Legal News
Page: 86
A court in India has ordered internet service providers to block access to 20 sites that were used to illegally download audio and video streams in India from platforms like YouTube, the IFPI says.
The civil ruling, published in the High Court of Delhi on Jan. 12, was the first such action in India to tackle the practice of stream-ripping, one of the country’s most rampant forms of piracy. The 20 blocked sites collectively received nearly half a billion visits last year from users based in India, according to the IFPI, which coordinated the action with the Indian Music Industry (IMI) on behalf of Sony Music India, Universal Music India and Warner Music India.
The labels told the court that the “rogue websites” were providing services in which copyrighted content on various platforms, primarily YouTube, could be downloaded in mp3 or mp4 format by copying the link in the space provided in the websites. Because the details of the websites’ real administrators are masked, the plaintiffs’ lawyer argued it would be impossible for them to pursue the websites in separate proceedings regarding individual copyrighted content.
Justice C Hari Shankar, who wrote the order, directed India’s government to issue a notification calling upon the various Internet service providers to block access to the websites in India. (The court order reviewed by Billboard says there are 18 defendants, but IFPI says the decision targets 20 infringing websites and more than 50 urls.)
In India, websites are regularly blocked on the basis of copyright infringement using Section 69A of the Information and Technology Act 2000 (as amended in 2008), Information Technology Rules 2009 and civil procedure rules, the IFPI tells Billboard.
“We welcome this decision and the strong message it sends to operators of stream ripping sites, wherever they may be based, that we are prepared to take the appropriate action against them,” Frances Moore, IFPI’s chief executive, says in a press release.
“Given that it’s the first time a website blocking order has been granted against stream ripping websites, this precedent is an important step in the right direction for the Indian recorded music industry,” Blaise Fernandes, IMI’s president and CEO, says in the same release.
Digital music has been leading the way in the rapid growth of India’s music market, which booked $219 million in recorded music revenues in 2021, up 20.3% from 2020. Streaming, which grew by 22.5% in 2021, now represents 87% of total trade value in the 17th-largest music market, according to IFPI’s Global Market Report.
But the IFPI notes that a study last year found that India still has a rate of piracy more than twice that of most major music markets, with 73% of internet users using unlicensed or illegal methods to listen to music, compared to a global average of 30%. Intellectual property rights theft “is like a cancer,” Fernandes wrote in a 2020 op-ed. “You need both palliative care via social messaging, as well as chemotherapy via the Indian Penal Code or laws that keep up with the needs of India’s digital requirements.”
Beyond India, the recording industry has stepped up efforts to crack down on stream-ripping websites. Courts and authorities in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Denmark, Ecuador, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Peru, Russia and Spain have all issued decisions over the last few years ordering service providers to block customers’ access to such websites, the IFPI says.
U.S. music companies have also battled stream-rippers, who are often based outside the country. In a case brought by more than two dozen record labels, a U.S. magistrate judge in Alexandria, Va., recommended in December 2021 that the operator of two Russian stream-ripping sites, Tofig Kurbanov, pay $82.9 million in damages for circumventing YouTube’s anti-piracy measures and infringing copyrights of audio recordings.
Kurbanov’s piracy operation drew more than 300 million global users to the sites from October 2017 to September 2018 alone, the court said. (U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton accepted the $82.9 million recommendation last February. In March, Kurbanov told the court he would appeal the judgement.)
As the streaming market has grown globally, the IFPI has also helped coordinate court and police actions to shut down sites peddling fake streams in major recording markets like Brazil and Germany, which are artificially juicing the success of songs and albums.
In France, the fifth-largest music market, a study released this week by a French government organization found that one billion streams — or between 1% to 3% of all streams in the market — were fraudulent in 2021. The report, which analyzed data from Spotify, Deezer and Qobuz, notes that “the methods used by fraudsters are constantly evolving and improving,” and that “fraud seems to be getting easier and easier to commit.”
The latest battleground in Megan Thee Stallion’s war with her record label is a dispute over whether her manager – Roc Nation CEO Desiree Perez – can be forced to sit for a deposition.
For months, the two sides have sparred over whether Perez must answer questions from lawyers for record label 1501 Certified Entertainment. They say she is “one of the most critical” witnesses in the ongoing case; Megan’s lawyers say they’re just trying to “harass” a busy executive who has little pertinent info.
In the latest filing on Tuesday, Megan’s attorneys said 1501’s arguments in the dispute are “entirely off base, bordering on nonsensical.” Perez doesn’t have any “unique or superior personal knowledge,” they said, and 1501’s lawyers should have sought such info from “alternative sources.”
The star rapper (real name Megan Pete) has been fighting with 1501 for more than two years, claiming the company duped a young artist into signing an “unconscionable” record deal in 2018 that was well-below industry standards. She says that when she signed a new management deal with Jay-Z’s Roc Nation in 2019, she got “real lawyers” who helped her see that the deal was “crazy.”
That core dispute has mushroomed into additional litigation, with both sides accusing the other of various forms of wrongdoing and claiming millions in damages. A judge ruled in December that the case will need to be decided by a jury trial; a date has not yet been set.
With both sides preparing to make their case, 1501 sought to have Perez sit for a deposition – meaning she would meet with the company’s lawyers and answer questions about Megan’s case under oath. But the rapper’s lawyers quickly threw a challenge flag in November, seeking a so-called protective order that would have shielded Perez from what they called “gamesmanship” by 1501.
They pointed to what’s known as the apex doctrine, which limits when high-ranking executives can be forced to give a deposition. (That’s the same rule that Spotify cited last year when it tried to shield CEO Daniel Ek from questioning in a copyright lawsuit.) Under the apex doctrine, busy top officials only need to testify when they have unique info that can’t be derived from other less burdensome sources.
“1501 does not seek relevant, admissible evidence because Perez does not have any,” Megan’s lawyers wrote in their November filing. “Rather, 1501 is intent on harassing Perez and disrupting her responsibilities as CEO of Roc Nation.”
The label quickly fired back in December, arguing that Perez had been “directly, personally, and substantially involved in the underlying facts of the lawsuit.” They claimed she’d had direct conversations about whether Megan’s 2021 Something for Thee Hotties counted as an “album” under her deal – a central dispute in the case. And they said Perez had personally negotiated one of Megan’s record contracts at issue in the lawsuit.
“Ms. Perez is trying to use her position at Roc Nation to prevent 1501 from obtaining otherwise discoverable information from her as a fact witness,” the label’s lawyers wrote. “1501 is not seeking discovery from Ms. Perez as CEO of Roc Nation. Rather, 1501 is seeking discovery from Ms. Perez as a fact witness.”
With Tuesday’s new filing from Megan’s lawyers, both sides have now fully made their arguments, and a judge will rule in the coming weeks or months on whether Perez must sit down with 1501’s lawyers. A rep for Megan and Roc Nation did not immediately return a request for comment on the deposition dispute.
Steve Zager, lead attorney for 1501, told Billboard his client was simply trying to obtain key information from an individual who was “intimately involved” in the events that led to litigation: “It is not harassment to try to serve a witness with knowledge of the facts of a case with a deposition subpoena where her lawyers have refused to accept service on her behalf.”
Read this week’s entire legal filing from Megan Thee Stallion’s lawyers here:
A Florida jury on Wednesday (Jan. 18) awarded Flo Rida $82 million in damages from energy drink maker Celsius in a lawsuit that claimed the company violated an endorsement deal with the rapper.
After a day of deliberations, a Broward County jury awarded the sum after finding that Celsius breached two contracts it had struck with the rapper in the mid-2010s, his lawyers confirmed to Billboard. Flo Rida’s lawsuit, filed in 2021, claimed he was owed millions in additional stock and ongoing royalties under the terms of the deals.
In an interview with Billboard, Flo Rida’s attorneys said their client was pleased with the outcome and believed that “the justice system performed well today.”
“It was a matter of respect,” said John J. Uustal of the firm Kelley Uustal PLC, who repped the rapper along with partner Cristina M. Pierson. “He was due these shares, he worked for them, and he wasn’t going to just let it go.”
An attorney for Celsius did not immediately return a request for comment on the verdict. Celsius will be able to appeal the verdict, first by asking the judge to overturn it and later by appealing the case to a state appeals court.
During a five-day trial, attorneys for the rapper (real name Tramar Dillard) argued that Celsius had met key sales thresholds that entitled Flo Rida to additional stock amounting to a one-percent stake in the business — a cut his lawyers claimed was worth at least $75 million now that Celsius had grown successful. They said his promotion had helped boost “a tiny local company that was about to go out of business.”
Celsius’ lawyers argued back that the company had broken no promises, saying the sales thresholds hadn’t been triggered and that the rapper had already been paid “far in excess” of what he was owed. They told the jury that Flo Rida was simply chasing a large cash payout to which he wasn’t entitled: “A business deal is a business deal. You don’t get a do-over just because you’re unhappy with the results.”
On Thursday, the lawyers for Flo Rida told Billboard that they believed arguments painting their client as “greedy” had backfired with jurors: “They understood all these complicated legal issues and in our view came to the right conclusion,” Uustal said. “After our client finished testifying, the was no doubt that this was not a greedy individual.”
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: Kanye West’s former lawyers go to extraordinary lengths to cut ties, indie rockers OK Go somehow find themselves in litigation over cereal, BMG is sued over the royalties to “Uptown Funk,” and much more.
Sign up for the free email version of The Legal Beat here.
THE BIG STORY: Kanye’s Lawyers Really, Really Want Out
Just like his corporate partners, his longtime record label, and many of his fans, Kanye West’s lawyers now want nothing to do with him.
In the wake of a string of antisemitic comments last fall, a who’s who of the nation’s top law firms publicly distanced themselves from the rapper. That included Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, the prestigious Wall Street firm that repped him in his dealings with The Gap; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, a white-shoe litigation firm that West had reportedly sought to hire; and Cohen Clair Lans Greifer Thorpe & Rottenstreich, one of many law firms that briefly handled his divorce from Kim Kardashian.
But no firm has done so with quite the flair of Greenberg Traurig, which had been handling a copyright case that accused West of using an unauthorized sample in one of the songs on Donda 2. After months of being unable to formally notify him that he’d been dropped, the firm has proposed an extraordinary alternative: printing newspaper ads announcing they’re no longer repping the disgraced rapper.
Yes, you read that right. Read the entire story here.
Other top stories this week…
A BAND VERSUS A CEREAL BRAND – In a bizarre new lawsuit, indie rockers OK Go found themselves embroiled in trademark litigation with Post Foods over a new line of on-the-go cereal cups called “OK Go!” The band says Post “chose to steal the name of our band”; Post says those allegations are “unfounded.”
“UPTOWN FUNK” ROYALTIES FIGHT – BMG was hit with a lawsuit claiming it has failed to pay royalties from the smash hit “Uptown Funk” to the families of late members of the Gap Band, who are credited as co-writers on the song. As reported by Billboard at the time, those credits were suddenly added in 2015 (months after the song was released) in an apparent effort to avoid litigation. So much for that…
DRAKEO DEATH CASE MOVES FORWARD – A Los Angeles judge rejected Live Nation’s first attempt to end a wrongful death lawsuit over the 2021 murder of Drakeo The Ruler at a music festival, ruling that the late rapper’s family might have a valid case against the concert giant.
HARRY STYLES FIGHTS COUNTERFEITS – Attorneys for Harry Styles filed a lawsuit against online retailers for allegedly violating his intellectual property rights by selling counterfeit merchandise to unsuspecting fans. The aim was to freeze assets and shut down the fake sites, which the lawyers said were mostly based in China.
DRE’S COPYRIGHT THREATS WORK – Marjorie Taylor Greene responded to a cease and desist letter from Dr. Dre over her unlicensed use of the rapper’s 1999 smash hit “Still D.R.E.,” promising to make “no further use” of the song. Dre had blasted the lawmaker for using his hit to “promote your divisive and hateful political agenda.”
SOCIAL MEDIA STAR SUED FOR ABUSE – Singer and influencer Malú Trevejo was sued by four former staffers, who alleged that they “endured mental, emotional, sexual and physical punishment” during their employment with the 20-year-old artist.
If you saw a portable snack package of Fruity Pebbles or Honey Bunches of Oats under the brand name “OK Go!” on a supermarket shelf, would you think that the rock band OK Go was somehow involved?
That bizarre question is at the center of a new lawsuit filed by cereal giant Post Foods against the power pop band, which is best known for its viral music videos, including a Grammy-winning video for the song “Here It Goes Again.”
In a complaint filed Friday (Jan. 13) in Minnesota federal court, Post said OK Go had been quietly threatening to sue for months, claiming that the company had infringed the trademark rights to the band’s name by launching the new on-the-go packages earlier this month.
“Without resolution by this court, Post will be unfairly forced to continue investing in its new OK GO! brand while under the constant threat of unfounded future litigation by defendants,” the cereal company wrote in its lawsuit.
Post is seeking what’s known as a “declaratory judgment,” meaning a ruling by a judge that says the company did nothing wrong. Post says the trademark rights of a rock band like OK Go don’t extend to an unrelated product like cereal, and that the new cups of Fruity Pebbles and other cereals are clearly marked with Post’s own branding to avoid any confusion.
In a statement to Billboard, the members of OK Go said they’d been surprised to learn of Post’s lawsuit.
“A big corporation chose to steal the name of our band to market disposable plastic cups of sugar to children. That was an unwelcome surprise, to say the least,” the band wrote. “But then they sue US about it? Presumably, the idea is that they can just bully us out of our own name, since they have so much more money to spend on lawyers? I guess that’s often how it works, but hopefully, we’ll be the exception.”
According to Post’s lawsuit, the dispute with OK Go goes back many months — and court records reveal the kind of legal back-and-forth that often precedes such litigation.
Back in September, an attorney for the band sent a cease-and-desist letter to Post, saying that OK Go had been “surprised and alarmed” to see Post’s use of its name on the new products. He claimed the new brand name would “suggest to consumers that OK Go is endorsing Post’s products,” or falsely imply that the cereal company had received permission to use the band’s name on its products.
Citing advertising collaborations with brands like Sony, Mercedes Benz, Google and Chevrolet, the band’s attorney argued that consumers had come to associate the “OK Go” name with consumer products across an array of industries. And he made particular mention that the band had even previously worked with Post itself, releasing a series of promotional videos for Honey Bunches of Oats back in 2011.
“Our client regards this matter with the utmost seriousness and has authorized us to take all steps necessary in any venue to protect its rights,” OK Go’s attorney wrote in the September letter. “If we do not hear from you within 10 days of the date of this letter, we will assume that Post does not wish to resolve this matter amicably.”
A week later, an attorney representing Post responded, saying that the company must “respectfully disagree” with the band’s accusations. The attorney argued that rock music and breakfast cereal were “clearly unrelated” products and that the phrase “OK Go” was merely a common term that had previously been used by many other companies on their products. He also flatly rejected the band’s arguments about its previous work promoting Honey Bunches of Oats.
“Given the length of time that has passed since that limited collaboration over a decade ago, the very small number of views indicated on the YouTube videos you referenced, and the general consuming public’s rather short attention span, it will also have absolutely no bearing on consumer perception of Post’s mark OK GO! used with cereal or cereal-based snacks, and will not lead to any mistaken association with OK Go,” Post’s attorney wrote in the response.
According to Post’s complaint on Friday, the company offered to pay the band as part of a “good faith effort” to resolve the dispute without resorting to litigation, despite its belief that the accusations lacked legal merit. The total figure that Post offered for such a “branding collaboration/co-marketing arrangement” was not disclosed in court documents.
But the food company says OK Go rejected that offer last week and made no counter-proposal, leaving Post with no choice but to file a lawsuit. Citing a “clear threat of potential litigation,” Post wrote that the judge must rule that the company is “free to use the OK GO! Mark.”
The case was filed in federal court in Minnesota, where Post is headquartered. An attorney for Post did not immediately return a request for comment on the lawsuit.
Read the entire lawsuit here:
Kanye West’s lawyers are asking a federal judge to let them print newspaper ads announcing they’ve dropped the embattled rapper, claiming he has thus far evaded all their efforts to formally notify him that he’s been fired as a client.
Greenberg Traurig, one of the many law firms that have cut ties with West in the wake of his antisemitic statements last year, told a California federal judge on Friday (Jan. 13) that the firm had “exhausted all methods” of contacting the rapper, who has legally changed his name to Ye. The cell phone he listed is deactivated, they said, and his reps no longer work for him.
“GT has been unable to locate Ye for personal service despite its best efforts,” attorneys from the prestigious firm wrote. “GT has tried to arrange for personal service by dispatching process servers to his last known location and using all available means to contact Ye and his representatives since November but has not been successful.”
Claiming that Kanye appears to be engaged in “deliberate avoidance and obstruction,” the firm asked the judge to permit an extraordinary alternative: printing a formal public notice in Los Angeles newspapers.
“Publication of the Withdrawal Order’s contents in two Los Angeles-area newspapers, where Ye appears to reside, will also apprise him of the Withdrawal Order,” his former lawyers wrote. “Given Ye’s public status, publication of the Withdrawal Order will likely garner significant media attention, resulting in broader publication and provide an even greater likelihood of apprising Ye of the Order.”
The filing came in a copyright lawsuit that alleged West had failed to pay for a sample he used in the track “Flowers” from his album Donda 2. Greenberg had represented him from the beginning of the case, but following West’s ugly statements, the firm announced publicly in October that it would withdraw: “This firm was founded by individuals who faced discrimination and many of us lost ancestors because of that kind of hate and prejudice.”
The firm got formal approval from the judge to withdraw from the case a short time later. But federal litigation rules and legal ethics require lawyers to serve clients with formal notice that they’ve been dropped; it’s this step that Greenberg says Kanye has evaded.
The request will require approval from the judge overseeing the case. West could not immediately be located for comment on Friday’s letter from his former lawyers.
In the wake of his public self-destruction last year, West has lost nearly every aspect of his once-formidable business empire. His representatives at CAA have dropped him, and his signature fashion partnerships with Adidas, The Gap and Balenciaga have all been terminated.
His lawyers have done the same. In addition to Greenberg, West has also been dropped by Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, the prestigious Wall Street firm that repped him in his dealings with The Gap; Cohen Clair Lans Greifer Thorpe & Rottenstreich, who repped him in his divorce from Kim Kardashian; and Brown Rudnick partner Camille Vasquez, who rose to prominence representing Johnny Depp in his defamation case against Amber Heard and briefly repped West last fall. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan partner Alex Spiro, who reps Jay-Z and Elon Musk, publicly clarified that West sought to hire him but never did so.
Read Greenberg Traurig’s full letter here:
BMG Rights Management is facing a new lawsuit claiming the publisher has failed to pay royalties from Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars‘ smash hit “Uptown Funk” to the families of late members of the Gap Band who are credited as co-writers on the song.
In a complaint filed Thursday in Manhattan federal court, the heirs of Robert and Ronnie Wilson claim that BMG breached a 2015 deal that was inked because “Uptown Funk” incorporated elements of the Gap Band’s 1979 song “I Don’t Believe You Want to Get Up and Dance (Oops Upside Your Head).”
“Despite its obligations to account for and pay to plaintiffs their share of all income received from the Uptown Funk musical composition, BMG has refused and failed to provide either the funds due to plaintiffs or an accounting despite plaintiffs’ repeated demands,” the lawsuit says.
A rep for BMG did not immediately return a request for comment on the allegations on Friday. Mars and Ronson are not accused of any wrongdoing and are not named in the lawsuit.
In a statement, Wilson family attorney Michael Steger told Billboard that his clients had been “working for years” to receive credit for their contributions to “Uptown Funk” and had been “left with no choice but to pursue litigation to protect their rights.”
As reported by Billboard at the time, the songwriting credits to “Uptown Funk” were suddenly amended in 2015, months after the song was released. After the owners of “Oops Upside Your Head” filed a claim against the song on YouTube – and in the cautious aftermath of a blockbuster infringement verdict over Robin Thicke‘s “Blurred Lines” — the five co-writers of the Gap Band song were each given 3.4% stakes in the then-new track.
The new case was filed by Linda Wilson, the widow of Ronnie Wilson, and by Robin Lynn Wilson, LaTina Wilson and Robena Wilson, the heirs of Robert Wilson, over those two late band members’ respective 3.4% stakes. The other three members who received such stakes are not involved in the case.
In their complaint, the Wilson heirs called the new allegations of non-payment against BMG “yet another chapter in a long-running series of disputes” over the hit song, which spent 14 weeks atop the Hot 100 and 56 total weeks on the chart.
They aren’t wrong. In the years after “Uptown Funk” was released, at least three lawsuits were filed claiming Ronson and Mars stole elements from earlier songs. One case involved the 1983 song “Young Girls” by the band Collage; another centered on the 1980 funk song “More Bounce to the Ounce” by the band Zapp; the third alleged they copied material from the 1979 classic “Funk You Up” by The Sequence.
All three cases were later dropped or settled.
Read the entire new lawsuit against BMG here:
A Los Angeles judge has rejected Live Nation’s first attempt to end a wrongful death lawsuit over the 2021 murder of Drakeo The Ruler at a music festival, ruling that the late rapper’s family might have a valid case against the concert giant.
In a decision issued on Wednesday (Jan. 11), Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco denied Live Nation’s motion to dismiss the case at the outset, ruling that the lawsuit’s allegations, if later proven to be true, could put the company on the hook for Drakeo’s killing.
“[The lawsuit] sufficiently alleges that security was lax at the second checkpoint and that despite the presence of security guards and metal detectors, some vehicles were not adequately searched or not searched at all, thus allowing the assailants to enter the ‘all-access VIP’ area,” Judge Orozco wrote in the ruling.
Seeking to dismiss the case at the outset, Live Nation had argued that the mob attack on Drakeo backstage at the Once Upon A Time in L.A. festival was a unique tragedy and not the kind of thing a concert promoter could have “foreseen” in planning the event — a key requirement in any such negligence case. But in her ruling, Judge Orozco rejected that argument.
“The fact that defendants knew security would be needed for the event, supports the finding that the performing artists’ safety was a concern for defendants and foreseeable to defendants,” the judge wrote.
Wednesday’s ruling is not a decision on the merits of the allegations; it merely allows the case to move forward into discovery, where Drakeo’s family will be able to gather evidence. They will then need to show factual proof that their allegations are true.
A rep for Live Nation did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday.
Then a rising star in the hip hop world, Drakeo the Ruler (real name Darrell Caldwell) was attacked by a large group of assailants and stabbed repeatedly on Dec. 18 while preparing to perform at Once Upon a Time in L.A. The rapper was rushed to the hospital in critical condition, where he later died from his injuries. The Los Angeles Police Department is investigating the attack, but no criminal charges have yet been filed and a suspect has not been named.
Drakeo’s brother, Devante Caldwell, filed the current lawsuit in February, accusing Live Nation of legal negligence over security measures at the concert that he claimed ranged from “lackadaisical to totally absent.” He said Live Nation should have known that nearby South Central Los Angeles was “rife with gang activity” and should have beefed up protection accordingly.
In seeking to toss the case out, Live Nation’s attorneys argued back in July that such generalizations were not enough to legally put the company on the hook for the attack; they said Caldwell’s lawyers needed to point to a specific previous attack that could have raised red flags for Live Nation. But on Wednesday, Judge Orozco rejected that argument — ruling that a broader awareness of danger could suffice.
“Although the occurrence of a mob/gang attack may have occurred for the first time, defendants may nevertheless be held liable if the facts show that the danger was foreseeable and/or preventable,” the judge wrote.
Devante Caldwell’s lawyer, Jovan Blacknell, did not immediately return a request for comment on the decision.
Read the entire decision here:
A lawyer for Marjorie Taylor Greene responded Wednesday to a cease and desist letter from Dr. Dre over her unlicensed use of the rapper’s 1999 smash hit “Still D.R.E.,” promising that the conservative lawmaker would make “no further use” of the song.
Two days after attorneys for Dre threatened to sue the Republican congresswoman for posting a video featuring the song to “promote your divisive and hateful political agenda,” Greene waved the white flag in a brief response.
“We are in receipt of your correspondence of January 9, 2023,” Greene’s lawyer wrote in a copy of the letter obtained by Billboard. “On behalf of Congresswoman Greene, please be advised that no further use of Mr. Young’s copyright will be made by a political committee or via social media outlet she controls.”
Notably, the response letter was signed by Stefan Passantino, a former Trump administration lawyer who briefly made headlines last month over his work representing White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, a key witness for the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
The video in question — posted Monday morning (Jan. 9) on Greene’s social media accounts — featured the Republican representative strutting through the halls of Congress in slow motion, grinning at the camera as Dre’s infamous piano riff from “Still D.R.E.” repeats on a loop. By Monday evening, the video had already been disabled by Twitter.
After the video was posted, Dre quickly released a public statement, saying he would never license his music to someone as “divisive and hateful” as Greene. In a letter later that day, his attorney Howard King threatened to sue for copyright infringement — warning Greene that a federal lawmaker “should be making laws not breaking laws.”
“One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country,” King wrote. “It’s possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on.”
Wednesday’s response from Greene was exactly what was requested of her by Dre and King, who demanded that she respond with confirmation that the video had been removed by 5 p.m. ET on Wednesday. But it would not prevent the star from still choosing to sue her over the republication of his song, however briefly it existed online.
Perhaps hinting at that possibility, Greene and Passantino’s letter stressed that it should not be read as “an admission of any fact or waiver of any rights or defenses.” Dre’s lawyer King did not immediately return a request for comment on whether he would pursue additional action against Greene.
The response is a notable change of tone for Greene, who on Monday responded to Dre’s threats with a sharply-worded statement to TMZ: “While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs.”
Singer and influencer Malú Trevejo is being sued by four former staffers for abuse.
According to the lawsuit, obtained by Billboard, plaintiffs Victoria Barreto, Ralph Colon, Edwardo Vidal and Witchneverson Lacroix allege they “endured mental, emotional, sexual and physical punishment” during their employment with the 20-year-old artist. They are now suing her for battery, defamation and sexual misconduct, among other complaints, and are seeking $4 million in damages.
Trevejo’s ex-employees — who stopped working for her between 2021 and 2022 — also claim that the Cuban-American social media star, who rose to prominence in 2017 with her first single, “Luna Llena,” berated them with racial slurs.
According to the civil lawsuit — filed in Miami against the singer and her company — Trevejo made sexual advances toward Barreto, who was hired in October 2021 as Trevejo’s personal assistant, once she began working for her. Barreto claims Trevejo asked her to “sleep with her in her bed, cuddle with her and watch television, controlling and claiming possession of” her during the course of her employment (which lasted three months). When she turned down Trevejo’s requests, Barreto “experienced increased aggression, dismissive responses” and would be called “stupid” or “dumb,” she claims.
Also in the complaint, Colon, who is listed as Trevejo’s security/bodyguard, claims he was “abused” by her one week after starting the job. According to Colon, Trevejo “frequently ignored” his security advice, “forcing” him to put himself in the line of danger in “avoidable” situations.
In a statement to Billboard, Trevejo’s attorney said, “Ms. Trevejo is aware of the false allegations in the lawsuit and looks forward to defending herself against these baseless claims.”
The lawsuit comes almost five years after Trevejo was granted a motion to disaffirm her obligations under her recording agreement with Universal Music Latino, a division of UMG Recordings. Malú asserted that her contract with Universal Music Latin was void on grounds that she was underage (14 years old) when she signed the recording and co-management agreement with Universal Music Latino imprint In-Tu Linea, adding that it was never certified by the court.
You can read the full lawsuit below.