State Champ Radio Legal News
Page: 62
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: Pharrell Williams and Louis Vuitton face a trademark lawsuit over “Pocket Socks”; Diplo is hit with a lawsuit claiming he distributed “revenge porn”; the Village People move forward with a lawsuit against Disney; a longtime attorney repping Britney Spears moves on; and much more.
Top stories this week…
SOCKED WITH A LAWSUIT – Pharrell Williams and Louis Vuitton were hit with a trademark lawsuit over their launch of a high-end line of “Pocket Socks” a literal sock-with-a-pocket that launched at Paris Fashion Week last year and sells for the whopping price of $530. The case was filed by a California company called Pocket Socks Inc. that says it’s been using that same name for more than a decade on a similar product. AI FIRMS FIRE BACK – Suno and Udio, the two AI music startups sued by the major record label last week over allegations that they had stolen copyrighted works on a mass scale to create their models, fired back with statements in their defense. Suno called its tech “transformative” and promised that it would only generate “completely new outputs”; Udio said it was “completely uninterested in reproducing content in our training set.”REVENGE PORN CLAIMS – Diplo was sued by an unnamed former romantic partner who accused him of violating “revenge porn” laws by sharing sexually-explicit videos and images of her without permission. NYPD confirmed to Billboard that a criminal investigation into the alleged incident was also underway. DISCO v. DISNEY – A California judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Village People that claims the Walt Disney Co. has blackballed the legendary disco band from performing at Disney World. Disney had invoked California’s anti-SLAPP law and argued it had a free speech right to book whatever bands it chooses, but a judge ruled that the company had failed to show the issue was linked to the kind of “public conversation” that’s protected under the statute. WRIT ME BABY ONE MORE TIME – More than two years after Mathew Rosengart helped Britney Spears escape the longstanding legal conservatorship imposed by her father, the powerhouse litigator is no longer representing the pop star. In a statement, the Greenberg Traurig attorney said he was shifting to focusing on other clients: “It’s been an honor to serve as Britney’s litigator and primarily to work with her to achieve her goals.” PHONY FEES? – SiriusXM was hit with a class action lawsuit that claims the company has been earning billions in revenue by tacking a shady “U.S. Music Royalty Fee” onto consumers’ bills. The fee — allegedly 21.4% of the actual advertised price — represents a “deceptive pricing scheme whereby SiriusXM falsely advertises its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges,” the suit claims. DIVORCE DRAMA – Amid an increasingly ugly divorce case, Billy Ray Cyrus filed a new response claiming that he had been abused physically, verbally and emotionally by his soon-to-be-ex-wife, Firerose. The filing actually came in response to allegations that it was Cyrus who had subjected Firerose to “psychological abuse” during their short-lived marriage. UK ROYALTIES LAWSUIT – A group of British musicians filed a joint lawsuit against U.K. collecting society PRS, accusing the organization of a “lack of transparency” and “unreasonable” terms in how it licenses and administers live performance rights. The case, filed at London’s High Court, was brought by King Crimson’s Robert Fripp, as well as rock band The Jesus and Mary Chain and numerous other artists.
Trending on Billboard
The judge overseeing the racketeering and gang prosecution against Young Thug and others on Monday put the long-running trial on hold until another judge rules on requests by several defendants that he step aside from the case.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Lawyers for the rapper and several other defendants had filed motions seeking the recusal of Fulton County Superior Court Chief Judge Ural Glanville after he held a meeting with prosecutors and a prosecution witness at which defendants and defense attorneys were not present. They said the meeting was “improper” and said the judge and prosecutors tried to pressure the witness, who had been granted immunity, into giving testimony.
Jurors, who were already on a break until July 8, would be notified that they will not be needed until the matter is resolved, Glanville said.
Trending on Billboard
This is the latest delay in the trial that has dragged on for over a year, in part because of numerous problems. Jury selection in the case began in January 2023 and took nearly 10 months. Opening statements were in November and the prosecution has been presenting its case since then, calling dozens of witnesses.
Young Thug, a Grammy winner whose given name is Jeffery Williams, was charged two years ago in a sprawling indictment accusing him and more than two dozen other people of conspiring to violate Georgia’s anti-racketeering law. He also is charged with gang, drug and gun crimes and is standing trial with five of the others indicted with him.
Glanville last month held Young Thug’s attorney Brian Steel in contempt for refusing to tell the judge how he found out about the out-of-court meeting. Steel was ordered to serve 10 consecutive weekends in jail, but the Georgia Supreme Court put that penalty on hold pending an appeal.
During a hearing Monday without jurors present, Glanville said he would release the transcript of the meeting that he had with prosecutors and state witness Kenneth Copeland and Copeland’s lawyer. He said he would also allow another judge to decide whether he should be removed from the case.
Glanville told the lawyers he would enter the order sending the recusal matter to another judge, adding, “We’ll see you in a little bit, depending upon how it’s ruled upon, alright?”
“Your honor, do we have a timeline of when the motion to recuse may be heard?” prosecutor Simone Hylton asked.
“Don’t know,” Glanville responded, saying the court clerk has to assign it to another judge. “I don’t have anything to do with that.”
Hylton asked if the matter could be expedited, citing concerns about holding jurors “indefinitely.”
Glanville said he understood that concern and that he hoped it would be acted upon quickly.
Glanville has maintained there was nothing improper about the meeting. He said prosecutors requested it to talk about Copeland’s immunity agreement.
Young Thug has been wildly successful since he began rapping as a teenager and he serves as CEO of his own record label, Young Stoner Life, or YSL. Artists on his record label are considered part of the “Slime Family,” and a compilation album, “Slime Language 2,” rose to No. 1 on the charts in April 2021.
But prosecutors say YSL also stands for Young Slime Life, which they allege is an Atlanta-based violent street gang affiliated with the national Bloods gang and founded by Young Thug and two others in 2012. Prosecutors say people named in the indictment are responsible for violent crimes — including killings, shootings and carjackings — to collect money for the gang, burnish its reputation and expand its power and territory.
The Spanish Society of Authors and Publishers (abbreviated SGAE in Spanish) has been fined 6.38 million euros (more than $6.9 million, using the average 2023 conversion rate) by the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) for anti-competitive practices related to its licensing deals with radio and TV stations.
SGAE has been fined for “two infractions of abuse of dominant position” by designing and applying its licensing rates in a manner that forces radio and TV operators to accept an “averaged availability rate” (comparable to a flat rate) to be able to use its repertoire, according to a CNMC press release on Wednesday (June 26).
The widespread application of the flat rate by the Spanish collecting society “has had a double anti-competitive effect,” the CNMC says. The first effect, which the CNMC refers to as “exploitative abuse,” results from SGAE’s practice of forcing licensees to pay the flat rate “unrelated to the actual use they make of their repertoire, both in terms of the number of works and the intensity of their use,” according to the release, which states this practice has been ongoing since “at least” Jan. 1, 2016.
Trending on Billboard
Because licensees are forced to pay the flat rate regardless of the extent of their use of SGAE’s repertoire, the CNMC adds, licensees’ incentives to contract with SGAE competitors with less substantial repertoires are limited — a second anti-competitive effect that hinders “the entry and expansion” of those competitors in the marketplace.
According to the CNMC, SGAE “enhanced” the latter effect — which it says SGAE instituted from “at least” Jan. 1, 2016, through Dec. 31, 2017 — by “presenting its musical repertoire to users as universal and offering guarantees of indemnity against possible claims by third parties for the use of rights that do not belong to its repertoire.” The CNMC argues this further limited incentives for licensees to contract with SGAE competitors.
In addition to fines, SGAE has been ordered to cease these behaviors.
Investigations into SGAE began after complaints were made by audiovisual media copyright entities Management Entity (Dama) and Unison Rights, S.L. (Unison), the release states.
Billboard reached out to SGAE but had not heard back by press time.
Earlier this year, Billboard reported SGAE’s intentions to improve its reputation under new CEO Cristina Perpiñá-Robert, who was appointed a little more than a year ago.
“SGAE is one of the world’s leading CMOs, with a crucial role to play for its members,” Perpiñá-Robert previously said. “This year is our 125th anniversary, which is a chance to celebrate what we’ve achieved but also highlight where we need to reform. I’m determined that SGAE should achieve a greater presence internationally.”
Last year, SGAE took in 349.1 million euros ($377.8 million, based on the 2023 average conversion rate) and distributed 354.1 million euros ($383.2 million), according to its 2023 financial results, while the number of members with authors rights grew from 36,956 to 83,148.
Ye (formerly known as Kanye West) is facing yet another lawsuit. West along with his Yeezy brand and former head of staff Milo Yiannopoulos were sued by eight alleged former employees, who claim they were “subjected to intolerable harassment and discrimination.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The sprawling lawsuit was filed in district court with the Central District of California on Saturday (June 29) and has been viewed by Billboard. A portion of the plaintiffs claim they were minors as young as 14 years old while working at Yeezy.
Plaintiffs ranging from ages 14 to 25 came from across the United States and other countries such as the United Kingdom, Hungary and Nigeria to work at Yeezy.
Trending on Billboard
However, the plaintiffs said they overworked for “inhuman” hours in a segregated working environment where Black and African employees were separated and given “less favorable” work assignments.
Various plaintiffs were tasked with building Ye’s scrapped YZY Porn venture. Minors claim they were exposed to pornographic images pertaining to the x-rated endeavor.
Around April 27, 2024, one employee alleges that Ye’s wife Bianca Censori shared a link to “hardcore pornography” with them slated to be part of the YZY Porn app.
A plaintiff known in the docs as “John Doe 1” claims he was exposed to pornographic images which were disseminated in group chats as part of the team’s communication channels. Another plaintiff who kept their identity hidden is listed as “John Doe 2” in the lawsuit and claims they were subjected to a “highly inappropriate and distressing work environment.”
“Our team looks forward to achieving justice on behalf of our very deserving clients for theshocking working environment that they were forced to endure,” said Ben Lockyer of LockyerLaw LLC.
Jordanna Thigpen of Thigpen Legal added: “Discrimination is intolerable anywhere, anytime. We believe a jury will agree that these employers must be accountable.”
All eight former Yeezy employees claim they were not paid for their work during their time working for Ye.
The legal activity has been mounting for Ye in recent months. He was hit with a sexual assault lawsuit in June by former assistant Lauren Pisciotta, who claimed she faced a “systematic” onslaught of sexual harassment and was sent graphic text messages from the “Good Life” rapper.
West settled another suit in June related to his Vultures album when he reached an agreement with Donna Summers’ estate to resolve a copyright lawsuit that accused him of interpolating her 1977 hit “I Feel Love” without permission in his song “Good (Don’t Die).”
Billboard has reached out to Ye’s reps for comment.
In June 2022, Jeffery Williams, the rapper professionally known as Young Thug, said from jail: “I always use my music as a form of artistic expression, and I see now that Black artists and rappers don’t have that freedom.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Rap is the most important musical development of the last half-century. It is a Black art form that reflects, comments upon and helps define the American experience. Like other artistic expressions, rap lyrics are often fictitious and hyperbolic; they cannot be assumed to be autobiographical. And like famous surrealist painters, some rappers combine their experiences with flights of imagination, leaving the audience to decide what is “real” and what is not. Other rappers write wholly fictional accounts without labeling them as such — sometimes for commercial appeal. As Young Thug explained to XXL Magazine in 2016: “I started doing a thuggish style … I started to make cool trap music … Them songs have made millions of dollars but them songs are not me.”
Just like other artists, the creators of rap music are protected by the First Amendment; as such, they are entitled to create ambiguous art that does not separate fact from fiction.
Unlike other types of artists, however, rappers find their art used against them in criminal court, as overly aggressive prosecutors charge rappers with having committed the alleged crimes depicted in their lyrics. It seems the ultimate rap battle is between the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment — pitting the freedom of expression against the right to a fair trial. The racial injustice of this tactic is obvious. Directors of horror and action movies are not forced to defend themselves in criminal court against allegations that their films depict actual events. Nor must the creators of country or death metal music justify their songs to a judge or jury as fiction — no matter how violent their lyrics may be. Only rappers are singled out in this way.
Hearteningly, the music industry and the social justice community have joined forces with lawmakers in opposition to this egregious prosecutorial overreach. For instance, California amended its rules of evidence to place additional burdens upon prosecutors who seek “to admit as evidence” of criminality “a form of creative expression.” In New York, proposed legislation similarly seeks to create a presumption against admitting evidence of a defendant’s creative expression in criminal trials. And, at the federal level, the Restoring Artistic Protection Act (RAP Act), seeking to shield artists from the misuse of their lyrics in both criminal and civil proceedings, has been reintroduced in Congress. This bill has support from groups such as the Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC), the Recording Academy, the Black Music Collective and SAG-AFTRA. All of these pieces of legislation aim to safeguard artists from prosecutors who want to use their creative expressions as evidence in criminal trials — ensuring rap artists enjoy the benefits of both the First and Sixth Amendments of our Constitution.
While these efforts are commendable, a significant loophole remains within the domain of criminal conspiracy prosecutions. A conspiracy is a crime where two or more people agree to commit an unlawful act, and someone in the conspiracy takes an affirmative step — or “overt act” toward the act. While the actual and proposed California, New York and federal statutes would make it harder for prosecutors to use rap lyrics as evidence of a crime, they do nothing to prevent prosecutors from alleging that rap lyrics themselves are an element of a crime — specifically, the so-called “overt act” element of a conspiracy crime. Additional legislation is urgently needed at the state and federal levels to prevent this from happening.
Conspiracy charges are darlings of prosecutors because many criminal conspiracy statutes permit the government to charge each alleged conspirator with all crimes committed by the conspiracy, so long as the alleged conspirator: (1) knowingly and willfully joined the conspiracy; and (2) committed an “overt act” in support of the conspiracy. Thus, by alleging that a rapper’s lyrics constitute an “overt act,” a prosecutor can seek to hold that rapper criminally responsible for crimes that the rapper did not even commit but rather were committed by other members of the “conspiracy.” In other words, rappers can be charged with and convicted for other people’s crimes merely by virtue of rapping. This prosecutorial tactic is literally criminalizing rap music.
The ongoing Young Thug/YSL trial vividly illustrates the urgent need for legislation banning this tactic. In that case, the prosecution has charged the defendants under a criminal conspiracy statute, Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) law. The grand jury indictment characterizes YSL as a gang engaged in criminal activities, with the Grammy-winning artist purportedly at the forefront. To link various defendants to the alleged “conspiracy,” and thus to ensnare them into the defendants’ seats at trial, the prosecution has alleged that specific sets of rap lyrics constitute “overt acts.” On their face, these lyrics are a mode of artistic expression, involving clever wordplay and other forms of humor. Lyrics cited by prosecutors include the following:
“Red just like Elmo but I never f—in’ giggle”— Jeffery “Young Thug” Williams
“Where you from, I’m from Bleveland, throw your set up” — Wunnie “Slimelife Shawty” Lee
“I shot at his mommy, now he no longer mention me” — Jeffery “Young Thug” Williams
Without legislation preventing these or other rap lyrics from being charged as “overt acts,” prosecutors will continue to use them to bolster their cases. We call for the music industry to unite with its allies to press for the introduction and passage of such legislation. Until that happens, the music industry and its allies should press candidates running for district attorney to promise not to prosecute rap lyrics as “overt acts.” Moreover, and until new legislation passes, criminal defense and music industry attorneys should advise their clients about the risks of prosecutions for merely creating rap, however outrageous and unfair that may be. Otherwise, rappers will continue to navigate a precarious line that could see their lyrics construed as a crime, undermining the fundamental principles of artistic freedom and raising urgent questions about racial and creative justice in the courtroom. Rap artists should not have to choose between their First and Sixth Amendment rights.
Jeffrey Movit is a civil litigator in New York and Los Angeles whose practice areas include copyright, trademark, defamation and entertainment law. He has been called the “lawyer to the stars” by the New York Post, and he was named by Billboard magazine as one of the “Top Music Lawyers” for 2022, 2023, and 2024.
Priya Chaudhry is a nationally-known, award-winning criminal defense trial attorney who routinely handles high-profile, high-stakes criminal cases. With nearly 50 jury trials in 25 years of practice, The Hollywood Reporter named Ms. Chaudhry as one of the “25 Power Lawyers” it recognized as “Hollywood’s Troubleshooters.”
Awais Arshad is a criminal defense attorney at ChaudhryLaw, a Fulbright Scholar and barred in multiple jurisdictions, including New York, England & Wales and Pakistan.
Eagles singer Don Henley filed a lawsuit in New York on Friday (June 28) seeking the return of his handwritten notes and song lyrics from the band’s 1976 album Hotel California.
The civil complaint filed in Manhattan federal court comes after prosecutors in March abruptly dropped criminal charges midway through a trial against three collectibles experts accused of scheming to sell the documents.
The Eagles co-founder has maintained the pages were stolen and had vowed to pursue a lawsuit when the criminal case was dropped against rare books dealer Glenn Horowitz, former Rock & Roll Hall of Fame curator Craig Inciardi and rock memorabilia seller Edward Kosinski.
Trending on Billboard
“These 100 pages of personal lyric sheets belong to Mr. Henley and his family, and he has never authorized defendants or anyone else to peddle them for profit,” Daniel Petrocelli, Henley’s lawyer, said in an emailed statement Friday.
According to the lawsuit, the handwritten pages remain in the custody of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, which declined to comment Friday on the litigation.
Lawyers for Kosinski and Inciardi dismissed the legal action as baseless, noting the criminal case was dropped after it was determined that Henley misled prosecutors by withholding critical information.
“Don Henley is desperate to rewrite history,” Shawn Crowley, Kosinski’s lawyer, said in an emailed statement. “We look forward to litigating this case and bringing a lawsuit against Henley to hold him accountable for his repeated lies and misuse of the justice system.”
Inciardi’s lawyer, Stacey Richman, said in a separate statement that the lawsuit attempts to “bully” and “perpetuate a false narrative.”
A lawyer for Horowitz, who isn’t named as a defendant as he doesn’t claim ownership of the materials, didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.
During the trial, the men’s lawyers argued that Henley gave the lyrics pages decades ago to a writer who worked on a never-published Eagles biography and later sold the handwritten sheets to Horowitz. He, in turn, sold them to Inciardi and Kosinski, who started putting some of the pages up for auction in 2012.
The criminal case was abruptly dropped after prosecutors agreed that defense lawyers had essentially been blindsided by 6,000 pages of communications involving Henley and his attorneys and associates.
Prosecutors and the defense said they received the material only after Henley and his lawyers made a last-minute decision to waive their attorney-client privilege shielding legal discussions.
Judge Curtis Farber, who presided over the nonjury trial that opened in late February, said witnesses and their lawyers used attorney-client privilege “to obfuscate and hide information that they believed would be damaging” and that prosecutors “were apparently manipulated.”
The federal judge presiding over the Department of Justice’s sweeping antitrust case against Live Nation thinks the trial can begin as early as March 2026, according to recent federal court filings.
Judge Arun Subramanian explained Thursday (June 27) in the case’s first pre-trial hearing that he hoped jury selection could begin that month, although he stopped short of setting a firm date.
One of the first items of business for Subramanian, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Joe Biden in 2023, is to rule on a planned motion by Live Nation to move the case from the Southern District of New York to the federal circuit court in Washington, D.C., where Live Nation’s 2010 merger with Ticketmaster was first approved. Subramanian said he believed his court could properly preside over the case but that he would fully consider the advisement.
Prior to being appointed to the federal bench, Subramanian was a partner at litigation firm Susman Godfrey LLP, which currently represents Live Nation in the 2021 Astroworld festival class action lawsuit. Subramanian did not work on that case.
Trending on Billboard
Government attorneys said in a Tuesday (July 25) filing that they plan to bring additional claims against Live Nation, noting the new claims could include information that attorneys from Live Nation have designated as highly confidential and might ask the courts to seal.
Attorneys for the government “do not believe any of the information at issue merits sealing or overcomes the presumption of public access to judicial documents,” the filings explain, noting that if Live Nation doesn’t budge, the government will ask the judge to rule on the matter.
Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers also complained that Live Nation attorneys have delayed discovery requests and failed to “fully comply with any of the United States’s three pre-complaint civil investigative demands” dating back to October 2022.
“It took Defendants nearly a year to start producing custodial documents,” the filing reads, noting that “their responses to many specifications remain incomplete today.”
Lawyers for Live Nation called the government’s discovery allegation false, noting that “since October 2022, Defendants have spent over 200,000 attorney hours reviewing documents, produced over 600,000 documents from nearly 70 custodians, produced over 33 million observations of data, submitted dozens of written responses, and provided investigative deposition testimony from three high-level executives in response to Plaintiffs’ investigations. In addition, DOJ has access to nearly two million documents that Defendants produced during prior investigations.”
Attorneys for Live Nation added that they want “any documents, data or testimony Plaintiffs received from third parties during their investigation” no later than July 22, 2024.
Live Nation is also challenging the government’s unusual request for a jury trial instead of having the verdict determined by a judge. “If it occurred, it would be the first jury trial ever in a government-brought monopolization case,” the company’s attorneys wrote.
Outside of Live Nation, the government also says it plans to issue more than 100 third-party subpoenas to “ticketers, promoters, ticket brokers, venues, venue management companies, artists, and artists’ agents and managers.”
Live Nation declined to comment for this story.
Live Nation is being represented by longtime attorney and litigator Timothy L. O’Mara and Alfred C. Pfeiffer, both partners at Latham and Watkins. Pfeiffer is the former co-chair of the firm’s Antitrust & Competition Practice. Ticketmaster is represented by David R. Marriott with Cravath, who successfully represented Illumina against the Federal Trade Commission and secured a 2022 victory for the Louis Dreyfus Company against DOJ efforts to block the sale of Imperial Sugar to U.S. Sugar.
The government is represented by Bonny Sweeney, who joined the DOJ in 2022. Sweeney formerly served as a partner at San Francisco firm Hausfeld where she was co-chair of its U.S. antitrust practice group. In 2023, she was named antitrust lawyer of the year by the California Lawyers Association.
Pharrell Williams and Louis Vuitton are facing a lawsuit over their launch of a high-end line of “Pocket Socks,” filed by a California company that says it’s been using that same name for more than a decade on a similar product.
In a case filed last week in Los Angeles federal court, Pocket Socks Inc. says the luxury brand’s product — a literal sock-with-a-pocket that launched at Paris Fashion Week last year and sells for the whopping price of $530 — infringes its existing trademark rights to the name.
“Much attention and publicity has been generated for Louis Vuitton’s ‘Pocket Socks,’ including defendants, the press, and consumers using the name ‘Pocket Socks’ for their product which irreparably injures Pocket Socks’ longstanding brand and trademark rights,” the company’s lawyers write in the June 20 complaint.
Trending on Billboard
Louis Vuitton announced in February 2023 that Williams would serve as the company’s men’s creative director, and he debuted his first line for the company later that year at Men’s Fashion Week in Paris.
One of the items apparently rolled out at last year’s event was the Pocket Socks — a pair of knitted socks that feature a pocket adorned with a pearl. The socks received some notoriety in January when Jermaine Dupri was razzed on social media for wearing them during his Super Bowl halftime performance. Though currently unavailable for purchase, the socks are listed on Louis Vuitton’s UK website for £420 — roughly $530 in U.S. dollars.
Louis Vuitton’s new product didn’t sit well with Pocket Socks Inc., which says it’s been using that exact same name since 2012 for its own line of socks that feature a zippered pocket sewn into each pair. In its lawsuit, the company says it owns several federal trademark registrations for the brand and that the new product clearly infringes those rights.
In a statement announcing the new lawsuit, Pocket Socks Inc. claims Louis Vuitton’s new line “threatens to undermine the hard work and dedication” that has gone into building the brand: “This massive luxury brand and their designer Pharrell Williams should know better and behave within the law,” said CEO Evan Papel.
In technical terms, the lawsuit accuses Williams and Louis Vuitton of infringing both the trademark to the name as well as the so-called “trade dress” — meaning the actual look of the product. The sale of similar-looking socks under the same name is “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive consumers,” the lawsuit claims.
As the case moves forward, one possible defense argument from Williams and Louis Vuitton could be that the name Pocket Socks is too “descriptive” to serve as a trademark. Under U.S. trademark law, terms that merely describe the goods or services being sold cannot be locked up as an exclusive brand name.
Neither a rep Williams nor Louis Vuitton immediately returned requests for comment.
Diplo is facing a civil lawsuit accusing him of violating “revenge porn” laws by sharing sexually-explicit videos and images of a former romantic partner without her permission.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a complaint filed Thursday in Los Angeles federal court, an unnamed Jane Doe accuser claimed that the DJ (real name Thomas Wesley Pentz) recorded their sexual encounters and shared the materials with others on Snapchat “without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent.”
“Plaintiff brings this action to recover for the emotional and physical injuries she endured because of Diplo’s actions and to make sure no one else is forced to suffer the privacy invasions and physical and mental trauma she felt and continues to feel to this day,” the woman’s attorneys write.
In her complaint, the woman claims she had consensual sexual relationship with the DJ from 2016 to 2023. During that time, she says she occasionally “gave defendant Diplo permission to record them having sex, but never gave him permission to distribute those images and videos to third parties and reiterated that he was not to record them without her explicit consent.”
“Plaintiff trusted defendant Diplo and believed that he would respect her wishes to keep their sexual images and videos confidential and that he would not record them having sex without her consent,” her lawyers write.
But last fall, the woman says she was contacted by someone claiming to be in possession of images and videos of “plaintiff and defendant Diplo having sex.” She says the materials, allegedly shared over Snapchat five years earlier, depicted her “genitals, buttocks, and face,” as well as her voice.
After the incident, Jane Doe says she reported Diplo’s actions to the New York Police Department, which later “issued a warrant for defendant Diplo’s arrest for dissemination of intimate images and/or videos depicting Plaintiff.”
In an email to Billboard, the NYPD confirmed that a report had been filed and that there was an active investigation, but declined to comment on the claims of an arrest warrant: “There is a criminal complaint on file for unlawful dissemination for a suspect with the name of Thomas Pentz which is currently being investigated by NYPD detectives.”
In 2022, when Congress reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, lawmakers created for the first time a federal law banning the disclosure of “intimate” images without the consent of those depicted in them. The lawsuit accuses Diplo of violating that provision, as well as an earlier revenge porn law enacted by the state of California.
Both representatives and an attorney for Diplo did not return requests for comment.
Diplo was previously accused of revenge porn by another woman. In 2020, he was sued by a woman named Shelly Auguste over claims that he had distributed nude photographs of her without permission. His attorneys called it a “smear campaign” and sued her back for stalking, trespassing, and distributing private materials. That litigation is ongoing.
SiriusXM is facing a class action lawsuit that claims the company has been earning billions in revenue by tacking a deceptive “royalty fee” onto consumers’ bills.
In a complaint filed last week in federal court, attorneys for four aggrieved subscribers claim that SiriusXM adds a “U.S. Music Royalty Fee” – allegedly 21.4 percent of the actual advertised price – onto the normal price that users pay for satellite radio plans.
“This action challenges a deceptive pricing scheme whereby SiriusXM falsely advertises its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges,” attorneys for the users write. “SiriusXM intentionally does not disclose the Fee to its subscribers. SiriusXM even goes so far as to not mention the words ‘U.S. Music Royalty Fee’ in any of its advertising, including in the fine print.”
The lawsuit claims the royalty fee is an “invented” charge that SiriusXM has “deceptively” labeled to falsely suggest that it’s mandated by the government to pay for music rights. In reality, the lawsuit says, it’s a really just a “disguised double-charge for the music plan itself” that no other competing music services imposes on their users.
Trending on Billboard
“Reasonable consumers would expect that the advertised price for SiriusXM’s music plans would include the fundamental costs of obtaining the permissions necessary to provide the music content that SiriusXM has promised is included in those plans,” lawyers for the subscribers say.
According to the lawsuit, SiriusXM has reaped huge benefits from the “unlawful advertising scheme” since it was implemented in 2009, allegedly collecting $1.36 billion in such royalty fees in 2023 alone. In just in the states of Washington and Florida — the locations where the plaintiffs live — the lawsuit claims Sirius has collected $932 million in royalty fees since the charge was created.
And, according to the complaint, SiriusXM allegedly tries its best to ensure that consumers never find out: “SiriusXM’s sign-up process, automatic renewal process, and policy of not sending monthly or ongoing billing notices or invoices are deliberately designed to prevent subscribers from learning of the U.S. Music Royalty Fee.”
Those allegations echo claims made by New York’s attorney general, who sued SiriusXM in December over claims that the company made it “extremely difficult” for listeners to cancel their subscriptions. In a statement at the time, SiriusXM called those claims “baseless allegations” that “grossly mischaracterize” its customer service practices.
The new lawsuit was filed in the form of a proposed class action, aimed at eventually representing “millions of individuals” who have allegedly paid the royalty fee after seeing a lower price advertised.
“To be clear, plaintiffs are not seeking to regulate the existence or amount of the U.S. Music Royalty Fee,” lawyers for the subscribers wrote. “Rather, plaintiffs want SiriusXM to include the [fee] in the music plan prices it advertises to the general public.”
A representative for SiriusXM did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday.
Read the entire lawsuit here:
