Legal News
Page: 87
Harry Styles is on the legal offensive to combat fake merch on the internet.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Chicago federal court, the pop star sued a number of online sellers for allegedly violating his intellectual property rights by selling counterfeit merchandise to unsuspecting Harry fans.
Arguing that the counterfeiters use misleading tactics to make it “difficult for consumers to distinguish such stores from an authorized retailer,” attorneys for Styles want a judge to issue a sweeping court order that would, among other things, force big web platforms like Amazon and Etsy (who are not named as defendants) to immediately shut down the listings.
“Plaintiff is forced to file this action to combat defendants’ counterfeiting of its registered trademarks, as well as to protect unknowing consumers from purchasing counterfeit products over the Internet,” the star’s lawyers wrote.
In bringing the case, Styles is employing an anti-counterfeiting tactic that’s frequently used by big brands to fight fakes on the internet.
Such cases, filed against huge lists of URLs rather than actual people, allow brands to shut pirate sites down en masse, win court orders to freeze their assets, and continue to kill new sites if they pop up. The lawsuits also usually result in massive monetary judgments against the sellers, but those are typically hard to actually collect from elusive counterfeiters.
Notably, the counterfeiters that Styles is targeting in the lawsuit are not currently disclosed, because such lawsuits are designed to take them by surprise: “If defendants were to learn of these proceedings prematurely, the likely result would be the destruction of relevant documentary evidence and the hiding or transferring of assets to foreign jurisdictions,” the pop star’s lawyers told the judge.
Such lawsuits are more common among big retails brands — Nike, Ray-Ban, Toyota and Tommy Hilfiger have all filed nearly-identical cases in the past two months — but the music industry also regularly uses the same tactic. Nirvana sued nearly 200 sites for selling fake gear in January; a few months later, the late rapper XXXTentacion’s company filed a similar case.
In his lawsuit, Styles claimed the counterfeiters are mostly located in China, or in “other foreign jurisdictions with lax trademark enforcement system.” And he claimed they used sophisticated methods to target fans searching for Harry’s merch while avoiding detection, including “multiple fictitious aliases” and the use of meta tags.
“Tactics used by defendants to conceal their identities and the full scope of their operation make it virtually impossible for plaintiff to learn defendants’ true identities and the exact interworking of their counterfeit network,” the star’s attorneys wrote.
More than four years after gunmen killed emerging rap star XXXTentacion during a robbery outside a South Florida motorcycle shop, three suspects are now scheduled to go on trial. Shooting suspect Michael Boatwright, 28, and his accused accomplices, Dedrick Williams, 26, and Trayvon Newsome, 24, could all receive life sentences if convicted of first-degree murder. They are also charged with armed robbery. They have pleaded not guilty.
A fourth man, Robert Allen, 26, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder last year and is expected to testify against the other three. Jury selection is set to begin Jan. 18 and is expected to last three weeks. The trial is expected to last into March. In pretrial hearings, the defendants’ attorneys have suggested there were others who had financial and personal motives for killing the singer, including members of his family and other rappers.
“It’s been over four long years in the making. We are excited to take this first step to bringing Dedrick home,” said Mauricio Padilla, Williams’ attorney. The attorneys for Boatwright and Newsome did not respond to emails seeking comment. The COVID-19 pandemic and legal wrangling delayed the start of the trial.
Circuit Judge Michael Usan rejected last week an attempt by Boatwright’s attorney, Joseph Kimok, to have him declared mentally incompetent to stand trial. He also rejected a motion by the defendants’ attorneys to try the three separately.
They argued that evidence presented against just one defendant would be prejudicial to the other two. They also argued that each defense attorney could try to establish his client’s innocence or mitigate his guilt by pointing fingers at the other two suspects — they argued that would unfairly prejudice the jury against the trio. Prosecutor Pascale Achille told Usan that any evidence presented would pertain to all three.
Usan ruled the defense attorneys’ arguments could apply in all trials where there are multiple defendants, but in this case they don’t outweigh the needs of “judicial economy” to not hold three trials if not absolutely required.
XXXTentacion, whose real name was Jahseh Onfroy, had just left Riva Motorsports in suburban Fort Lauderdale on June 18, 2018, with a friend when his BMW was blocked by an SUV that swerved in front. Two masked gunmen emerged, confronted XXXTentacion at the driver’s window and one shot him. They then grabbed a Louis Vuitton bag containing $50,000 cash the singer had just withdrawn from the bank, got back into the SUV and sped away.
XXXTentacion, 20, died at the hospital shortly after. He pronounced his name “Ex ex ex ten-ta-see-YAWN” and was a platinum-selling rising star who tackled issues including prejudice and depression in his songs. He also drew criticism over bad behavior and multiple arrests, including charges that he severely beat and abused his girlfriend.
Investigators say surveillance video from the store and other evidence links the three defendants and Allen to the killing.
They say video shows the SUV arriving at the motorcycle shop just as XXXTentacion and his friend entered. Williams and Allen followed them inside, with Williams making a small purchase. They then walked back to the SUV. About 10 minutes later, XXXTentacion and his friend tried to leave, but the SUV blocked them. Prosecutors say Boatwright and Newsome were the gunmen who confronted the rapper, with Boatwright firing the fatal shots.
Investigators say Boatwright’s fingerprints were found on the driver’s door of the rapper’s BMW. Williams was identified by a Riva Motorsports clerk, who said he was a regular customer. Williams told investigators he did not know the other three were planning a robbery.
A search of Williams’ social media showed photos of him with Allen, who was then identified from the surveillance video. Williams’ girlfriend told investigators that he told her that the other gunman was Newsome. They say cellphone data also links the defendants to the scene.
Photos of Boatwright and Newsome holding up large amounts of $100 bills, timestamped on the night of the killing, were also found on their phones, prosecutors say.
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings, and all the fun stuff in between. This week: A huge group of artists push to clear up uncertainty about termination rights and streaming royalties, Dr. Dre threatens to sue Marjorie Taylor Greene, the man accused of murdering Takeoff is released on bond, and more.
Sign up for the free email version of The Legal Beat here.
THE BIG STORY: Top Artists Demand Streaming Royalties Rule
When I first reported in October that the U.S. Copyright Office was looking to enact an “obscure” rule change about termination rights and streaming royalties, I received a bit of light-hearted criticism from some folks who had been following the issue closely. They conceded that the subject matter was complex — it’s mind-meltingly complex, trust me — but also said that the stakes were huge.
I guess others agree: In a letter sent last week, more than 350 artists, songwriters, managers and lawyers threw their weight behind the Copyright Office’s proposed rule change, saying they were worried about music creators being “deprived of the rights afforded to them by copyright law.” Signed by Don Henley, Sheryl Crow, Sting, Bob Seger, Maren Morris, John Mayer, Dave Matthews, members of The Black Keys and many others, the letter said that opposition to the agency’s new rule would constitute “a vote against songwriters.”
What’s this new rule they’re so fired up about? As mentioned, it’s pretty arcane stuff. (Go read our explainer if you want more details.) But basically:
The group created by the Music Modernization Act in 2018 to collect mechanical royalties from streaming services (the Mechanical Licensing Collective, or MLC) enacted a new policy in 2021, dealing with who should receive such royalties after a songwriter invokes their termination right. Termination is a provision under copyright law that allows creators to take back control of their works decades after signing them away to a publisher. The problem? The MLC’s new policy seemed to say that if a song had already been uploaded to Spotify’s server prior to when a songwriter invoked their termination right, those royalties would need to keep flowing to their old publisher — seemingly forever — regardless of who now owned them.
That bizarre outcome would seem to be at odds with the basic point of termination, which is designed to help original creators finally derive value from their own works. So in October, the Copyright Office proposed a new rule requiring the MLC to “immediately repeal its policy in full,” calling it an “erroneous” reading of the law. And last week, spurred by groups like the Music Artists Coalition, a huge number of influential members of the music industry said they agreed.
Some of the wording of the letter — about a “vote against songwriters” — was pretty ominous. But it doesn’t seem like there’s any real industry opposition to the Copyright Office’s change. The National Music Publishers’ Association has quibbles about how such changes are enacted, fearing that they might lead to uncertainty and litigation over past practices. But the group says it fully supports a rule change and the goal of making sure that terminating songwriters actually get paid.
Will the Copyright Office enact the new rule as originally proposed, or make changes when the final rule is released? We’ll let you know what the final rule looks like — and whether everyone likes it.
Other top stories this week…
DR. DRE WARNS REPUBLICAN – Dr. Dre sent a scathing cease-and-desist letter to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, threatening the conservative lawmaker with a copyright lawsuit for using the rapper’s 1999 smash hit “Still D.R.E.” without permission in a social media post. “One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country,” the letter read.
MORE MUSIC TROUBLE FOR TRILLER – Universal Music Group filed a lawsuit against Triller over allegations that the video-sharing app has failed to make payments for months under its music licensing agreements, despite “lavish” spending elsewhere.
MIGOS MURDER SUSPECT RELEASED – Patrick Xavier Clark, the man accused of murdering Migos rapper Takeoff, was released from a Houston jail after posting a $1 million bond. He was placed under house arrest and will be subject to GPS monitoring.
LAWSUIT OVER UMG’S SPOTIFY STAKE – ’90s hip-hop duo Black Sheep filed a class action against Universal Music Group over the label’s ownership stake in Spotify, claiming UMG has accepted low royalties in return for stock in the streaming service. Seeking to represent thousands of others, the case says UMG is “withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties.”
SONY SETTLES FUTURE CASE – Sony Music reached a settlement to end a lawsuit that claimed the name of Future’s chart-topping album High Off Life infringed the trademark rights of a company called High Off Life LLC, a creative agency that says it’s used the name for years.
ROCKER ARRESTED ON GUN CHARGES – Matt Shultz, the lead singer of the band Cage the Elephant, was arrested in New York City and hit with two charges of criminal possession of a weapon after police found two loaded firearms in his room at the Bowery Hotel.
MARILYN MANSON CASE DROPPED – A federal judge tossed out one of the several sexual abuse lawsuits filed against Marilyn Manson, dismissing a case filed by model Ashley Morgan Smithline because she failed to retain a new lawyer after splitting with her old legal team last fall.
GLORIA TREVI ABUSE SUIT – Mexican pop star Gloria Trevi was hit with a new lawsuit over a decades-old claim of sexual assault against two minors, who alleged the singer “groomed” and “exploited” them when they were between the ages of 13 and 15 back in the early 1990s. Trevi strongly denied the accusations, saying she’d been “totally acquitted” when such claims were made in a criminal case in Mexico in the 2000s.
Lawyers for Dr. Dre sent a scathing cease-and-desist letter to Marjorie Taylor Greene on Monday (Jan. 9), threatening her with legal action after she used the rapper’s 1999 smash hit “Still D.R.E.” without permission in a social media post.
Hours after the superstar publicly slammed the Republican congresswoman over the post — he said he’d never license his song to someone so “divisive and hateful” — his lawyers formally told Taylor Greene that her post constituted copyright infringement and that she had until Wednesday to remove it.
“You are wrongfully exploiting his work through the various social media outlets to promote your divisive and hateful political agenda,” wrote attorney Howard King in a copy of the letter obtained by Billboard.
The video in question — posted Monday morning on Greene’s social media accounts — features 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.
If actually unlicensed, the use of a copyrighted song in a political advertisement would almost certainly constitute infringement. In Monday’s letter, Dre’s lawyers told Greene as much — and then some.
“The United States Copyright Act says a lot of things, one of the things it says is that you can’t use someone else’s song for your political campaign promotions unless you get permission from the owner of the copyright in the song, a step you failed to take,” King wrote.
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, Rihanna and the estate of Tom Petty have all spoken out about their music being used at campaign events for Donald Trump.
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 their music from being played at political rallies. But the use of music in a video advertisement is far more straightforward; if a politician doesn’t secure a license, a musician has a great case for copyright infringement.
In Monday’s letter, Dre’s lawyers said that a federal lawmaker ought to know that.
“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. We’re writing because we think an actual lawmaker should be making laws not breaking laws, especially those embodied in the constitution by the founding fathers.”
Greene’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Billboard, but she reportedly told 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.”
Universal Music Group is suing Triller over allegations that the video-sharing app has failed to make payments for months under its music licensing agreements, echoing accusations made by Sony Music Entertainment in a similar lawsuit last year.
In a complaint filed Thursday (Jan. 6) in Los Angeles court, the music giant’s publishing arm claimed that Triller stopped making payments in April 2022 under two different licensing deals and had missed several required payments since.
Universal says it filed a notice of default in November and terminated the deal earlier this week, but that Triller has still not paid the money it owes — despite allegedly spending plenty of cash elsewhere.
“During the same period that Triller was defaulting on its payment and reporting obligations, it was reported that Triller was spending substantial amounts of money acquiring companies … and throwing lavish events catering to members of the media and entertainment industry,” the company wrote.
Universal says Triller has also breached provisions that require the company to report how the music has been used on the platform. Combined with the lack of payment, Universal cited the breaches as cause to terminate the licensing contract, effective Jan. 3.
In a statement to Billboard, Triller downplayed the seriousness of the case, saying it dealt with only “a very small percentage of the catalogue, and is the ordinary course of business for the music industry and over a small amount of money.”
“This will be decided upon in a proper venue in a few years, and we clearly believe we are in the right and that a court will find in our favor,” Triller wrote in the statement. “It’s a plain vanilla case that virtually every social network has faced in one form or another. It’s not the first and won’t be the last but similar to the past disputes of these nature they tend to settle quietly and end up being a lot to do about nothing .”
The lawsuit is the latest recent legal trouble for Triller. Sony filed a similar case in August, saying it had terminated its licensing deal with the company after months of non-payment. That case, filed in federal court, claimed that Triller had continued to use Sony music without a license — meaning it had also infringed Sony’s copyrights. The case remains pending.
Before that, Triller got into a messy fight with Swizz Beatz and Timbaland, who sued in August over allegations that they were still owed $28 million from the sale of their Verzuz livestream series to Triller. The company was sued again later that month by a smartphone app consulting firm, which claimed the company had failed to pay more than $100,000 in fees. Both cases were quickly settled on confidential terms.
It’s also not the first sign of problems between Triller and Universal. In early 2021, the music giant abruptly pulled its catalog from the platform, claiming Triller had “shamefully withheld” artist payments. Three months later, the two companies announced a new worldwide licensing agreement, spanning recorded music and publishing and restoring the UMG catalog to the app. But in December, UMG was one of several major music companies to again be pulled down from the platform.
The man accused of murdering Migos rapper Takeoff was released from a Houston jail late Wednesday (Jan. 4) after posting a $1 million bond, court records show.
According to filings in Harris County court and from the Harris County Sheriff’s Office obtained by Billboard, Patrick Xavier Clark posted bond on Wednesday and was released at 8:47 p.m. local time. He’s due back in court for a hearing on March 9.
Bond had initially been set at $2 million, but Clark’s lawyers argued that that figure was excessive and potentially unconstitutional — essentially a backdoor to simply denying bond altogether. After they demanded the figure be lowered to $100,000, the judge agreed to reduce it to $1 million on Dec. 14.
Court records show Clark will still be under 24/7 hour arrest, cannot have any contact with anyone involved, and will be required to wear a GPS monitor that can immediately notify prosecutors and defense attorneys of any violations. He must also submit to drug testing and cannot drink alcohol, as court records indicate that “alcohol was a factor in the offense.”
A representative for the late star did not immediately return a request for comment on Clark’s release. Clark’s lawyer also did not respond to a request for comment.
Takeoff (born Kirshnik Khari Ball), 28, was shot and killed Nov. 1 during a private party he attended at 810 Billiards & Bowling in downtown Houston with his uncle and bandmate, Quavo. The musician was killed by “penetrating gunshot wounds of head and torso into arm,” according to a report from the Harris County coroner’s office. Clark, 33, was arrested on the east side of Houston on Nov. 1 and charged with murder; another man, 22-year-old Cameron Joshua, was arrested and charged with the unlawful carrying of a weapon.
Sony Music has reached a settlement to end a lawsuit that claimed the name of Future’s chart-topping album High Off Life infringed the trademark rights of a creative agency that uses that exact same name.
High Off Life LLC sued Sony in 2020, alleging the label had “destroyed” the smaller company’s brand by using the name for the title of Future’s eight studio album. Though Sony argued an album name was protected by the First Amendment, a federal judge refused to dismiss the case last year.
But in a motion filed Tuesday, both sides agreed to end the case. The terms of the settlement, like whether any money exchanged hands or any names would be changed, were not publicly disclosed. Attorneys for both sides did not return requests for comment.
High Off Life reached the top spot on the Billboard 200 in May 2020. It was originally set to be titled “Life Is Good” – the name of the album’s third single – but the name was switched at the last minute as the COVID-19 pandemic swept made life somewhat less than good.
That was a problem for High Off Life LLC, which filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in October 2020 against Sony and Future’s Freebandz Productions. The company claimed it had been selling “High Off Life” apparel since 2009, had launched a creative agency under the name in 2017, and operates a hip-hop YouTube channel called “High Off Life TV.”
The case claimed that Sony’s promotion of Future’s album had buried the smaller company in search results: “Overnight, Defendants destroyed HOL’s investment of many years and many thousands of dollars into building consumer recognition.”
To beat the lawsuit, Sony and Freebandz cited something called the Rogers test — a legal doctrine that makes it very difficult to win lawsuits over the use of brand names in “expressive works” music. The rule says that authors have a First Amendment right to use trademarks in their work unless it explicitly misleads consumers, or is completely irrelevant to the artwork.
That argument might have prevailed eventually, but U.S. District Judge Scott Hardy ruled in April that it was too early to make that call. The decision allowed the case to proceed into discovery, where both sides to gather evidence and build their cases.
A prominent ’90s hip-hop duo is suing Universal Music Group for withholding royalties tied to what they’re alleging is a “sweetheart” deal the label reached with Spotify in the late 2000s.
Filed Wednesday (Jan. 4) in U.S. district court in New York by attorneys representing Andres Titus (Dres) and William McLean (Mista Lawnge), members of the hip-hop duo Black Sheep, the lawsuit claims UMG owes its artists approximately $750 million in royalties deriving from the company’s stock in Spotify. Under a licensing deal they claim UMG and the streaming giant reached in 2008, the label agreed to receive lower royalty payments in exchange for equity in the then-nascent streaming company. But Titus and McLean say the label breached their contract with Black Sheep and other artists by withholding what they argue is the artists’ rightful 50% share of UMG’s now-lucrative Spotify stock — and otherwise failing to compensate them for the lower royalty payments they received as a result of the alleged deal.
“Rather than distribute to artists their 50% of Spotify stock or pay artists their true and accurate royalty payments, for years Universal shortchanged artists and deprived Plaintiffs and Class Members of the full royalty payments they were owed under Universal’s contract,” the complaint reads. Titus and McLean further claim that Universal deliberately omitted from royalty statements both the company’s ownership of Spotify stock and the lower streaming royalty payments that resulted from its alleged deal with the streaming service.
“Over time, the value of the Spotify stock that Universal improperly withheld from artists has ballooned to hundreds of millions of dollars,” the complaint continues. “These and the other wrongful conduct detailed herein resulted in the Company’s breaching its contracts with artists, violating the covenant of good faith and fair dealing that is implicit in those contracts, and unjust enrichment at the expense of its artists.”
In a statement sent to Billboard, a UMG spokesperson denied Titus and McLean’s claims: “Universal Music Group’s innovative leadership has led to the renewed growth of the music ecosystem to the benefit of recording artists, songwriters and creators around the world. UMG has a well-established track record of fighting for artist compensation and the claim that it would take equity at the expense of artist compensation is patently false and absurd. Given that this is pending litigation, we cannot comment on all aspects of the complaint.”
According to the lawsuit, Titus and McLean signed a record contract with Polygram in July 1990 (later amended and revised in July 1991) as Black Sheep — the duo best known for the hit rap single “The Choice Is Yours (Revisited)” from their RIAA Gold-selling 1991 album A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing. Black Sheep’s record contract was then assumed by UMG after the company merged with Polygram in 1998.
UMG acquired just over 5% of Spotify shares “in or around the summer of 2008” in a licensing agreement in exchange for lower royalty payments, the complaint adds, citing a 2018 Music Business Worldwide report. It claims that Universal acquired additional Spotify shares through its 2011 purchase of EMI, which had acquired shares in the streaming company around the same time, the suit alleges. It then cites UMG’s own prospectus, released in September 2021, revealing that the label held roughly 6.49 million, or roughly 3.35%, of Spotify shares as of June 30, 2021, valued at 1.475 billion euros ($1.79 billion).
It’s worth noting that UMG’s stake in Spotify has become significantly less lucrative since June 30, 2021, however. As of Wednesday’s closing price, UMG’s stake in Spotify is now worth just $560 million — the result of Spotify shares falling 70.5% over the past 18 months. Notably, Spotify isn’t the only streaming service UMG has equity in; according to the same prospectus, it also owns 0.73% of Tencent Music Entertainment shares, a stake that’s currently worth $112.5 million.
Included as an exhibit in the complaint is Black Sheep’s amended July 1991 contract with Polygram, which states that royalties paid to Titus and McLean “‘shall be a sum equal to fifty percent (50%) of [Universal’s] net receipts with respect to’ the ‘exploitation’ for any ‘use or exploitation’ of ‘Master Recordings’ created by Plaintiffs.” The plaintiffs claim they and other UMG artists are thereby entitled to 50% of the labels’ Spotify stock but that UMG has failed to pay it. This demand stems from a couple of broad assumptions: that all artists in the class signed similar contracts and that they were similarly not compensated with a portion of UMG’s stock holdings in Spotify.
The plaintiffs are asking for compensatory damages, punitive damages and an injunction “or other appropriate equitable relief” requiring UMG “to refrain from engaging in deceptive practices” as outlined in the lawsuit.
UMG isn’t alone among the major labels in acquiring Spotify stock — both Sony and Warner Music, as well as indie Merlin, also have or had stakes in the company. In May 2018, Sony sold half of its 5.707% stake in Spotify for an estimated $761 million, while that same month Merlin announced it sold its entire stake for an unknown amount and had shared the proceeds with its members. Warner followed suit in August 2018 when it sold its entire 2% stake in the streamer for $504 million, with the company announcing that around $126 million of the proceeds would be paid out to the company’s artists.
UMG has yet to sell any of its stock in the streaming giant.
-Additional reporting by Glenn Peoples
You can read the full lawsuit below.
A federal judge has tossed out a sexual abuse lawsuit filed against Marilyn Manson by model Ashley Morgan Smithline, citing the fact that she failed to retain a new lawyer after splitting with her old legal team last fall.
Smithline’s lawsuit, one of many claims of sexual abuse filed against Manson (real name Brian Warner) over the past two years, alleged that the rocker raped and abused her multiple times between 2010 and 2013. But in an order issued Tuesday (Jan. 3), Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha dismissed the case.
The reason? After Smithline split with her attorney Jay D. Ellwanger in October, the judge gave her until Dec. 5 to find a new lawyer — or to explain how she’d handle the case on her own as a so-called pro se litigant. She never did either, leading to Tuesday’s decision.
“Plaintiff has not filed a response as of the date of this order,” the judge wrote. “The court, therefore, dismisses this action … for plaintiffs failure to prosecute the action.”
The case was dismissed “without prejudice” — meaning Smithline could still refile the same claims at some point in the future. She could not immediately be located for comment; Ellwanger did not return a request for comment.
In a statement to Billboard, Manson’s attorney Howard King praised the outcome: “We thank and commend Ashley Smithline for dismissing her claims against Brian Warner without seeking or receiving anything in return. Ms. Smithline has refused to be manipulated by others who are trying to pursue their own agendas against Mr. Warner. We wish her well and will continue to work to assure that a significant price will be paid by those who have tried to abuse our legal system.”
Manson has faced multiple accusations of wrongdoing over the past two years.
Evan Rachel Wood, who began publicly dating Manson in 2007 when she was 19 and he was 39, accused him in a February 2021 Instagram post of “grooming me when I was a teenager” before he “horrifically abused me for years.” Those allegations were followed by separate lawsuits from Smithline, former assistant Ashley Walters, Game of Thrones actress Esme Bianco and a Jane Doe accuser.
In her lawsuit, Smithline made graphic and disturbing allegations of sexual assault against Manson. She alleged that she and Manson began a consensual relationship in 2010, but that it “quickly became apparent that consensual sex was not enough for Mr. Warner.”
“Ms. Smithline awoke from unconsciousness with her ankles and wrists tied together behind her back and Mr. Warner sexually penetrating her,” Smithline’s lawyers wrote in the lawsuit. “Ms. Smithline told Mr. Warner to stop and said no multiple times, and Mr. Warner told her to ‘shut the fuck up’ and ‘be quiet.’”
Manson has denied all of the allegations against him and even filed his own defamation lawsuit accusing Wood and another woman of orchestrating the many legal attacks against him. In the March 2022 complaint, he said Wood’s own “malicious falsehood” was part of an “organized attack” aimed at derailing his career, in which she had “secretly recruited, coordinated, and pressured prospective accusers to emerge simultaneously.” Wood denies those allegations.
Mexican pop star Gloria Trevi is facing a new lawsuit over a decades-old claim of sexual assault against two minors.
In a civil complaint filed in Los Angeles on Friday (Dec. 30), two Jane Does allege the singer-songwriter and her ex-producer, Sergio Andrade, “groomed” and “exploited” them when they were between the ages of 13 and 15 back in the early 1990s.
The lawsuit, independently obtained by Billboard and first reported on Wednesday by Rolling Stone, does not specifically name Trevi or Andrade — listing them only as anonymous Doe defendants — but based on the timeline of events and the details of the albums included in the suit, it’s clear that Trevi and Andrade are the defendants.
According to the plaintiffs, Trevi and Andrade used their “role, status, and power as a well-known and successful Mexican pop star and a famous producer” to coerce sexual contact with them over a course of years, much of it occurring in California. As a result of the sexual harassment, abuse and assault, the Plaintiffs have “suffered severe emotional, physical and psychological distress, including humiliation, shame, and guilt.”
The 30-page lawsuit, which includes claims of childhood sexual abuse, harassment and/or assault, was filed just days before the expiration of California’s Child Victims Act, which temporarily suspended the statute of limitations for sexual abuse lawsuits. After a three-year window of availability, the deadline to file such long-delayed lawsuits was Dec. 31, 2022.
The new allegations against the “Todos Me Miran” singer come nearly 20 years after she was acquitted by a judge and found not guilty on charges of rape, kidnapping and corruption of minors. This resulted in the immediate release of Trevi, who was being held at a prison in Chihuahua, Mexico and faced up to 25 years behind bars.
The previous trial occurred after Trevi, Andrade and backup singer María Raquenel Portillo, also known as Mary Boquitas, were arrested in January 2000 in Rio de Janeiro for allegedly luring young girls into a cult-like pornographic ring. Former vocalist Karina Yapor, who filed criminal charges against the so-called Trevi clan, alleged that backup recruits wanting to join the band were forced to have sexual relations with Andrade.
A representative for Trevi declined a request for comment.
Read the entire lawsuit here: