Legal News
Page: 84
A civil lawsuit filed in Tennessee federal court — first reported by Variety and independently obtained by Billboard — on May 11, 2023, accused Jimmie Allen of sexual assault. A Jane Doe, who was a day-to-day manager at Allen’s former management company Wide Open Music, alleged that the country singer had “harassed” and “sexually abused her” over 18 months from 2020 to 2022, and that she was fired after she complained.
“Plaintiff expressed in words and actions that Jimmie Allen’s conduct was unwelcome, including pushing him away, sitting where he could not reach her, telling him she was uncomfortable and no, and crying uncontrollably,” her attorneys stated in the complaint. “However, Allen made clear that plaintiff’s job was dependent on her staying silent about his conduct.”
Allen responded to the allegations in a statement shared with Billboard, admitting to a sexual relationship with his accuser, but denied all allegations of wrongdoing. “I’ve worked incredibly hard to build my career, and I intend to mount a vigorous defense to her claims and take all other legal action necessary to protect my reputation,” he said.
The complaint also names management firm Wide Open Music and founder Ash Bowers as defendants, claiming they did not do enough to protect their employee from Allen’s alleged abusive behavior. The lawsuit alleges that after she revealed she had been “raped and sexually abused” by Allen, Wide Open Music and Bowers fired her in retaliation.
In his own statement sent to Billboard, Bowers strongly denied Jane Doe’s assertion that her position was terminated in retaliation. He said that Wide Open Music learned of Allen’s abuse on Oct. 4, 2022, and “immediately ended our professional relationship” at that point, and that “any assertion she ever raised the existence of a sexual or physical relationship” with the country singer before then “is patently and objectively false.”
Since the allegations against Allen surfaced in the lawsuit, he has been suspended by his label, dropped from a performance slot at CMA Fest and more. See the timeline of the fallout since the lawsuit was filed against him.
May 11: Jane Doe Files Civil Lawsuit Against Allen
Disco legends Village People sent a cease-and-desist letter to Donald Trump on Monday threatening legal action over a costume-clad tribute band at his Mar-a-Lago resort that’s allegedly been performing “Macho Man” and other hit songs without permission.
In the letter, Karen Willis (wife of Village People lead singer Victor Willis) warned Trump’s lawyers that such performances potentially violate federal trademark law by confusing consumers into thinking the real band was playing at the former president’s resort.
Since a video of the Mar-a-Lago performance was posted on Twitter last week, Willis said the band had been “inundated” with social media posts from people who thought it was the real Village People.
“The performance has and continues to cause public confusion as to why Village People would even engage in such a performance. We did not,” Willis wrote in the letter, obtained by Billboard. “Though my husband has tolerated your client’s use of his Village People music, we cannot allow such use by him to cause public confusion as to endorsement.”
In a statement to Billboard on Monday, Trump attorney Joseph Tacopina said: “I will only deal with the attorney of the Village People, if they have one, not the wife of one of the members. But they should be thankful that President Trump allowed them to get their name back in the press. I haven’t heard their name in decades. Glad to hear they are still around.”
Top artists have long chafed at the use of their music by politicians, particularly conservatives. Foo Fighters and John Mellencamp blasted John McCain for using their music during the 2008 presidential election, and Neil Young, Guns N’ Roses, Pharrell Williams, Rihanna and the estate of Tom Petty have all spoken out about their music being used at campaign events for Trump.
Willis has even already complained about it once. In June 2020, angered by Trump’s use of police force to clear protesters from Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C., Willis took to social media to request that the president stop playing his music at events.
Owing to the complex thicket of blanket licenses that govern the public performance of music, it’s actually more complicated than you might expect for artists to prevent politicians from playing their music at rallies. Many times, artists lack a clear route to take formal legal action, and instead are left to complain in the court of public opinion.
But in the letter this week, Willis says that a live performance by a tribute band dressed to look like Village People — a construction worker, a cowboy, a policeman and so on — crossed the line into a clearer violation of the law by suggesting that the band had endorsed him.
“Your client is hereby on notice that U.S. trademark law protects against the unauthorized use of the Village People image and trade dress,” Willis wrote. “To be certain, the use of the group’s image and likeness at Mar-A-Lago was unauthorized.”
If such performances don’t stop, Willis made a clear threat of legal action: “We shall be forced to bring suit preventing further use, not only of the Village People trademarked image and trade dress, but of the music as well (and we’d hate to have to do that) but such combined use causes public confusion and is suggestive of endorsement.”
The letter gave Trump 10 days to respond.
Country music star Jimmie Allen‘s label BBR Music Group has suspended him following allegations of sexual assault in a lawsuit filed Thursday (May 11) by his ex-manager.
“In light of today’s allegations against Jimmie Allen, BBR Music Group has decided to suspend all activity with him, effective immediately,” says a statement from the label. That includes ceasing radio promotion on his current single, “Be Alright,” which climbs 59-57 on this Billboard’s Country Airplay chart dated May 13.
The move came hours after news broke that Allen was facing a lawsuit that claims he repeatedly sexually harassed and raped a woman on his management team — and that his management company then fired her when she complained.
In a civil lawsuit filed Thursday in Tennessee federal court — first reported by Variety and independently obtained by Billboard — an anonymous “Jane Doe” accuser says that Allen “manipulated and used his power” over her job as a day-to-day manager in order to “sexually harass and abuse her” over a period of 18 months from 2020 to 2022.
“Plaintiff expressed in words and actions that Jimmie Allen’s conduct was unwelcome, including pushing him away, sitting where he could not reach her, telling him she was uncomfortable and no, and crying uncontrollably,” the woman’s lawyers write in the complaint. “However, Allen made clear that plaintiff’s job was dependent on her staying silent about his conduct.”
In a statement to Billboard, Allen admitted to a sexual relationship with his accuser but denied all allegations of wrongdoing and vowed to defend himself against the lawsuit.
“It is deeply troubling and hurtful that someone I counted as one of my closest friends, colleagues and confidants would make allegations that have no truth to them whatsoever,” Allen says. “I acknowledge that we had a sexual relationship — one that lasted for nearly two years. During that time she never once accused me of any wrongdoing, and she spoke of our relationship and friendship as being something she wanted to continue indefinitely.”
“Only after things ended between us, did she hire a lawyer to reach out and ask for money, which leads me to question her motives,” Allen’s statement continues. “The simple fact is, her accusations are not only false, but also extremely damaging. I’ve worked incredibly hard to build my career, and I intend to mount a vigorous defense to her claims and take all other legal action necessary to protect my reputation.”
Allen’s attorney did not immediately return an additional request for comment on BBR Music Group’s decision to suspend its relationship with the star.
The complaint also names management firm Wide Open Music and founder Ash Bowers, claiming they did not do enough to protect their employee from it from Allen’s abusive behavior. When the woman formally disclosed that she had been “raped and sexually abused” by the star, her lawsuit says that Wide Open Music and Bowers then fired her in retaliation.
In his own statement sent to Billboard, Bowers strongly denied the allegations. He said Wide Open Music had learned of Allen’s abuse on Oct. 4, 2022, and had “immediately ended our professional relationship” at that point.
“Any assertion that she ever raised the existence of a sexual or physical relationship between Mr. Allen and her (or that Wide Open Music or I was aware of any such relationship) before October 4, 2022 is patently and objectively false,” Bowers said.
Bowers also denied that the lawsuit’s claim that the accuser had been terminated in retaliation: “Once WOM no longer managed Mr. Allen, that role was gone and, furthermore, WOM has transitioned out of artist management completely to development and publishing. Accordingly, any claim that our professional relationship with her ended due to retaliation is also false.”
In her lawsuit, Allen’s accuser makes graphic and disturbing allegations of sexual assault.
She says the star began by repeatedly sexually harassing her, “making comments about her status as a single female, her innocence, and how hot she looked” and asking her “personal sexual questions,” including whether or not she was a virgin.
According to the lawsuit, she later began to receive unwanted touching and hugging. Then, after a taping of American Idol, she says Allen sexually assaulted her while she was “incapacitated and incapable of giving consent.”
“While she only drank a couple of glasses of white wine, plaintiff does not remember anything after dinner that evening — she lost consciousness and awoke naked in her hotel room several hours later, with Jimmie Allen insisting she take Plan B as soon as possible,” her lawyers say, referring to a brand of morning-after contraceptive.
The lawsuit claims that the abuse then continued after that first incident in many additional ways.
“When plaintiff drove Allen to and from events, he sexually abused her at red lights, in green rooms, on airplanes, and in other places she was required to be to support him at events,” her lawyers say. “He raped her in private while choking her. He videotaped multiple sexual encounters in order to blackmail her to stay silent.”
Months later, when Doe says she was “on the verge of a nervous breakdown and considered committing suicide,” she claims she finally disclosed the alleged abuse to Bowers and asked to be reassigned to a different artist. After allegedly telling her, “I can’t hear any more of this,” Bowers then allegedly texted her that she would be placed on leave.
“On or about October 17, 2022, Bowers texted plaintiff stating, ‘[W]e are still unwinding things with Jimmie. Until that process is complete — we need you to continue to stay/work from home. We will update you once that’s completed,’” her complaint reads. “On October 26, 2022 … WOM terminated Plaintiff.”
In technical terms, Thursday’s lawsuit includes claims of battery, assault and false imprisonment against Allen; multiple claims of negligence against Wide Open Music and Bowers; and claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of federal sex trafficking statutes against all three.
The case was filed by attorney Elizabeth Fegan, who has previously represented victims of disgraced executive Harvey Weinstein and Dr. George Tyndall, a campus gynecologist at the University of Southern California accused of sexually abusing hundreds of patients.
Allen, a Delaware native, was slated to give the commencement address at the University of Delaware tomorrow (May 12), but has been replaced by Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester. According to a press release from the University, Allen informed the University he would no long be able to participate in the ceremony.
Assistance on this story provided by Jessica Nicholson.
Stories about sexual assault allegations can be traumatizing for survivors of sexual assault. If you or anyone you know needs support, you can reach out to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN). The organization provides free, confidential support to sexual assault victims. Call RAINN’s National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE) or visit the anti-sexual violence organization’s website for more information. (edited)
A federal judge has approved a $25 million settlement struck by vinyl producer Mobile Fidelity to resolve accusations that the company’s pricey “all analog” records were secretly created using digital methods, overruling objections from some customers that the settlement was “tainted by the stink of collusion.”
Though the deal would allow tens of thousands of MoFi customers to secure full refunds, some consumers argued that the deal was unfair — claiming it had been reached through a “reverse auction” in which MoFi bargained with “ineffectual” plaintiff’s lawyers to find the cheapest settlement possible.
But in a ruling Tuesday (May 9), U.S. District Judge James L. Robart rejected those claims and preliminarily approved the settlement deal. He said the agreement would likely fairly compensate any MoFi buyers who had been misled, and that there was no concrete evidence of impropriety in how it had been reached.
“The undisputed facts demonstrate that proposed settlement is not the product of a reverse auction or otherwise the result of collusion,” the judge wrote, saying it appeared to have been reached via “arm’s length negotiations” between attorneys for MoFi and the plaintiffs.
Among other things, the challengers had argued that the settlement’s payouts were insufficient based on how much they might have won at trial. But Judge Robart said those arguments ignored key factual details about how MoFi’s records were produced — and that such claims were at times “nonsensical.”
In a statement to Billboard, MoFi lead counsel Joseph J. Madonia said: “We appreciate the court’s ruling, which supports all of our claims that there was no reverse auction or collusion. As always MoFi continues its commitment to provide the best-sounding records possible.”
Attorneys for the consumers who challenged the settlement did not immediately return a request for comment.
The scandal at MoFi first erupted last summer, after Phoenix-area record store owner Mike Esposito posted a pair of videos to YouTube alleging that the company’s “all-analog” and “triple analog” records were in fact partially created using so-called direct stream digital technology. In one of the videos, MoFi’s engineers appeared to confirm that some digital tech had in fact been used in production.
As reported by The Washington Post, the digital revelations created “something of an existential crisis” in the analog-obsessed vinyl community. In a statement in late July, MoFi apologized for using “vague language” and for “taking for granted the goodwill and trust” of its customers: “We recognize our conduct has resulted in both anger and confusion in the marketplace. Moving forward, we are adopting a policy of 100% transparency regarding the provenance of our audio products.”
But the apology wasn’t enough to avoid litigation. In early August, a pair MoFi customers named Stephen J. Tuttle and Dustin Collman filed a proposed class action in Washington federal court, claiming the company’s analog branding had been “deceptive and misleading” and had duped them into paying premium prices. Four more cases were later filed in other federal courts by other groups of buyers.
In January, MoFi decided to settle the case. Calling the deal “a fair compromise,” the company agreed to let consumers either secure a full refund or keep their albums and instead take a 5% cash refund or a 10% refund in credit. The agreement would cover all customers nationwide, and the total money that could be paid out was “expected to be over $25 million.”
But some of the consumers who filed those other lawsuits quickly threw up red flags about the deal. They said the settlement was insufficient, struck without their input by bad lawyers who simply wanted a payout: “Despite this clear abdication of their duties to class members, counsel … are now trying to ram an inadequate, collusive settlement through this court.”
In Wednesday’s ruling, however, Judge Robart said those allegations had little basis. He pointed out there was “no evidence” that MoFi had “shopped” the case in search of a settlement — and that the plaintiffs’ lawyers had actually capped their own fees lower than necessary.
“This is one of the lower proposed fee awards this court has encountered in a class action settlement,” the judge wrote.
Following this week’s ruling, the settlement must still be granted final approval; during the process, the aggrieved MoFi buyers will still have additional chances to object to the terms of the deal or to opt out of it entirely. A hearing on final approval is tentatively set for October.
In a statement to Billboard, Duncan C. Turner — lead counsel for the customers that settled with MoFi — praised the judge’s decision: “There was never any substance to the intervenors’ made-up collusion story. The settlement terms are sound and fair, so we will be turning our attention to executing the notice program and getting the class members their compensation.”
Months after a high-profile mistrial, T.I. is headed back to federal court Wednesday for a second trial in his lawsuit claiming that toymaker MGA stole the design of its “OMG” dolls from the OMG Girlz – a defunct teen pop trio created by his wife Tameka “Tiny” Harris.
The intellectual property case initially went to trial in January, but Judge James V. Selna granted a sudden mistrial after jurors heard inadmissible racially-charged testimony, including a claim that MGA “steals from African Americans.”
The battle began in 2021, with T.I. (real name Clifford Harris) and Tiny claiming that MGA had committed both “cultural appropriation and outright theft of the intellectual property” by stealing the look of a group of “young multicultural women.”
Their complaint against MGA included side-by-side images, aiming to show how each OMG doll was directly based on a particular member of the OMG Girlz, a group that included Tiny’s daughter Zonnique Pullins.
“This cultural appropriation is legally actionable where, as here, it has resulted in MGA’s unlawful copying and dilution of the OMG Girlz brand, and misappropriation of their name and likeness,” lawyers for T.I. and Tiny wrote.
MGA, for its part, says it has done nothing wrong – that the dolls were more often branded as L.O.L. Surprise! O.M.G., and that consumers would not confuse the toys for the “short-lived” band.
The case went before a federal jury in January, seeing five days of testimony. But on the fifth day of the trial, jurors heard videotaped deposition testimony from a woman named Moneice Campbell, a former MGA customer who said she would no longer purchase the company’s products because MGA “steals from African Americans and their ideas and profit off of it.”
Earlier in the case, Judge Selna had already expressly prohibited such testimony from the trial. After MGA’s lawyers demanded an immediate mistrial, the judge agreed to grant one.
“There is no way to unring the bell of the jury’s hearing Ms. Campbell’s emotionally charged accusations that MGA has been ‘stealing’ from the African-American community,” the MGA attorneys wrote. “Her improper testimony cannot be challenged, rebutted or cured without drawing further attention to it.”
The new trial began with jury selection on Tuesday and will see opening statements on Wednesday.
A Delaware judge has dismissed a shareholder lawsuit against financial technology company Block Inc. over its 2021 acquisition of majority ownership in Tidal, the music streaming service partly owned by rapper Jay-Z.
A pension fund shareholder alleged that Block founder and CEO Jack Dorsey and the company’s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to pay roughly $300 million to take control of Tidal as it was failing financially and the target of an ongoing criminal investigation.
Chancellor Kathaleen St. Judge McCormick ruled Tuesday that the pension fund had failed to demand that Block’s board pursue legal action itself before filing a derivative lawsuit on behalf of the company. Under Delaware law, shareholders must make such a demand or demonstrate that doing so would be futile because a majority of directors were self-interested, lacked independence or faced a substantial likelihood of liability.
McCormick noted that the demand requirement is a manifestation of Delaware’s business judgment rule, under which courts defer to the decision-making of corporate directors unless there is an indication they acted in bad faith. That deference remains even if a corporate decision turns out to be unwise.
“It seemed, by all accounts, a terrible business decision,” the judge said of Block’s acquisition of Tidal. “Under Delaware law, however, a board comprised of a majority of disinterested and independent directors is free to make a terrible business decision without any meaningful threat of liability, so long as the directors approve the action in good faith.”
Tidal, which presented itself as an artist-friendly alternative to other music streaming services, was formed when a group of recording artists led by Jay-Z, whose real name is Shawn Carter, acquired Norwegian streaming service Aspiro in 2015 for $56 million. Rebranded as Tidal, it struggled to attract subscribers, logging multimillion-dollar losses for 10 consecutive quarters by mid-2020. It also churned through five different CEOs by 2020, when Carter personally extended a $50 million loan to the struggling outfit. Meanwhile, Tidal became the target of a criminal investigation in Norway for artificially inflating its streaming numbers.
Nevertheless, Dorsey, who is also the co-founder and former CEO of Twitter, began thinking of acquiring Tidal after summering with his friend Carter in the Hamptons in 2020, according to court documents. By videoconference from the Hamptons, he raised the issue during a Block board meeting. The directors agreed to form a transaction committee while Dorsey drafted and submitted a nonbinding letter of intent to purchase Tidal for $554.8 million.
A management report to the transaction committee in October 2020 raised several red flags. They included Tidal’s difficulties in attracting subscribers in a market dominated by Spotify, with most of the remaining market share captured by Apple and Amazon. The report also noted the Norwegian criminal probe and a federal lawsuit by performing artists who said Tidal was withholding royalties they were owed. A week later, the committee was presented with another report discussing Tidal’s history of quarterly losses, expiration of artist contracts, and $127 million in accrued liabilities. A slide presentation noted that Dorsey was the only person advocating strongly for the deal, which had received “substantial push back” from Block’s senior executives.
The committee nevertheless instructed management to continue pursuing the deal. In early 2021, after Tidal missed its financial forecasts for 2020 and Block’s management reduced its valuation of Tidal to $350 million, Dorsey proposed buying 88% of the company for $309 million. The deal closed on April 30, with Block paying $237.3 million after adjustments for an 86.23% stake.
“It is reasonably conceivable that Dorsey used corporate coffers to bolster his relationship with Carter,” wrote McCormick. The judge also noted that the defendants conceded that Carter, who joined Block’s board as part of the deal, could not be considered impartial.
McCormick concluded, however, that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate bad faith by members of the transaction committee in approving the deal.
“Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to make a reasonable person question the business wisdom of the Tidal acquisition, but plaintiff has failed to plead that the committee defendants acted in bad faith and thus faced a substantial likelihood of liability for that decision,” she wrote.
On Monday (May 8), President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate Deborah Robinson as the next Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC). The role was formed in 2008 as part of the Executive Office of the President and advises the president on U.S. intellectual property strategy.
Robinson most recently served as the head of intellectual property enforcement at Paramount Global (formerly ViacomCBS), but before that, she worked at the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for five years, protecting music rights. She also spent seven years as an assistant district attorney for Philadelphia.
Along with her strong history of employment in the entertainment business, Robinson serves as co-chair of the diversity committee of the IP section of the New York State Bar Association and as a Board Member of Aequitas, a non-profit focused on access and quality of justice in cases of human trafficking and gender-based violence.
Robinson would replace Vishal Amin, who was confirmed as IPEC under President Donald Trump and left the post in 2021. Since then, the position has been vacant, something pointed out by Congressman Adam Schiff and Mark Cohen — a distinguished senior fellow and director of Asia IP Project, Berkeley Center for Law and Technology — in a recent meeting for the Congressional subcommittee on courts, intellectual property, and the internet.
“RIAA applauds President Biden’s nomination of Deborah Robinson to serve as Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator,” said RIAA chairman/CEO Mitch Glazier in a statement. “Deborah is deeply qualified to serve our nation as IPEC and will bring unmatched policy depth and appreciation for the economic and cultural importance of strong IP enforcement to this vital role. Deborah will be an extremely welcome and effective addition to the Executive Office of the President, filling a position that has been vacant for the past three years and leading an exceptional team. We thank President Biden for selecting such an outstanding nominee to advance smart, pro-growth IP policies and enforcement practices around the world.”
“We welcome the nomination of Deborah Robinson to serve as the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC),” added NMPA president/CEO David Israelite. “Ms. Robinson brings incredible experience and insight to the role which serves an important function to spotlight and safeguard creator’s work across the globe. In addition to an extensive career as a prosecutor, she has held senior positions specifically in the field of music and copyright enforcement. We look forward to engaging with Ms. Robinson and supporting her important work once confirmed.”
A Los Angeles judge on Tuesday (May 9) dismissed much of Marilyn Manson’s defamation lawsuit against his ex-fiance, Evan Rachel Wood, ruling that many of his claims were barred under a California law aimed at protecting free speech.
Manson (real name Brian Warner) sued Wood last year, claiming her 2021 accusations of sexual abuse against him had been false and that she had “secretly recruited, coordinated, and pressured” other women to make similar allegations against him to destroy his career.
But Judge Teresa A. Beaudet ruled Tuesday that Manson had not sufficiently shown that he would ultimately be able to prove many of those accusations against Wood, including that she had been “pressuring multiple women to make false accusations,” as well as the allegation that she had forged a letter from the FBI.
The ruling came under California’s so-called anti-SLAPP statute — a law that aims to make it easier for judges to quickly dismiss cases that threaten free speech. Wood’s lawyers claimed Manson’s case was exactly that: a prominent musician using a lawsuit to try to silence someone who was speaking out publicly about years of alleged abuse.
Anti-SLAPP laws work by putting more burden than usual on defamation plaintiffs like Manson, forcing them to clearly show at the outset that their case is legitimate. In Tuesday’s decision, Judge Beaudet said Manson had failed to do so.
“The court does not find that plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his [intentional infliction of emotional distress] claim based on the FBI Letter,” the judge wrote, referring to one of Manson’s specific legal claims.
Importantly, the decision did not dismiss Manson’s case entirely, and several claims remain pending against Wood. Those claims will continue into discovery and toward an eventual trial. But the ruling was still a major victory for Wood.
In a statement to Billboard following the decision, Wood’s attorney, Michael Kump, said: “We are very pleased with the court’s ruling, which affirms and protects Evan’s exercise of her fundamental First Amendment rights. As the court correctly found, plaintiff failed to show that his claims against her have even minimal merit.”
Wood is one of several women to accuse Manson of serious sexual wrongdoing over the past two years. Manson has denied all of the allegations, and many of the lawsuits filed against him have since been dropped, dismissed or settled.
Manson filed the current lawsuit against Wood in March 2022, accusing her and a woman named Illma Gore of launching an “organized attack” that had derailed his career. His lawyer said the women had carried out “a campaign of malicious and unjustified attacks.”
But Wood quickly fought back, moving to strike Manson’s case under the anti-SLAPP law: “For years, plaintiff Brian Warner raped and tortured defendant Evan Rachel Wood and threatened retaliation if she told anyone about it,” her attorneys wrote. “Warner has now made good on those threats by filing the present lawsuit.”
Tuesday’s ruling came despite a bombshell recantation by Ashley Morgan Smithline, another woman who has accused Manson of wrongdoing. In a February filing submitted by Manson’s lawyers, Smithline said she had “succumbed to pressure” from Wood to make “untrue” accusations against Manson.
But Wood strongly denied those allegations, and Judge Beaudet ultimately refused to consider Smithline’s statements entirely, saying they had been filed far past a key deadline for submitting evidence. That means the statements about Wood’s “pressure” played no role in Tuesday’s decision.
In a statement to Billboard, Manson’s lawyer, Howard King, said the ruling was “disappointing but not unexpected.”
“The court telegraphed this outcome when it refused to consider the bombshell sworn declaration of former plaintiff Ashley Smithline, which detailed how women were systematically pressured by Evan Rachel Wood and Illma Gore to make false claims about Brian Warner,” King said.
“The failure to admit this critical evidence, along with the court’s decision to not consider Ms. Gore’s iPad, the contents of which demonstrated how she and Ms. Wood crafted a forged FBI letter, will be the subject of an immediate appeal to the California Court of Appeal,” King added.
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: Ed Sheeran wins his trial over whether “Thinking Out Loud” infringed Marvin Gaye’s iconic “Let’s Get It On”; Tory Lanez is denied a new trial over the shooting of Megan Thee Stallion; Adidas faces a class action over its Kanye West partnership; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Ed Sheeran & The Copyright Road Ahead
That sound you hear? It’s not Ed Sheeran strumming his guitar from the witness stand, or the tinny audio from a supposedly “smoking gun” YouTube video. It’s the music business letting out a giant sigh of relief.
After one of the biggest music trials in years, Sheeran won a jury verdict last week that his “Thinking Out Loud” didn’t infringe the copyright of Marvin Gaye’s famed “Let’s Get It On,” clearing the singer of wrongdoing and avoiding the potential for millions in damages.
A verdict against the singer would have reverberated throughout the industry, much like the infamous 2015 verdict against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over their megahit “Blurred Lines.” Like in that earlier case, many music pros and copyright lawyers believed that Sheeran and Gaye’s songs shared only common musical “building blocks” that everyone is entitled to use. They worried that a verdict against Sheeran could have blurred the line between legal similarities and illegal copying.
For years, the verdict on “Blurred Lines” led the industry to be hyper-cautious about songs that sounded remotely similar. Musicology reports and insurance policies became far more common, and songwriting credits were liberally doled out at the first sign of trouble — by Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars for their smash hit “Uptown Funk,” by Sam Smith for his Grammy-winning “Stay With Me” and by Olivia Rodrigo for her chart-topping “Good 4 U,” among many others. When cases were filed in court, many defendants chose to quickly settle, rather than face an unpredictable jury.
The legal reality, though, is that courts have slowly been back-tracking from “Blurred Lines” for a while now — first with an appellate court decision in 2020 on Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway To Heaven,” then with a similar ruling last year on Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse.” Both of those rulings provided clear case law that simple elements of music creation, standing alone, cannot be monopolized by any one songwriter. Over just the first few months of 2023, song-theft cases against Donald Glover (over his Childish Gambino chart-topper “This Is America”) and Nickelback (over the band’s 2005 hit “Rockstar”) have both been dismissed at the earliest stage of litigation.
Far from throwing the industry back into confusion, Sheeran’s victory last week seems to be the latest incremental step in a march toward a post-“Blurred Lines” world. Jury verdicts don’t change case law, but they can serve as a powerful disincentive to the next round of potential copyright accusers, who might be less willing to head to court if they see that artists are willing to successfully fight back rather than quickly settle when faced with an allegation.
For Sheeran, that seems to be precisely the effect he’s aiming for.
“By stopping this practice, we can also properly support genuine music copyright claims so that legitimate claims are rightly heard and resolved,” Sheeran said on the courthouse steps, minutes after the verdict was read aloud in court. “We need songwriters and the wider musical community to come together to bring back common sense. These claims need to be stopped so that the creative process can carry on, and we can all just go back to making music.”
Other top stories…
NO NEW TRIAL FOR TORY – A Los Angeles judge refused to grant Tory Lanez a new trial after he was convicted last year of shooting Megan Thee Stallion in the foot, setting the stage for the rapper to be sentenced to as much as two decades in prison. His lawyers called the trial a “miscarriage of justice,” but such requests are very rarely granted.
CLASS-ACTION KANYE – Adidas was hit with a class action lawsuit claiming the sportswear giant knew about Kanye West‘s problematic “personal behavior” years prior to ending its partnership with the disgraced rapper but failed to warn investors about it. West himself was not named in the case.
SPINRILLA SHUTTERED – Hip-hop mixtape site Spinrilla and founder Jeffery Copeland agreed to shut down the site and pay $50 million to Universal Music, Warner Music, Sony Music and others to end a years-long copyright infringement lawsuit over the unauthorized use of thousands of songs by Bob Marley, Beyonce, Kendrick Lamar and more.
A Los Angeles judge is refusing to grant Tory Lanez a new trial after he was convicted last year of shooting Megan Thee Stallion in the foot, setting the stage for the rapper to be sentenced to as much as two decades in prison.
Attorneys for Lanez (real name Daystar Peterson) had called the case a “miscarriage of justice,” arguing that Judge David Herriford made numerous errors during a star-studded, two-week December trial that resulted in a guilty verdict. But prosecutors later called those claims “vague and unsupported” and urged the judge to uphold the jury’s decision.
At a hearing on Tuesday (May 9) in Los Angeles Superior Court, Judge Herriford sided with prosecutors and denied Lanez’s motion, according to a person with knowledge of the proceedings. Neither prosecutors nor Lanez’s legal team immediately returned requests for comment.
The ruling is not particularly surprising. Such requests for a judge to overturn a jury verdict are rarely granted, reserved for major revelations about procedural errors or withheld evidence. Similar arguments could still be successfully raised in a future appeal.
Tuesday’s decision clears the way for Lanez’s sentencing, in which he potentially faces up to 22 years in prison. It had originally been scheduled for January but was repeatedly delayed due to his request for a new trial. Sentencing is now expected within the next month but could be delayed again.
Lanez was convicted on Dec. 23 on three felony charges over the mid-2020 incident, during which the rapper allegedly shot Stallion (born Megan Pete) in the foot during an argument after a pool party in the Hollywood Hills.
The shooting happened in the early-morning hours of July 12, 2020, when a driver was shuttling Lanez, Stallion and her assistant and friend Kelsey Harris from a party at Kylie Jenner’s house. According to prosecutors, Megan got out of the vehicle during an argument and began walking away when Lanez shouted “Dance, bitch!” and proceeded to shoot at her feet.
Following the incident, Stallion initially told police officers that she had cut her foot stepping on broken glass, but days later alleged that she had been shot. Lanez was eventually charged with the shooting in October 2022.
During the blockbuster trial, Lanez’s lawyers made their best effort to sow doubt over who had pulled the trigger, painting a scenario in which Harris could have been the shooter. But a key defense witness offered only confusing eyewitness testimony, and prosecutors pointed to an earlier interview in which Harris pinned the blame squarely on Lanez. Stallion herself offered powerful testimony that Lanez had been the one to shoot her; neither Lanez nor the driver took the witness stand.
In a motion for a new trial filed in March, Lanez attorneys Jose Baez and Matthew Barhoma argued that Judge Herriford made numerous errors during the course of the trial. Among others, they said he should not have allowed jurors to see an Instagram post that appeared to undermine the rapper’s central defense that Harris actually pulled the trigger. In it, Lanez appeared to personally post a comment that such a suggestion was “not true.”
“The court erred on numerous questions of law in allowing the People to introduce this post, depriving defendant of a fair trial,” Lanez’s lawyers wrote. “The only acceptable remedy for this miscarriage of justice is a new trial.”
Lanez’s lawyers made numerous other arguments, too. They said that key DNA evidence had been mischaracterized and improperly admitted; that Lanez had been denied his right to counsel because his longtime attorney withdrew at the eleventh hour; and that prosecutors had run afoul of a new California law that bans the use of creative expression in criminal trials.
But prosecutors argued back last month that the request for a new trial was groundless. The Instagram comment was a “relatively insignificant piece of evidence,” they argued, among an “overwhelming” amount of testimony and other evidence showing that Lanez had been the one to shoot Stallion.
“The defendant’s brief is replete with colorful rhetoric and conclusory statements, but it lacks substance,” prosecutors wrote. “Despite being nearly 80 pages long, the defendant has failed to cite a single instance of error in the trial court.”
Following Tuesday’s decision, Lanez can still file an appeal of the verdict at a state appellate court. But such a challenge will face an uphill climb: In 2022, California appeals courts overturned a defendant’s guilty verdict in just 19% of cases.