Legal News
Page: 7
Universal Music Group (UMG) has filed a lawsuit claiming Chili’s used more than 60 copyrighted songs from Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber and others on social media without permission, just months after the Beastie Boys accused the restaurant chain of the same thing.
In a complaint filed Tuesday (Oct. 10) in Manhattan federal court, the music giant accused Chili’s owner Brinker International Inc. of willfully using unlicensed music in dozens of promotional videos across YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook.
“In order to draw the attention of consumers in the fast-moving world of social media, defendants chose to rely on the use of popular music as an integral part of their Chili’s messaging,” UMG’s lawyers write. “But despite this success, defendants have failed to pay plaintiffs for the music that serves as the soundtrack for Chili’s social media ads.”
Trending on Billboard
In addition to Grande and Bieber, UMG says the videos featured music from dozens of other stars, including Mariah Carey, Lady Gaga, Snoop Dogg, Lana Del Rey, ABBA, Luke Bryan, Travis Scott, Bruno Mars, Lil Nas X, Earth Wind & Fire, The Weeknd and more.
The new case comes less than three months after Chili’s was accused of largely the same thing by the Beastie Boys. In that case, which remains pending, the iconic rap trio accuses the restaurant of using their 1994 smash “Sabotage” online, including in a video that mimicked the song’s 1970s-themed music video.
Social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok provide huge libraries of licensed music for users to add to their videos. But there’s a key exception: The songs can’t be used for commercial or promotional videos posted by brands. That kind of content requires a separate “synch” license, just like any conventional advertisement on television.
That crucial distinction has led to numerous lawsuits in recent years.
Beginning in 2021, all three major labels sued drink maker Bang Energy for using hundreds of copyrighted songs in promotional TikTok videos, with Universal and Sony eventually winning large judgments. In May, Sony filed a case against Marriott over accusations that the hotel chain had used nearly 1,000 of its songs in social media posts. And in July, Kobalt and other publishers sued more than a dozen NBA teams over the same thing.
In Tuesday’s case against Chili’s, UMG argued that a sophisticated company with more than 1,600 restaurant locations would have known that it needed sync licenses to use well-known music in ads — or at least that it should have known.
“Defendants include successful companies promoting multiple restaurant franchises with their own legal departments and protecting their own intellectual property interests,” UMG’s lawyers write. “Despite defendants’ prior history of licensing music from plaintiffs for use in commercials, defendants did not seek to determine which of the videos at issue in this complaint used plaintiffs’ musical works.”
Brinker did not immediately return a request for comment.
A California appeals court has sided with The Offspring in a long-running court case filed by former drummer Ron Welty, rejecting his claims that he was owed millions more from the punk band’s $35 million catalog sale.
Welty’s lawsuit alleged that lead singer Bryan “Dexter” Holland had tried to “erase” his contributions to the Offspring, including by shorting him on the proceeds of the band’s 2015 catalog sale to Round Hill Music. But a Los Angeles judge rejected those accusations last year.
In a ruling Wednesday, California’s Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, saying there had been “no reversible error” in the lower judge’s decision. Welty raised numerous challenges to how the lower judge had handled the case, but the appeals court was not convinced by any of them: “The judgment and order are affirmed.
Trending on Billboard
Welty joined The Offspring in 1987 and served as the band’s drummer during its heyday, including on its 1998 album Americana that reached No. 2 on the Billboard 200, before leaving the band in 2003 on undisclosed terms.
In his sweeping 2020 lawsuit, Welty accused Holland and the other members of numerous forms of wrongdoing: “This lawsuit seeks, among other things, redress for The Offspring’s failure to pay Mr. Welty his rightful share of the band’s proceeds and a prohibition against their ongoing efforts to harm Mr. Welty, his legacy with the band, and his ongoing career.”
Among other allegations, Welty claimed he had been entitled to a bigger cut of the Round Hill deal, in which the company paid $20 million for the rights to the band’s recorded masters — split among the band’s key performers — and another $15 million for the publishing rights, paid directly to Holland.
Welty claimed he deserved some of that publishing money, and argued in his lawsuit that he was owed at least $2.8 million more from the Round Hill transaction. But at a bench trial in 2022, Judge William F. Fahey largely rejected those accusations, calling some them “completely illogical.” During the proceedings, other members of The Offspring had testified that the structure of the deal was fair since Holland had written all of the band’s music.
In a written decision last year, Fahey ruled that the deal had been “structured in accordance with industry standards” and that Welty had failed to prove that he was entitled to a cut of Holland’s $15 million: “It is hard even to envision a reason why these two other band members would agree to such a structure unless they believed that Holland was the creator and owner of the music compositions.”
In March, the judge issued a final judgment in favor of the band, finalizing the earlier rulings and rejecting the rest of Welty’s claims. It was that ruling that was affirmed by Wednesday’s decision at the appeals court.
Following the ruling, Welty’s attorney, Jordanna G. Thigpen, said her client had “great respect” for the appellate court but was “contemplating the next step of appellate review.” Howard King, an attorney for The Offspring, declined to comment.
Attorneys for Sean “Diddy” Combs are demanding an investigation into whether federal authorities leaked evidence of the racketeering and sex trafficking case to the media, including the infamous surveillance video of Combs assaulting then-girlfriend Cassie in 2016.
In a scathing court filing late on Wednesday (Oct. 9), Combs’ attorney Marc Agnifilo claims there has been “a series of unlawful government leaks, which have led to damaging, highly prejudicial pre-trial publicity that can only taint the jury pool and deprive Mr. Combs of his right to a fair trial.”
Agnifilo calls the leak of the Cassie video the “most egregious example” of the problem, but says it was just “one of a long and documented history of leaks and false statements made with one purpose: to savage Mr. Combs’ reputation prior to trial.”
Trending on Billboard
“While the government’s misconduct in this case is particularly egregious, it is unfortunately part of a trend in this district — the government has learned that it can strategically leak information with impunity,” Agnifilo wrote.
The filing asks the judge overseeing the case to order a hearing into the allegations and to allow Combs’ lawyers to seek out evidence of such leaks from prosecutors and law enforcement. It also asks the judge to issue a gag order barring any further leaks, and to prevent prosecutors from citing any leaked evidence during the eventual trial.
Combs, also known as Puff Daddy and P. Diddy, was once one of the most powerful men in the music industry. But last month, he was indicted by federal prosecutors over accusations of sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arson and bribery. If convicted on all the charges, he potentially faces a sentence of life in prison.
Prosecutors allege that Combs ran a sprawling criminal operation aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” The charges detailed “freak offs” in which Combs and others would allegedly ply victims with drugs and then coerce them into having sex with male sex workers, as well as alleged acts of violence and intimidation to keep victims silent.
“For decades, Sean Combs … abused, threatened and coerced women and others around him to fulfill his sexual desires, protect his reputation and conceal his conduct,” prosecutors wrote in the indictment. “To do so, Combs relied on the employees, resources and the influence of his multi-faceted business empire that he led and controlled.”
That indictment was preceded by repeated media reports that a federal criminal probe of Combs was underway, as well as well-publicized law enforcement raids on his Miami and Los Angeles homes. In the filing on Wednesday, Agnifilo said that media coverage had been fed by “a steady stream of false and prejudicial statements” and leaks from federal agents at the Department of Homeland Security.
The filing also alleges that government employees had “repeatedly leaked grand jury information and materials to the press to raise public hostility against Mr. Combs.” Agnifilo pointed specifically to the Cassie video, which showed Combs striking his then-girlfriend in the hallway of a hotel and made headlines when CNN released it in May
“The videotape was leaked to CNN for one reason alone: to mortally wound the reputation and the prospect of Sean Combs successfully defending himself against these allegations,” Agnifilo wrote. “Rather than using the videotape as trial evidence, alongside other evidence that gives it context and meaning, the agents misused it in the most prejudicial and damaging way possible. The government knew what it had: a frankly deplorable video recording of Sean Combs in a towel hitting, kicking and dragging a woman in full view of a camera in the hallway of the hotel.”
Dr. Dre is facing a $10 million lawsuit accusing him of a “malicious campaign of harassment” against a psychiatrist who says he served as a marriage counselor and mediator for the rapper and his ex-wife before and during their divorce.
In a case filed Wednesday (Oct. 9) in Los Angeles court, Dr. Charles J. Sophy claimed Dre (Andre Young) had subjected him to an “ongoing barrage of threats” after he had “worked diligently” to help him resolve his disputes with then-wife Nicole Young.
“Rather than treating the mediation process as an opportunity for healing, [Dre] decided to take his frustrations about the mediation out on Dr. Sophy — frustrations that manifested themselves in the form of a nearly year-long sustained campaign of late-night texts, threats of intimidation and violence, and homophobic rhetoric,” writes the doctor’s lawyer, Christopher Frost of the firm Frost LLP.
Trending on Billboard
The lawsuit seeks a restraining order against further harassment, as well as monetary damages that the accuser’s attorneys say should total at least $10 million. A representative for Dr. Dre did not immediately return a request for comment.
Nicole Young filed for divorce from Dr. Dre in 2020 after 24 years of marriage, citing allegations of abusive behavior that Dre vehemently denied. After another 18 months of legal wrangling, the couple finalized their divorce in December 2021 with a $100 million settlement.
According to Sophy’s lawsuit, the pair engaged him in 2018 for a “joint psychotherapist-patient relationship” in which he provided therapy and marriage counseling. After the divorce case began, he says he continued to work with the couple, along with their attorneys, to mediate the terms of the dissolution.
In February 2023, Sophy claims that after months of no contact, Dre began harassing him via text message. According to an alleged screenshot included in the complaint, in the first such message, Dre told Sophy that he had been told something “disturbing” by an unnamed person, followed by a threat: “You’re going to have to pay for that.”
Over the two months following that first text, Sophy says Dre repeatedly sent him threatening texts, accusing the doctor of “ethical breaches” and threatening to report him to medical regulators. In one, he allegedly told Sophy, “you f—ed with the wrong one”; in another, Dre allegedly said he was “not playing, trust me.”
“I’m not going anywhere,” Dre allegedly wrote in an April 2023 text, “until you explain to me why you tried to talk [an unnamed person] into saying negative things about me to the media.” Sophy says there is “no truth behind these baseless and far-fetched accusations” and that he tried to ignore the threats, but that he eventually began to fear for his safety.
“Young, a prominent and powerful figure in the music industry with a well-documented history of violence and abuse, carried out a series of unlawful acts deliberately intended to threaten, intimidate, terrorize, and ultimately ruin Dr. Sophy personally and professionally,” the lawsuit reads.
The threats extended beyond text messages, according to the lawsuit. In one alleged incident, Sophy claims that fake FBI agents, hired by Dre, arrived at his gated community and told a security guard that they needed to “talk” with the doctor at his home.
“This incident, which occurred immediately after the initial texts were sent in February, was not a coincidence,” Sophy’s lawyers write. “It was a calculated, unlawful attempt … to threaten his physical safety and send the unmistakable message that Young can reach Dr. Sophy even in the sanctity of his home.”
The incident caused Sophy to “fear for his life” and “resort to extreme security measures,” including hiring private security and wearing a bulletproof vest. His lawyers say the “egregiousness” of Dre’s conduct eventually “compelled Dr. Sophy to seek redress and protection” in the courts.
“Dr. Sophy does not relish suing a former patient,” the doctor’s lawyers write. “Nobody should have to live in constant fear. But Dr. Sophy does — ironically, for no other reason than he tried to help Young to resolve his own family’s conflict.”
In technical terms, the lawsuit accuses Dre of harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as violation of a California law prohibiting the use of force or threat of violence to interfere with someone’s civil rights. The lawsuit also claims that some of the threats were based on Sophy’s sexual orientation, meaning they violated a California hate crime statute.
Barry White’s estate is suing over allegations that a prominent sample at the heart of Future and Metro Boomin’s chart-topping “Like That” infringes the copyright to a 1973 song by the legendary singer — but they aren’t accusing the stars of any wrongdoing.
In a complaint filed last week in Manhattan federal court, White’s estate claimed that a 1986 hip-hop song called “Everlasting Bass” by the duo Rodney-O (Rodney Oliver) & Joe Cooley stole key elements from White’s 1973 song “I’m Gonna Love You Just a Little More Baby.”
Attorneys for the White estate say they waited nearly four decades to sue over the song because it was “released prior to the internet and was not widely distributed,” leaving the estate “unaware of the song when it was first released.”
Trending on Billboard
White’s heirs are certainly aware of “Everlasting” now, and it’s not hard to guess why: The song was heavily sampled in “Like That,” which debuted at No. 1 on the Hot 100 earlier this year — so prominently that Future and Metro Boomin credited Rodney-O & Joe Cooley as co-writers.
By using an infringing sample, the lawsuit claims that “Like That” also infringes White’s copyrights: “‘Like That’ copies substantial elements of ‘I’m Gonna Love You Just A Little More, Babe’ … including but not limited to the iconic, immediately recognizable bass line,” the estate wrote in its Thursday (Oct. 3) complaint.But crucially, the White estate isn’t accusing Future, Metro Boomin or co-creator Kendrick Lamar of any legal wrongdoing. The lawsuit pins the blame solely on Rodney-O & Joe Cooley, saying they agreed to defend the stars against such accusations when they cleared the sample.
The duo did not immediately return a request for comment on the lawsuit’s allegations.
Released in March as the third single off Future and Metro’s collaborative album We Don’t Trust You, “Like That” reigned at No. 1 for three weeks and spent another 28 weeks on the chart. At the time of its debut, most of the focus was on the lyrics — since the track was one of the early salvos in the diss war between Kendrick and Drake.
But the underlying music featured a sample from “Everlasting Bass,” a classic early hip-hop track that’s also been sampled by Three 6 Mafia, Lil Wayne and E-40. In an April interview with Vibe, Rodney-O said he loved what Future and Metro did with his song.
“It is crazy because the song was big when it came out and for it to be even bigger now all these years later, it’s crazy,” he said. “I heard the song, I knew it was good, but when it comes out and the world hears it how you hear it and react to it the way you reacted to it, that’s confirmation.”
As for White’s song, “Gonna Love You” is one of the legendary singer’s top commercial hits, peaking at No. 3 on the Hot 100 in June 1973 and ultimately spending 18 weeks on the chart.
Attorneys for Garth Brooks publicly disclosed the name of a woman who sued the country star for sexual assault last week in new court filings, drawing a sharp rebuke from the woman’s lawyers.
The reveal came via an updated version of a lawsuit Brooks himself filed last month, seeking to block an unnamed “Jane Roe” from publicizing her accusations. After she made good on those threats last week, Brooks refiled the case on Tuesday with her real name listed.
“Defendant’s allegations are not true,” the country star wrote in the amended lawsuit, leveling the same claims about “attempted extortion” and defamation.
Trending on Billboard
The move quickly sparked outrage from the accuser’s attorney, who later on Tuesday vowed to immediately move to reseal her name and seek legal penalties against Brooks. They also asked the media not to disclose the name
“Garth Brooks just revealed his true self,” Douglas H. Wigdor wrote. “Out of spite and to punish, he publicly named a rape victim. With no legal justification, Brooks outed her because he thinks the laws don’t apply to him. On behalf of our client, we will be moving for maximum sanctions against him immediately.”
Using the name Jane Roe, the accuser filed her case against Brooks last week in Los Angeles, accusing him of sexually assaulting her while she worked for him as a hairstylist and makeup artist. The case, which included an alleged incident of rape, claimed the singer took advantage of her financial troubles to subject her to “a side of Brooks that he conceals from the public.”
“This side of Brooks believes he is entitled to sexual gratification when he wants it, and using a female employee to get it is fair game,” Roe’s attorneys wrote in their complaint.
Brooks vehemently denied the allegations, saying in a statement that he had been threatened that the woman’s “lies” would be released to the public unless he wrote “a check for many millions of dollars.
“It has been like having a loaded gun waved in my face,” Brooks wrote. “Hush money, no matter how much or how little, is still hush money. In my mind, that means I am admitting to behavior I am incapable of—ugly acts no human should ever do to another.”
Brooks also confirmed he had been behind a mysterious lawsuit filed last month, obtained by Billboard, in which an anonymous “celebrity” plaintiff sued in Mississippi federal court over an unnamed accuser’s sexual abuse allegations. Calling the accusations false and an “ongoing attempted extortion,” the earlier case asked a judge to stop her from further publicizing them.
It was in the Mississippi case that Brooks revealed the accuser’s name on Tuesday. Billboard has chosen not to report the woman’s name.
A rep for Brooks declined to comment for this story.
Attorneys for Sean “Diddy” Combs filed their opening salvo in an appeal of a judge’s ruling denying him bail, arguing the “sensationalism” of the case led a judge to rule based on “purely speculative” concerns about witness intimation.
In an opening brief filed late Tuesday, the rapper’s lawyers urge the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit to grant him bail – their third attempt to secure his release from a Brooklyn jail while he awaits trial on racketeering and sex trafficking charges.
Combs’ attorneys argue that a lower judge had relied on “exaggerated rhetoric” and “speculation” when it ruled that Combs posed a flight risk and might threaten witnesses.
Trending on Billboard
“The sensationalism surrounding his arrest has distorted the bail analysis,” writes Alexandra A.E. Shapiro and Jason A. Driscoll. “Mr. Combs is presumed innocent … and presented a bail package that would plainly stop him from posing a danger to anyone or contacting any witnesses.”
Combs, also known as Puff Daddy and P. Diddy, was once one of the most powerful men in the music industry. But last month, he was indicted by federal prosecutors over accusations of sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arson and bribery. If convicted on all the charges, he potentially faces a sentence of life in prison.
Prosecutors allege that Combs ran a sprawling criminal operation aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” The charges detailed “freak offs” in which Combs and others would allegedly ply victims with drugs and then coerce them into having sex with male sex workers, as well as alleged acts of violence and intimidation to keep victims silent.
“For decades, Sean Combs … abused, threatened and coerced women and others around him to fulfill his sexual desires, protect his reputation and conceal his conduct,” prosecutors wrote in the indictment. “To do so, Combs relied on the employees, resources and the influence of his multi-faceted business empire that he led and controlled.”
A day after the indictment was unsealed, Judge Andrew L. Carter denied the rapper bail. Combs’ legal team offered to pay a $50 million bond and submit to strict monitoring to allow him to reside under house arrest at his Miami mansion.
But Carter (who has since been replaced by another judge) ruled instead that until trial Combs must remain at the Metropolitan Detention Center — a federal correctional facility long criticized for dysfunction and dangerous conditions. He was swayed by arguments from prosecutors that, if released, Combs would likely use his considerable wealth and power to obstruct the government’s case by pressuring witnesses.
In Tuesday’s brief, Combs’ attorneys argue that there was little hard evidence to support that conclusion. They say the government’s warnings had been based on “untested allegations” of contact with witnesses involved in the civil lawsuits against him, as well as his public denial of some of those claims.
“If denying accusations by civil plaintiffs could justify pre-trial detention, the liberty protections of the Bail Reform Act and the Constitution—not to mention the First Amendment—would be meaningless,” his lawyers write.
Read the entire brief here:
Weeks after Nelly’s former St. Lunatics groupmates sued him for allegedly cutting them out of royalties for his chart-topping breakout album Country Grammar, three of the ex-bandmates now say they never wanted to be part of the lawsuit and must be removed immediately.
In a letter sent last month, Nelly’s attorney warned the lawyer who filed the case last month that Murphy Lee (Tohri Harper), Kyjuan (Robert Kyjuan) and City Spud (Lavell Webb) had recently retained his services and had “informed me that they did not authorize you to include them as plaintiffs.”
“They are hereby demanding you remove their names forthwith,” N. Scott Rosenblum wrote in the Sept. 24 letter, which was obtained by Billboard. “Failure to do so will cause them to explore any and all legal remedies available to them.”
Trending on Billboard
The move is a major twist just weeks after Harper, Kyjuan and Webb joined fellow St. Lunatics member Ali (Ali Jones) in filing the lawsuit against Nelly (Cornell Haynes). But it also makes sense after Nelly’s performance on Sunday (Oct. 6) at the American Music Awards, where all three men joined him on stage and appeared to be on good terms.
The withdrawal of Harper, Kyjuan and Webb means that the case is now essentially a dispute between Nelly and Ali alone. Ali’s attorney who filed the case, Gail M. Walton, did not immediately return a request for comment.
A group of high school friends from St. Louis, the St. Lunatics rose to prominence in the late 1990s with “Gimme What U Got”, and their debut album Free City — released a year after Country Grammar — was a hit of its own, reaching No. 3 on the Billboard 200.
In their Sept. 18 complaint, the bandmates claimed that Nelly had repeatedly “manipulated” them into falsely thinking they’d be paid for their work on the 2000 album, which spent five weeks atop the Billboard 200. But they said he never made good on the promises.
“Every time plaintiffs confronted defendant Haynes [he] would assure them as ‘friends’ he would never prevent them from receiving the financial success they were entitled to,” the lawsuit reads. “Unfortunately, plaintiffs, reasonably believing that their friend and former band member would never steal credit for writing the original compositions, did not initially pursue any legal remedies.”
During and after the Country Grammar recording session, the lawsuit claimed, Nelly “privately and publicly acknowledged that plaintiffs were the lyric writers” and “promised to ensure that plaintiffs received writing and publishing credit.” But decades later, in 2020, the lawsuit claimed that the St. Lunatics “discovered that defendant Haynes had been lying to them the entire time.”
“Despite repeatedly promising plaintiffs that they would receive full recognition and credit… it eventually became clear that defendant Haynes had no intention of providing the plaintiffs with any such credit or recognition,” the lawsuit read.
Limp Bizkit and frontman Fred Durst are suing Universal Music Group (UMG) over allegations that the label owes the band more than $200 million, with Durst’s lawyers writing that he had “not seen a dime in royalties” over the decades — and that hundreds of other artists may have been treated similarly.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (Oct. 8) in Los Angeles federal court, attorneys for Durst and the 1990s rap rock band accused UMG of implementing a “systemic” and “fraudulent” policy that was “deliberately designed” to conceal royalties from artists and “keep those profits for itself.”
“UMG’s creation of such a system, while holding itself out as a company that prides itself on investing in and protecting its artists, makes plaintiffs’ discovery of UMG’s scheme all the more appalling and unsettling,” Durst’s lawyers write, adding that “possibly hundreds of other artists” had also “unfairlyhad their royalties wrongfully withheld for years.”
Trending on Billboard
In a stunning claim, Durst alleges that as recently as August, Limp Bizkit had “never received any royalties from UMG,” despite the band’s huge success during its turn-of-the-century peak. The lawsuit said the band’s albums had all sold millions of copies, and that Limp Bizkit continues to have “millions of streaming users per month on Spotify alone.”
“Despite this tremendous ‘come back,’ the band had still not been paid a single cent by UMG in any royalties until taking action against UMG, leading one to ask how on earth that could possibly be true,” Durst’s lawyers write.
A spokesman for UMG did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday.
Durst claims that the current dispute dates to April when he retained new representatives who were “shocked” when he informed them he had “not received any money for any Limp Bizkit exploitations — ever.” He claims UMG had previously told him that he was not being paid because the band remained unrecouped — meaning its royalties still had not surpassed the amount the group had been paid in upfront advances.
“Durst explained that he had been informed by UMG that he had not received any royalty statements because UMG told him over the years that it was not required to provide them since his account was still so far from recoupment,” his lawyers write. “Durst’s representatives, suspicious that UMG was wrongfully claiming Plaintiffs’ accounts were unrecouped, suggested investigating further.”
When Durst’s reps contacted UMG, they say they learned that Limp Bizkit’s accounts actually held more than $1 million in royalties but that the label had “failed to alert” the band about the money. That prompted more suspicion about “UMG’s accounting and payment practices” and an investigation into Limp Bizkit’s records.
They didn’t like what they found. According to the lawsuit, UMG had allegedly failed to issue royalty statements at all during significant periods of the band’s history, including “during the height of Limp Bizkit’s fame.”
“UMG’s failure to issue royalty statements in particular from 1997-2004 — the height of the band’s fame and during periods in which they made record-breaking sales — with respect to its most popular albums suggests that UMG was intentionally concealing the true amount of sales, and therefore royalties, due and owing to Limp Bizkit in order to unfairly keep those profits for itself.”
The suggestion that the band’s albums are still unrecouped is also “highly suspect,” Durst’s lawyers write, citing the band’s huge commercial success during its early years: “Given that Limp Bizkit’s first three albums had already sold several million copies by the early 2000s, the recording funds and costs should have been quickly recouped, and UMG should have started paying royalties on those albums right away — not over twenty years later,” the lawsuit reads.
The lawsuit also points to potential “fraudulent accounting practices” that Durst’s attorneys claim were used by UMG to improperly keep the band in the red and avoid paying royalties.
“But where did this additional $199,676.00 charged to the account come from?” his lawyers write, referring to one such alleged inconsistency. “It seems to have come out of thin air to overdraft Limp Bizkit’s due and payable account in order to defraud Limp Bizkit and show an unrecouped account.”
When those issues were raised with UMG, the lawsuit says the label argued that Limp Bizkit had been paid $43 million in recoupable advances over the years, which explained why the royalties had not started flowing into the accounts until recently. Durst’s attorneys say the label eventually released $1.03 million to the band and $2.3 million to Durst’s Flawless Records, but that they’re owed far more than that.
“Given the vast amounts of money collected by UMG in relation to sales of Limp Bizkit’s and Flawless Records’ albums over the years … UMG is liable to plaintiffs for tens of millions of dollars in copyright infringement, if not more,” the lawsuit reads. “Indeed, Plaintiffs allege that the amounts owed to them by UMG following the rescission of these agreements will easily surpass $200 million.”
In technical terms, the lawsuit seeks not only allegedly unpaid royalties, but also a ruling voiding the band’s contract with the label, the return of the band’s copyrights to their recordings and copyright infringement damages over those rights.
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 deep dive into the case against Diddy with the help of R. Kelly’s prosecutors; sexual abuse allegations against country star Garth Brooks; a judge refuses to rule on the rights to Jay-Z’s debut album; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Diddy’s Case, Explained By R. Kelly’s Prosecutors
In many ways, the charges unveiled last month against Sean “Diddy” Combs mirror those brought in 2019 against R. Kelly, who was sentenced to 30 years in prison in 2022 after a jury convicted him of decades of abuse. Both cases center on allegations that a powerful musician broke federal racketeering laws – usually aimed at mobsters – by building essentially an organized crime syndicate aimed at facilitating his own sexual abuse.
So to understand more, I dove deep into the Combs case this week with Nadia Shihata and Maria Cruz Melendez, two of the lead prosecutors who tried the case against Kelly. Now in private practice, Shihata and Cruz Melendez discussed the Combs case with Billboard in separate interviews – about how a case like this is built, who else might face charges, and what the fight ahead will look like. Go read our full story here.
Trending on Billboard
Other top stories this week…
STUNNING ACCUSATIONS – Country music star Garth Brooks became the latest music industry figure to face abuse allegations, leveled by a unnamed woman who says he sexually assaulted her while she worked for him as a hairstylist. The case came with an unusual twist: the revelation that it was Brooks who had filed a mysterious John Doe lawsuit last month, seeking to block the publication of allegations that he called “extortion.” In a statement strongly denying the accusations, Brooks said he was “incapable” of such conduct and would “trust the system” to clear his name.
NO IDEA, YOUR HONOR – Martin Shkreli told a federal judge he couldn’t remember all the people with whom he shared copies of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, an ultra-rare Wu-Tang Clan album that he once owned – and that it’s “highly likely” that other people still have copies of the (supposedly) one-of-a-kind work. The disclosure came amid a lawsuit filed against him by PleasrDAO, a digital art collective that purchased Once Upon after Shkreli forfeited it to prosecutors as part of his securities fraud conviction.
REASONABLE DOUBT DISPUTE – With a court-ordered auction looming to sell off Damon Dash’s one-third stake in Jay-Z’s Roc-A-Fella Records, the judge overseeing the case said he would not rule on a thorny question of copyright law. That is: Can Jay-Z use copyright termination to retake control of the rights to his debut album Reasonable Doubt from Roc-A-Fella? That’s kind of a crucial question for the Dash auction, since the album is company’s only real revenue-generating asset. But the judge said the case was neither the time nor the place for such a ruling: “The court does not presently have jurisdiction over the validity of Carter’s copyright termination notice.”
THE PLAY MUST NOT GO ON – Ken Caillat, a music producer who worked on Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours, filed a copyright lawsuit against the creators of the hit Broadway play Stereophonic, claiming they stole material from his memoir about working on the legendary album. The lawsuit – which calls the play an “unauthorized adaptation” of his 2012 book — raises tricky questions about copyright protection and real-life stories.
R. KELLY AT SCOTUS – The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from R. Kelly over his 2022 convictions in Chicago on child pornography and enticement charges, leaving him with no further direct appeals from a verdict that saw him sentenced to 20 years in prison. The ruling effectively finalizes one of Kelly’s two sets of sex abuse convictions; the other — a September 2021 guilty verdict on racketeering charges brought by prosecutors in New York that resulted in a 30-year prison sentence — is still pending on appeal before a lower appellate court.
TIKTOK LAWSUIT – Attorneys general for more than a dozen states filed lawsuits against TikTok over allegations that the app – a key marketing tool in the modern music industry — is harming the mental health of young people. The lawsuits claim TikTok made its algorithm intentionally addictive, despite knowing that prolonged use will lead to “profound psychological and physiological harms” in children.