State Champ Radio Legal News
Page: 83
David Kenner, the attorney who unsuccessfully represented Fugees rapper Prakazrel “Pras” Michel in his criminal trial case year, will plead guilty to a criminal contempt charge over allegations that he leaked grand jury materials to reporters ahead of the trial, prosecutors say.
In a court filing Thursday, prosecutors told a federal judge that Kenner had “agreed to accept responsibility for violating the court’s protective order” and plead guilty to a misdemeanor over the incident, in which he allegedly leaked “swathes of sensitive internal government records” to reporters.
It’s unclear what kind of repercussions Kenner will face under the plea deal. His attorney did not immediately return a request for comment. A hearing is set for Friday for Kenner to enter his plea.
Kenner’s planned plea comes as he is already facing accusations that he botched Michel’s April trial, in which the rapper was convicted of violating federal foreign lobbying laws. Michel’s new lawyers say Kenner “utterly failed” his client — including by using experimental A.I. tools to work the case — and are seeking a new trial on the grounds that he deprived Michel of an adequate defense.
Michel, a founding member of the influential hip-hop group Fugees, was charged in 2019 with funneling money from a now-fugitive Malaysian financier through straw donors to Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. He was also accused of trying to squelch a Justice Department investigation and influence an extradition case on behalf of China under the Trump administration.
In April, following a trial that included testimony from actor Leonardo DiCaprio and former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Michel was convicted on 10 counts including conspiracy, witness tampering and failing to register as an agent of China. Throughout the trial, Michel was represented by Kenner, a well-known Los Angeles criminal defense attorney who has previously worked for hip-hop luminaries like Snoop Dogg, Suge Knight and, most recently, Tory Lanez.
Weeks before the trial even began, federal prosecutors accused Kenner of committing a “blatant violation” of court orders by leaking sealed documents, including materials from a grand jury, to reporters for the financial outlet Bloomberg in an effort to engineer “defense-oriented articles” on Michel’s case ahead of the trial.
“In a show of gamesmanship seeking to influence public opinion and bias potential jurors in favor of defendant, the defense has disclosed for publication swaths of sensitive internal government records,” prosecutors wrote at the time. “The disclosure may result in harassment or intimidation of government witnesses – in a case in which witness tampering is among the charges.”
According to prosecutors, the two Bloomberg articles (read them here and here) that came from Kenner’s leaks not only included sensitive sealed information, but told the story “largely from Michel’s perspective” and incorporated “defense themes of innocent alternative explanations.” They called Kenner’s conduct an effort to “influence the jury pool” by selectively disclosing facts about the case. Bloomberg and its reporters were not accused of any wrongdoing.
After Michel split with Kenner, his new lawyers raised those leaking accusations as another sign of Kenner’s missteps during the case. They said the charges against Kenner himself created a conflict of interest and a distraction as he was trying to defend his client during the trial.
“Kenner’s conflict of interest—owing to his significant stress and distraction from the contempt charges, and his incentive to curry favor with the prosecution and pursue an unaggressive defense—adversely affected his performance at trial,” Michel’s new lawyers wrote back in October.
Kenner has denied the accusations, and prosecutors have argued that his conduct during the trial was not enough to require an entirely new trial. A hearing on the issue was held earlier this month, and a judge will soon rule on Michel’s motion to overturn the verdict.
In a statement to Billboard on Thursday, Erica Dumas, a spokeswoman for Pras, cited Kenner’s guilty plea as yet another example of his ex-attorney’s shortcomings: “Unfortunately, former attorney David Kenner failed at every turn to competently represent Pras over the course of this lengthy legal battle.”
A man charged with stalking Taylor Swift outside her Manhattan home was arrested for a third time Wednesday shortly after he was released from police custody, meaning he’s facing new felony charges that could keep him behind bars for years.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
David Crowe, 31, had already been arrested on Saturday and Monday outside Swift’s TriBeCa apartment building and charged with misdemeanor stalking and harassment. But after he was released following an arraignment hearing on Wednesday, he apparently bee-lined back to the same location.
Police say they responded to a 911 call around 2:30 pm about a disorderly male in the area of Swift’s apartment. Though Crowe was gone when they arrived, police say he later turned himself in and was arrested for violating the strict protection order imposed on him as a condition of his release.
In addition to the original charges, Crowe is now facing four counts of criminal contempt in the first degree, a spokesman for the New York Police Department confirmed to Billboard – a felony that can result in as much as a five-year prison sentence. It’s unclear if the new counts are bail-eligible under New York state law, which would make it harder for Crowe to seek another quick release.
Crowe could be arraigned in Manhattan court on Thursday or Friday on the new charges. Manhattan prosecutors declined to comment on Crowe’s latest arrest.
The Seattle native was first arrested on Saturday afternoon, police say, after they responded to a 911 call regarding a “disorderly person” near Swift’s apartment. Crowe had allegedly “attempted to open a door to a building at the location” and was taken into custody on a previous arrest warrant.
Then on Monday evening, witnesses reported an “emotionally disturbed male acting erratically” near the same location, police say; officers then spotted Crowe “harassing multiple complainants” and he was taken into custody.
Following that arrest, Crowe was charged with one count of stalking in the fourth degree, one count of harassment in the first degree, and one count of harassment in the second degree.
In charging documents, prosecutors say that a security guard for an unnamed individual — presumed to be Swift — reported that Crowe has been spotted near Swift’s apartment roughly 30 times since late November and that on multiple occasions he had stated that he was there to speak to the same unnamed individual. The security guard reported that he had “asked the defendant not to approach the building or to leave the immediate area surrounding the building” on 10 separate occasions.
If convicted of those original charges — all misdemeanors — Crowe faces up to three months in prison for both the stalking count and the first-degree harassment count. If convicted on the second-degree, Crowe faces up to a year in prison.
A man arrested and charged with stalking Taylor Swift outside her Manhattan home has been released from police custody on supervised release after an arraignment hearing on Wednesday (Jan. 24).
David Crowe, 31, was arrested both Saturday and Monday outside Swift’s TriBeCa apartment building. Manhattan prosecutors, who charged the man with one count of stalking and two counts of harassment, say Crowe has been seen at the location more than 30 times since November.
At his first court hearing on Wednesday, a judge ordered Crowe released from custody but issued a protection order barring him from trying to contact Swift and imposed supervision to ensure that he abides by the order and returns to court for his next hearing.
The charges against Crowe were not eligible for bail under New York law, but prosecutors had urged the judge to impose “supervised release at the highest possible tier and level.”
“The defendant’s continued conduct in showing up to this location despite numerous directives to leave shows a clear risk that the defendant will not abide by court orders to return to court,” Harriet Jiranek told the judge at the hearing. “Based on the conduct in this case, the defendant should be under some level of supervision to ensure he abides by the order of protection and returns to court as directed.
Crowe was first arrested on Saturday afternoon, police say, after they responded to a 911 call regarding a “disorderly person” near Swift’s apartment. Crowe had allegedly “attempted to open a door to a building at the location” and was taken into custody on a previous arrest warrant.
Then on Monday evening, witnesses reported an “emotionally disturbed male acting erratically” near the same location, police say; officers then spotted Crowe “harassing multiple complainants” and he was taken into custody.
In charging documents, prosecutors say that a security guard for an unnamed individual — presumed to be Swift — reported that Crowe has been spotted near Swift’s apartment roughly 30 times since late November and that on multiple occasions he had stated that he was there to speak to the same unnamed individual. The security guard reported that he had “asked the defendant not to approach the building or to leave the immediate area surrounding the building” on 10 separate occasions.
If convicted of the charges — all misdemeanors — Crowe faces up to three months in prison for both the stalking count and the harassment in the first degree count. If convicted of his third count, of harassment in the second degree, Crowe faces up to a year in prison.
Swift’s publicist did not immediately return a request for comment on the incident. Crowe could not immediately be located for comment.
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: Madonna is sued by angry fans over concerts that started later than scheduled; Michael Jackson’s estate faces a lawsuit after threatening to sue a Las Vegas tribute act; Ice Spice is sued over allegations that her “In Ha Mood” ripped off an earlier track; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Madonna Fans Sue Over Delayed Concerts
Finally: a lawsuit for people who just want to get some sleep.
Madonna was hit with a proposed class action last week because the Material Girl allegedly started three New York City concerts later than scheduled, a delay that her accusers say caused real legal harm to ticket buyers who, among other things, “had to get up early to go to work” the next day.
Can you really sue over that? Madonna and Live Nation will probably argue that concert fans are on notice that shows sometimes start a little later than scheduled. But ticket buyers Michael Fellows and Jonathan Hadden claim that by making fans wait two extra hours beyond the listed start time, she not only breached her contract with them, but also committed a “wanton exercise in false advertising, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair and deceptive trade practices.”
For more, go read our full story, including Fellows and Hadden’s claims about “Madonna’s long history of arriving and starting her concerts late” and full access to the actual court docs filed against her.
Other top stories this week…
MJ TRIBUTE BATTLE – A long-running Michael Jackson tribute act in Las Vegas called “MJ Live” filed a preemptive lawsuit against the singer’s estate, asking a judge to rule that it could legally continue to perform the show. The organizers of MJ Live say the King of Pop’s attorneys have been unfairly threatening to sue even though the show has been running successfully for more than a decade. The estate called the case “beyond frivolous” and vowed to “vigorously” defend itself.
ICE SPICE COPYRIGHT CASE – The Bronx rapper was hit with a copyright lawsuit over allegations that her recent hit, “In Ha Mood,” was copied from an earlier track called “In That Mood” by a Brooklyn artist named D.Chamberz. The lawsuit claims the two songs share so many similarities — including beat, lyrics, hook, rhythmic structure, metrical placement and narrative context — that the overlap “cannot be purely coincidental.”
COULDN’T PICTURE THIS – The Notorious B.I.G.’s estate reached a settlement with the widow of late hip hop photographer Chi Modu, resolving years of litigation over merch bearing Modu’s famed image of the late rapper standing in front of the World Trade Center. A judge had ruled earlier in the case that Modu was entitled to reproduce and sell his image, but that slapping it onto products likely violated Biggie’s likeness rights.
MILES DAVIS TATTOO TRIAL – A trial is set to kick off this week over whether celebrity tattoo artist Kat Von D violated copyright law when she inked a photographer’s portrait of jazz legend Miles Davis onto the arm of a friend. He says she chose to “precisely replicate” every aspect of his image; she says it was a legal fair use.
INFRINGEMENT ON THE RADIO – Irving Azoff’s Global Music Rights (GMR), a boutique performance rights organization with a star-studded catalog, filed a copyright lawsuit claiming that a group of Vermont radio stations operated without a license for years. The allegations come after GMR spent years litigating against the Radio Music Licensing Committee, the group that negotiates music licensing deals for more than 10,000 radio stations.
TEKASHI 6IX9INE CHARGES – Authorities in the Dominican Republic arrested the embattled rapper on charges of domestic violence. This marks the latest in a long string of legal issues for the American rapper, who was arrested in October for a separate assault in the Dominican Republic, and faced federal gang charges in the United States before that.
JONAS-TURNER DIVORCE SETTLEMENT – Former Games of Thrones actress Sophie Turner dropped her “wrongful retention” lawsuit against ex-husband Joe Jonas over the custody of their two daughters after the former couple signed a co-parenting consent plan approved by a U.K. judge.
SiriusXM and Stitcher will not have to face a lawsuit from former Dawson’s Creek star James Van Der Beek accusing them of reneging on a $700,000 podcast deal.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Broadbelt, in a tentative order issued on Friday, dismissed the suit, finding that the audio giant “did not enter into a contract” with the actor since they didn’t finalize the agreement.
Van Der Beek said he reached a deal over email with executives from SiriusXM to host 40 episodes in exchange for a $700,000 minimum guarantee and a 50 percent cut of the net ad revenue. He sued in 2022 after the company walked away from the agreement.
Ruling in favor of SiriusXM on summary judgment, the court concluded that the two sides aren’t bound by an April 2022 document outlining the terms of the deal. It pointed to the first page of the proposal, which states that it’s for “discussion purposes only, is not a binding commitment in any respect, and is not to be interpreted in any respect as a binding commitment to negotiate.”
There was extensive evidence presented to the court referencing the need to sign a definitive, longform agreement contemplated in the initial proposal. Included among them was an email from Stitcher’s Associate Director of Business Development Leah Reis-Dennis, who stated in an April 2022 email “we are ready to call terms officially closed and (finally!) get the longform started.”
Van Der Beek argued that the proposal constitutes a valid, binding contract because Reis-Dennis made various comments indicating that the terms were “closed.”
“However, in those emails, Reis-Dennis also stated that Defendants would be working to begin drafting the longform agreement or request that the longform be drafted,” stated the order, which noted that the actor’s transactional lawyer also discussed having to sign the document to lock down the deal.
Broadbelt also rejected arguments that SiriusXM should be bound by the April 2022 document because the company already started to fulfill some of its terms by beginning the process of hiring a senior producer and requesting Van Der Beek’s payroll information.
In a declaration to the court, Reis-Dennis testified that she requested “loanout info” in order to set up payments to the actor but clarified that she would pay him only “if that agreement was signed.”
The order explained, “Plaintiff has not presented any evidence or argument showing that Reis-Dennis’s request for information to set up payments in the future (1) is inconsistent with the earlier statements that the parties would be bound only upon the execution of a longform agreement, or (2) constitutes an outward manifestation that Defendants intended to be bound by the terms of the April 28 Proposal without such a longform agreement.”
Van Der Beek brought claims relating to breach of contract and sought damages exceeding the $700,000 agreement.
SiriusXM, which was represented by Jordan Susman of Nolan Heimann, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter.
Notorious B.I.G.’s estate has reached a settlement with the widow of late hip hop photographer Chi Modu, resolving long-running litigation over other merch bearing Modu’s famed image of the late rapper standing in front of the World Trade Center.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Biggie’s estate sued in 2019, claiming Modu had illegally authorized the use of his 1996 photograph of the rapper (real name Christopher Wallace) on commercial products like skateboards and shower curtains. In 2022, a judge ruled that such merch likely violated the rapper’s likeness rights.
Terms of the settlement, first disclosed in a court filing on Thursday, were not made public. But the estate’s attorney, Staci Jennifer Trager of the law firm Nixon Peabody, said she and her client were “satisfied to bring this high-profile matter to an end.”
“Pictures of Christopher cannot be commercially exploited without a license from our client,” Trager said. “The settlement agreement is a testament to the dedication of our client as well as our team members in staying the course over several years.”
An attorney for Modu’s widow (the photographer himself passed away in 2021) did not immediately return a request for comment.
A longtime photographer for The Source, Modu captured images of some of hip-hop’s biggest names, including Tupac Shakur, Mary J. Blige, Mobb Deep and LL Cool J. In a 1996 cover shoot for the magazine, he snapped several images of Biggie standing in front of the Twin Towers – a year before the rapper was shot and killed, and five years before the towers were destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001.
In a 2011 interview, Modu said the shoot was partly inspired by the lyric in Biggie’s “Juicy,” in which he references the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center with the line “‘blow up like the World Trade.’”
“When the idea came to me to represent Notorious B.I.G as the King of New York, I thought what better setting than to have two of the quintessential New York City buildings in the background,” Modu said at the time. “This image remains fresh and can help to further immortalize these icons in the hearts and minds of a generation.”
But in 2019, Biggie’s estate took Modu to court over the image. In their complaint, they argued that he had moved beyond merely selling his image – and that he was instead trying to profit by exploiting the rapper’s likeness “in complete disregard for BIG’s rights.” The estate claimed that Modu had improperly licensed the image for use on snowboards, skateboards, shower curtains, NFTs and other goods.
“Unfortunately, when an artist’s work has touched people so significantly, there are often usurpers that want to capitalize on that connection,” the rapper’s lawyers wrote. “A strong brand attracts parasites that attempt to create profits through no work of their own.”
In June 2022, the federal judge overseeing the case granted a preliminary injunction to the estate. The judge was careful to rule that the photographer’s estate could continue to sell physical and digital reprints of his image, but that other merchandise likely violated Biggie’s likeness rights.
“Plaintiff’s use of Wallace’s image to promote and sell such merchandise constitutes an exploitation of his likeness on an unrelated product for that purpose, which extends beyond control of the artistic work itself,” the judge wrote at the time.
Since that ruling, the estate’s case against Modu’s estate and others had been moving toward a trial, with proceedings set to kick off next month.
Global Music Rights, the boutique performance rights organization that represents Bruce Springsteen, Bruno Mars, Prince, Drake, Pharrell Williams, John Lennon, Eagles and others, has filed a copyright lawsuit against a Vermont-based group of radio stations that has allegedly played songs for years without a license.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The lawsuit targeted Vermont Broadcast Associates, which operates seven radio stations serving local communities in Northern Vermont, New Hampshire and Quebec. The complaint, filed in Vermont federal court Thursday, also names Bruce James names as the owner of the company and a defendant.
GMR claims that VBA’s stations have been playing 66 songs in the GMR catalog since 2017 without a license, amounting to 1,600 violations of copyright law, even though the PRO has submitted 10 separate written licenses during that time period.
“Defendants’ infringements were neither incidental nor accidental,” the group’s lawyers write in the complaint.
After being founded by longtime music exec Irving Azoff in 2013, GMR spent years in court litigating over licensing terms with the Radio Music Licensing Committee, the group that negotiates music licensing deals for more than 10,000 member stations. The case finally settled in 2022 with a long-term licensing agreement.
In Thursday’s complaint, GMR claims that VBA is a member of the RMLC but nevertheless ignored “GMR’s communications and chose not to enter into GMR licenses, but continued playing GMR songs on its stations.”
“While we only turn to litigation as a last resort, it is long established U.S. law that GMR’s clients’ copyrighted works cannot be publicly performed without a license,” GMR’s general counsel Emio Zizza said in a statement. “All the radio stations that have entered into a GMR license and are paying their fees deserve the benefit of that license. Station groups who don’t want to pay for a GMR license are not entitled to play GMR’s immensely popular catalog of songs, depriving creators of their due.”
The GMR complaint, filed by the law firms of Lynn Lynn Blackman & Manitsky, P.C.; and O’Melveny & Myers LLP — claims that “GMR is entitled to maximum statutory damages of $150,000” if willful infringement is proven for each song played without a GMR license.
In response to a request for comment, Vermont Broadcast Associates owner Bruce James said by e-mail: “I have been working with Zachary Dekel representing GMR and believe we are licensed.” He added he has contacted Mr. Dekel on Friday morning (Jan. 19) to “resolve any issues.” According to the O’Melveny & Meyers website, Dekel is a litigation counsel with the firm.
In response to James’ comment, GMR representatives say that Dekel reached out to the VBA owner many times but a GMR license was never taken, which is why the lawsuit was filed.
The case is not the first time GMR has gone after radio stations that allegedly failed to pay. In October 2022, the group filed three similar copyright cases against radio stations in California, Connecticut, Florida, claiming each had made the “strategic decision” to simply not pay performance royalties to the group and “hoped to get away with it.”
“Defendants did not get away with it,” GMR’s attorneys wrote at the time. “Its stations have been caught red-handed violating the law.”
The Michael Jackson estate is embroiled in a lawsuit with a Las Vegas tribute act called MJ Live, which claims that the King of Pop’s attorneys have unfairly begun threatening to sue over a show that’s been performed nightly on the Strip for more than a decade.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a complaint filed Wednesday in Nevada federal court, the organizers of MJ Live asked a judge to rule that they could continue to stage their concerts featuring a Jackson impersonator, which are held six nights per week at the Tropicana in addition to other venues around the country.
Despite the fact that the show has allegedly been performed more than 3,600 times since 2012, MJ Live says the Jackson estate has only recently begun threatening to sue – including sending cease-and-desist letters to other venues demanding that they cancel upcoming tour dates.
A rep for the Jackson estate did not immediately return a request for comment.
Wednesday’s lawsuit is primarily what’s known as a “declaratory judgment action” – a type of case aimed at proving that you’ve done nothing wrong. In their complaint, MJ Live’s lawyers argue that the group has not infringed any trademarks held by the estate, nor has it violated his likeness rights by impersonating him.
Notably, Nevada’s state likeness laws have an unusual carveout the allows for the legal use of a celebrity’s likeness by “impersonators in live performances” – likely a nod to the long-standing and beloved tradition of Elvis Presley look-alikes in Las Vegas. Citing that statute, as well as the First Amendment’s protections for free speech, MJ Live says it has a clear legal right “to impersonate Michael Jackson” in its shows.
But the group also goes further, boldly arguing that it’s actually the Jackson estate that’s infringing intellectual property. By using the “MJ Live” name for more than a decade, MJ Live’s lawyers say the group has developed its own trademark rights to that particular name – and that the estate’s recent use of “MJ The Musical” on a Broadway show is infringing of those rights.
“Over the past eleven and one-half years … plaintiff has spent millions of dollars advertising and promoting its MJ Live show,” MJ Live’s lawyers write. “Plaintiff estimates that over 2,500,000 audience members, clapping and singing in their seats, jumping to their feet, and dancing in the aisles, have experienced the joy, excitement, and thrill of MJ Live.”
The complaint also argues that the estate’s decision to send cease-and-desist letters to block future tour dates represents “intentional and wrongful interference” in MJ Live’s business. MJ Live says the letters, allegedly sent to six different venues in total, in California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin, were “intended to harm Plaintiff.”
This isn’t the first time the estate of a famed artist has tried to crack down on Vegas impersonators. Back in 2022, Authentic Brands Group – the company that owns the rights to Elvis’ likeness – sent letters to a number of Las Vegas chapels where Presley impersonators officiate weddings, demanding that they obtain licenses. At the time, ABG said it was not seeking to shut down the impersonators, but partner with them to “safeguard his legacy.”
Authorities in the Dominican Republic have arrested U.S. rapper Tekashi 6ix9ine, who is scheduled to appear in court on Thursday on charges of domestic violence. The rapper, whose real name is Daniel Hernández, is being held at a jail in the capital of Santo Domingo, where he was arrested Wednesday, officials said. No further details […]
Madonna is facing a federal class action lawsuit because she allegedly started three New York City concerts later than scheduled, a delay that her accusers say caused real legal harm to ticket buyers who “had to get up early to go to work” the next day.
In a complaint filed Wednesday (Jan. 17) in Brooklyn federal court, ticket buyers Michael Fellows and Jonathan Hadden claim the Material Girl breached her contract with concertgoers and violated New York state laws by starting three December shows past 10:30 rather than the scheduled 8:30.
“Defendants’ actions constitute not just a breach of their contracts … but also a wanton exercise in false advertising, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair and deceptive trade practices,” attorneys for the two men write.
The three concerts at Brooklyn’s Barclays Center, stops on Madonna’s Celebration Tour, were originally scheduled for July but rescheduled to December due to the singer’s illness. Fellows and Hadden say they expected their show (Dec. 13) to start on time, and “would not have paid for their tickets had they known that the concerts would start after 10:30 p.m.”
“Defendants failed to provide any notice to the ticketholders that the concerts would start much later than the start time printed on the ticket and as advertised,” attorneys for the two men write.
Leaving Barclays Center after 1:00 a.m., the two men say ticket buyers were “left stranded in the middle of the night,” some “confronted with limited public transportation” options and others with increased prices for ride-share services. They also point out that the concert took place “on a weeknight,” meaning they “had to get up early to go to work and/or take care of their family responsibilities the next day.”
In addition to Madonna herself, the lawsuit also names Live Nation and Barclays Center as defendants. In technical terms, the complaint alleges breach of contract; violation of New York’s business practices and false advertising laws; and several other forms of wrongdoing, including unjust enrichment.
The lawsuit also includes a claim of so-called negligent misrepresentation, saying the concert organizers “knew or should have known” that the concerts would not start at 8:30 because of alleged past instances of Madonna taking the stage late — and should have warned fans.
“Madonna has a long history of arriving and starting her concerts late, sometimes several hours late,” attorneys for Fellows and Hadden write. “This history occurred throughout her 2016 Rebel Heart Tour, her 2019-2020 Madame X Tour, and prior tours, where Madonna continuously started her concerts over two hours late.”
Reps for Madonna and Live Nation did not immediately return requests for comment.
Read the entire lawsuit against Madonna here:
