ are the same,” Carter said. “I’m not from your world. I’m a young man who made it out of the project of Brooklyn. We don’t play these types of games. We have very strict codes and honor. We protect children, you seem to exploit people for personal gain. Only your network of conspiracy theorists … will believe the idiotic claims you have levied against me that, if not for the seriousness surrounding harm to kids, would be laughable.”
“I look forward to showing you just how different I am,” Carter ended the statement.
Combs has faced a flood of abuse accusations over the past year, starting with civil lawsuits and followed by a bombshell federal indictment in September, in which prosecutors allege he ran a sprawling criminal operation for years aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.”
Weeks after the indictment, Buzbee joined the fray by holding a press conference in which he claimed to represent 120 individuals who had been victimized by Combs and threatened a flood of litigation. He has since filed more than a dozen such lawsuits, all on behalf of unnamed Doe plaintiffs.
In the new case, Buzbee calls Jay-Z a “longtime friend and collaborator” of Combs. He claims that after the alleged victim was driven to the afterparty and forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement, she was given a drink that made her feel “woozy” and “lightheaded.” When she went into a bedroom to lie down, Buzbee claims she was assaulted by the two stars.
“Another celebrity stood by and watched as Combs and Carter took turns assaulting the minor,” the lawsuit reads. “Many others were present at the afterparty, but did nothing to stop the assault.”
In his response statement, Jay-Z questioned why allegations that were “so heinous in nature” had not been filed as a criminal case: “Whomever would commit such a crime against a minor should be locked away, would you not agree?” He also vowed to never settle with Buzbee, saying he would “expose you for the fraud you are in a VERY public fashion.”
“My only heartbreak is for my family,” Carter said. “My wife and I will have to sit our children down, one of whom is at the age where her friends will surely see the press and ask questions about the nature of these claims, and explain the cruelty and greed of people. I mourn yet another loss of innocence.”
A federal judge is refusing to dismiss a civil lawsuit accusing electronic producer Bassnectar of sexually abusing three underage girls, sending the long-running case to a jury trial.
In a ruling Thursday (Dec. 6), Judge Aleta Trauger dismissed some aspects of the case but said that the overall lawsuit against the DJ (whose real name is Lorin Ashton) would be resolved by a jury of his peers. A trial is currently scheduled for February.
Attorneys for Bassnectar had made various arguments for why the case should be tossed out, including that he hadn’t known how old the accusers were and that they had lied about their ages. But in her order, Judge Trauger was unswayed.
Ruling on claims made by plaintiff Jenna Houston, the judge noted that she was “only sixteen” when they met and that Ashton was “obviously able to observe her in person,” meaning a jury could find that he had “recklessly disregarded the fact that Houston was underage during the first thirteen months of their sexual relationship.”
The judge cited deposition testimony from Ashton — in which he agreed that Houston “does not look like she’s 19 years old” in an old photo she allegedly emailed him, but later also said she looked “like 19, 20, 21” when they first met.
“A jury must resolve the question of whether Ashton deliberately disregarded obvious facts from which he should have known that Houston was still a minor when they met,” the judge wrote. “A reasonable jury could believe — based on photographs of Houston taken at or around the time she met Ashton and Ashton’s confusing testimony when he was confronted with such photos — that no reasonable person would have believed she was eighteen or older.”
Thursday’s order came more than three years after the three women — Rachel Ramsbottom, Alexis Bowling and Houston — filed their lawsuit, accusing Ashton of using his “power and influence to groom and ultimately sexually victimize underage girls.”
The lawsuit, which accuses Ashton of sex trafficking, child pornography and negligence, claims that the star would invite minors to his shows, bring them to a hotel room and provide “large sums of cash and other items of value” in exchange for sex.
In her ruling Thursday, Judge Trauger tossed out certain elements of those allegations. She ruled that Ramsbottom in particular had failed to show that she received any payments after she turned 18 — meaning she could not accuse him of sex trafficking after that point. And she rejected claims that the DJ had used “force, fraud or coercion” on any of his alleged victims.
“The psychological force she alleges he exerted over her amounts to nothing other than a desire to please a famous man she clearly admired and whose approval she sought,” the judge wrote of Bowling’s accusations.
Ditto for Houston: “The conduct she identifies as coercive — conduct that allegedly manipulated her into loving and trusting him, making her afraid to do anything that would cause her to lose his affection — does not qualify,” the judge wrote. “Heartbreak is simply not the form of harm envisioned by the sex-trafficking statute.”
But the ruling still leaves Ashton facing most of the lawsuit’s allegations, including claims that he had sex trafficked them as minors by paying them in return for sex. The DJ’s attorneys strongly deny that anything given to the women was a payment, but the judge said a jury might see otherwise.
“There is a question of fact as to whether the ‘travel money,’ free concert tickets, and free airfare Houston received from Ashton were causally related to Ashton’s allegedly enticing Houston to have sex with him and to provide her the means of traveling to see him again while she was underage in order to have sex,” the judge wrote.
In a statement to Billboard on Friday, the lead attorney for the accusers, M. Stewart Ryan, said: “Our clients are very happy that the Court agreed with us that this case must be heard by a jury. Rachel, Alexis, and Jenna all look forward to their day in court, yet another step on their journey to justice in this case.”
Representatives for Ashton did not immediately return requests for comment on Friday.
UPDATE: This story was updated at 2:03 pm EST on Dec. 6 with a statement from an attorney for the plaintiffs.
A federal appeals court panel on Friday upheld a law that could lead to a ban on TikTok in a few short months, handing a resounding defeat to the popular social media platform as it fights for its survival in the U.S.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the law, which requires TikTok to break ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance or be banned by mid-January, is constitutional, rebuffing TikTok’s challenge that the statute ran afoul of the First Amendment and unfairly targeted the platform.
“The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” said the court’s opinion. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.”
Trending on Billboard
TikTok and ByteDance — another plaintiff in the lawsuit — are expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, President-elect Donald Trump, who tried to ban TikTok during his first term and whose Justice Department would have to enforce the law, said during the presidential campaign that he is now against a TikTok ban and would work to “save” the social media platform.
The law, signed by President Joe Biden in April, culminated a years-long saga in Washington over the short-form video-sharing app, which the government sees as a national security threat due to its connections to China.
The U.S. has said it’s concerned about TikTok collecting vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits, that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Officials have also warned the proprietary algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect.
However, a significant portion of the government’s information in the case has been redacted and hidden from the public as well as the two companies.
TikTok, which sued the government over the law in May, has long denied it could be used by Beijing to spy on or manipulate Americans. Its attorneys have accurately pointed out that the U.S. hasn’t provided evidence to show that the company handed over user data to the Chinese government, or manipulated content for Beijing’s benefit in the U.S. They have also argued the law is predicated on future risks, which the Department of Justice has emphasized pointing in part to unspecified action it claims the two companies have taken in the past due to demands from the Chinese government.
Friday’s ruling came after the appeals court panel heard oral arguments in September.
Some legal experts said at the time that it was challenging to read the tea leaves on how the judges would rule.
In a court hearing that lasted more than two hours, the panel – composed of two Republican and one Democrat appointed judges – appeared to grapple with how TikTok’s foreign ownership affects its rights under the Constitution and how far the government could go to curtail potential influence from abroad on a foreign-owned platform.
The judges pressed Daniel Tenny, a Department of Justice attorney, on the implications the case could have on the First Amendment. But they also expressed some skepticism at TikTok’s arguments, challenging the company’s attorney – Andrew Pincus – on whether any First Amendment rights preclude the government from curtailing a powerful company subject to the laws and influence of a foreign adversary.
In parts of their questions about TikTok’s ownership, the judges cited wartime precedent that allows the U.S. to restrict foreign ownership of broadcast licenses and asked if the arguments presented by TikTok would apply if the U.S. was engaged in war.
To assuage concerns about the company’s owners, TikTok says it has invested more than $2 billion to bolster protections around U.S. user data.
The company also argues the government’s broader concerns could have been resolved in a draft agreement it provided the Biden administration more than two years ago during talks between the two sides. It has blamed the government for walking away from further negotiations on the agreement, which the Justice Department argues is insufficient.
Attorneys for the two companies have claimed it’s impossible to divest the platform commercially and technologically. They also say any sale of TikTok without the coveted algorithm – the platform’s secret sauce that Chinese authorities would likely block under any divesture plan – would turn the U.S. version of TikTok into an island disconnected from other global content.
Still, some investors, including Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire Frank McCourt, have expressed interest in purchasing the platform. Both men said earlier this year that they were launching a consortium to purchase TikTok’s U.S. business.
This week, a spokesperson for McCourt’s Project Liberty initiative, which aims to protect online privacy, said unnamed participants in their bid have made informal commitments of more than $20 billion in capital.
TikTok’s lawsuit was consolidated with a second legal challenge brought by several content creators — for which the company is covering legal costs — as well as a third one filed on behalf of conservative creators who work with a nonprofit called BASED Politics Inc.
If TikTok appeals and the courts continue to uphold the law, it would fall on Trump’s Justice Department to enforce it and punish any potential violations with fines. The penalties would apply to app stores that would be prohibited from offering TikTok, and internet hosting services that would be barred from supporting it.