Legal News
Page: 89
A Manhattan federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing Donald Glover of ripping off his chart-topping Childish Gambino hit “This Is America” from an earlier song, ruling that the two tracks are “entirely different.”
A rapper named Kidd Wes (real name Emelike Nwosuocha) sued in 2021, claiming Glover’s 2018 song was “practically identical” to his own 2016 called “Made In America.” But in a decision issued Friday (March 24), U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said they were anything but.
“A cursory comparison with the challenged composition reveals that the content of the choruses is entirely different and not substantially similar,” the judge wrote.
In reaching that conclusion, Judge Marrero briefly explained how Nwosuocha’s lyrics were a “short, simple, self-aggrandizing proclamation,” while Glover’s song was about “what America means and how it is perceived.”
“More could be said on the ways these songs differ, but no more airtime is needed to resolve this case,” the judge wrote.
Released in 2018, “This Is America” spent two weeks atop the Hot 100 and eventually won record of the year and song of the year at the 61st Annual Grammy Awards. It was accompanied by a critically acclaimed music video, directed by Hiro Murai, that touched on issues of race, mass shootings and police violence.
Nwosuocha sued in May 2021, claiming there were “unmissable” similarities between the song and his own “Made In America,” including the “flow” — the cadence, rhyming schemes, rhythm and other characteristics of hip hop lyrics.
“The distinctive flow employed in defendant Glover’s recorded performance of the infringing work’s chorus … is unmistakably substantially similar, if not practically identical, to the distinct and unique flow that was employed by Nwosuocha,” his lawyers wrote at the time.
But in Friday’s decision, Judge Marrero said the “flow” and other similar characteristics “lack sufficient originality” to be protected by copyrights. And “no reasonable jury” could find that the lyrics themselves were similar enough to constitute copyright infringement, the judge said.
The judge also ruled that the case failed for an even simpler reason: That Nwosuocha had failed to secure a federal copyright registration for the underlying composition to his song. “Accordingly, dismissal of Nwosuocha’s complaint is warranted.”
In a statement to Billboard, Nwosuocha’s attorneys Imran H. Ansari and La’Shawn N. Thomas said their client was “understandably disappointed” and considering appealing the ruling. “He stands by his music, creativity, and the independence of grassroots artists to create their own music, and receive credit where credit is due, without the fear of it being apportioned by another.”
An attorney for Glover did not immediately return a request for comment on the decision.
An R. Kelly victim who won a $4 million judgment against the singer will get first crack at pulling money from the singer’s royalty account with Sony Music — after the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that her claims should take priority over a Chicago landlord that’s also owed millions.
In a decision on Thursday (March 23), the state high court said Heather Williams was entitled to tap into Kelly’s account with Sony — valued at $1.5 million in 2020 — before Midwest Commercial Funding, a property manager that won its own separate $3.5 million ruling against Kelly over unpaid rent at a Chicago studio, can access it.
Williams filed a civil lawsuit against Kelly in 2019, alleging that when she was 16 years old, the singer lured her into his studio with promises that she could be in a music video and then repeatedly had sex with her as a minor. In 2020, she won a judgment of $4 million against Kelly on those accusations.
Thursday’s decision upheld a lower court’s earlier ruling that Williams — and not Midwest Commercial — should be given priority access to the royalties because she was the first to properly demand the money from Sony. That earlier ruling had ordered Sony to hand over to Williams “any funds currently in Kelly’s royalty account,” and to keep giving her his royalties until the judgment was paid off.
Disbursement of Kelly’s funds held by Sony has been paused while litigation has played out; it’s unclear how much money is now in the account. The company is not named in any lawsuits and is not accused of any wrongdoing. A rep for Sony declined to comment on the ruling or on the status of Kelly’s royalties.
Following Thursday’s ruling, Kelly’s attorney, Jennifer Bonjean, tells Billboard that she’s currently seeking to overturn the underlying $4 million judgment. She says the award to Williams — a so-called default judgment, meaning it was issued after Kelly failed to respond — “never should have been entered.”
“I’ve never in my career seen such a flouting of the rules to deny him even the opportunity to defend these civil cases, even when the courts were fully aware that Kelly was incarcerated, unrepresented at points, and facing multiple criminal indictments,” Bonjean says. “Indeed, much of these civil proceedings occurred without Kelly’s knowledge.”
But the $4 million judgment was already upheld once by an appeals court, and Bonjean said she faces an “uphill battle” to overturn the judgment because of the actions of Kelly’s prior lawyers.
An attorney for Williams declined to comment on the litigation. An attorney for Midwest Commercial Funding did not return a request for comment.
Though Thursday’s decision gave priority to Williams over Midwest Commercial Funding, it’s unclear whether she’ll enjoy similar priority over a slew of additional monetary penalties that Kelly owes to victims as a result of his federal criminal convictions.
After he was sentenced last summer to 30 years in prison for sex trafficking and racketeering in New York, Kelly was ordered to pay more than $480,000 in fines and restitution; after he was sentenced in February on child pornography charges in Illinois, another $42,000 was tacked on. Last fall, prosecutors confiscated nearly $30,000 in Kelly’s prison account in an effort to start paying those penalties.
A representative for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York declined to comment on the impact of Thursday’s ruling or the status of federal restitution efforts against Kelly. A rep for the Us Attorney’s Office in Illinois did not immediately return a request for comment.
The rapper Afroman is facing a civil lawsuit from several Ohio police officers who say he caused them “emotional distress” by using their images on social media and merchandise after they raided his home last year.
In a complaint filed March 13, seven members of the sheriff’s department in Adams County accused the rapper (real name Joseph Forman) of violating their rights by posting the images, which were snapped by surveillance cameras while they executed a search warrant with guns drawn on his home last August.
The deputies (Shawn D. Cooley, Justin Cooley, Michael D. Estep, Shawn S. Grooms, Brian Newland, Lisa Phillips and Randolph L. Walters, Jr.) claim they have been “subjected to threats, including death threats” because of Afroman’s posts.
“As a result of defendants’ actions, plaintiffs have been subjected to ridicule, even in the further performance of their official duties, by members of the public,” a lawyer for the officers wrote. “It has made it more difficult and even more dangerous for plaintiffs to carry out their official duties.”
In a response statement posted to Instagram on Thursday (March 23), the rapper said the officers were “criminals caught in the act of vandalizing and stealing money” who had “lost their right of privacy.”
“My video footage is my property,” he said. “I used it to identify criminals, who broke into my house, stole my money and disconnected my home security system. I use my footage of my property to raise money to pay for the damages they done and to identify the criminals operating inside of the sheriff department.”
Later in the same statement, an attorney for the rapper said she was “planning to counter sue for the unlawful raid, money being stolen, and for the undeniable damage this had on my clients family, career and property.”
According to a report by the Cincinnati Enquirer, deputies raided Afroman’s Winchester, Ohio home on Aug. 21, seizing $5,031 in cash and other evidence while executing a search warrant linked to suspicions of drug trafficking. No charges were ever filed and the money was later returned. At the time, the rapper publicly claimed that $400 was missing from the amount returned, but a state investigation eventually found that the discrepancy was due to a miscount, not missing cash.
After the search, Afroman repeatedly posted video and images of the raid on social media, using them to express outrage at alleged damage done to his property and at what he viewed as excessive use of force. One video showed officers searching his home under the title “watch cops steal money.” He later used some of those images on t-shirts and other merchandise, including one that compared one of the officers to an obese character from the animated sitcom Family Guy.
In the complaint filed last week, the officers claimed those posts and merchandise amounted to an unauthorized commercial exploitation of their likeness, as well as an invasion of their privacy.
“Some of defendants’ postings … gave publicity to matters concerning the private lives of Plaintiffs which were not of legitimate concern to the public,” the officers wrote. “As a result of defendants’ unreasonable publicity of the private lives of plaintiffs, they have suffered embarrassment, ridicule, emotional distress, humiliation, and loss of reputation.”
Read the entire complaint here:
3LAU is close to a settlement to end a lawsuit claiming the DJ refused to properly share the earnings from an $11.7 million NFT auction with a musical collaborator.
Citing the fact that the two sides were “near a settlement in principle,” a New York federal judge on Monday tentatively dismissed the lawsuit filed by musician Luna Aura over the huge proceeds from the much-publicized NFT auction of his album Ultraviolet.
Aura (real name Angela Anne Flores) launched the lawsuit last fall, claiming 3LAU (real name Justin Blau) offered her just $25,000 from, even though she said she was owed a 50 percent recording royalty from one of the songs on the album called “Walk Away.”
“Despite this financial windfall, defendants only offered Luna Aura a flat one-time payment of twenty-five thousand dollars as compensation in connection with the sale of Ultraviolet and ‘Walk Away’ NFTs,” her lawyers wrote at the time. 3LAU strongly denied the allegations, with his manager saying they would “vigorously defend the lawsuit.”
Specific terms of the tentative settlement were not disclosed in public court records, and neither side provided additional details when contacted by Billboard. If the deal is not finalized within 30 days, the judge said the parties could reopen the case and resume litigating.
Even during 2021’s fever-dream craze for NFTs (non-fungible tokens), 3LAU’s Feb. 2021 auction stood out as notable. By selling 33 collectible tokens linked to his 3-year-old album Ultraviolet — the NFTs gave the buyers access to vinyl copies, unreleased music and other special experiences — the DJ-producer raked in $11.7 million. “It was one of those moments in my life where I was like, ‘Holy s—,’” 3LAU told Billboard at the time. “‘I think we just changed everything.’”
But according to Aura’s November lawsuit, he didn’t share those profits with a key person who helped create the album. She says her contract guaranteed her a 50% recording royalty on “Walk Away,” and that she also owned 30% of the underlying musical composition. The lawsuit did not specify exactly how much moneys he believed she was owed from the auction.
In a statement to Billboard after the case was filed, 3LAU’s manager Andrew Goldstone strongly denied the allegations: “These claims are without merit, and we will vigorously defend the lawsuit that was just filed yesterday without any prior notice. There are no set standards for how to approach an NFT project like this, which involved much more than just the music. Justin’s team tried for months to reach a deal with Flores in good faith, but she stopped responding and instead chose to file a lawsuit.”
Goldstone declined to comment on Monday’s order announcing the near-settlement. Aura’s attorney, Moish E. Peltz, did not return a request for comment.
Sony Music Entertainment has quietly been battling for more than two years against the creator of a popular TikTok song over allegations that he prominently sampled a 1986 track by Japanese composer Toshifumi Hinata without “paying a cent.”
In a lawsuit first filed in December and refiled this week, Sony claims that Trefuego (real name Dantreal Daevon Clark-Rainbolt) made “flagrant” use of Hinata’s “Reflections” in his own song “90mh” — a track that’s allegedly been featured in 155,000 videos on TikTok and been streamed 100 million times on Spotify since it was released in 2019.
“In copying the ‘Reflections’ musical composition and sound recording, Trefuego brazenly sought to ride the coattails of Hinata’s creativity and popularity without regard to the United States copyright laws or the rights of Plaintiffs,” the label’s attorneys wrote.
Sony says it first took action back in January 2021, notifying Trefuego of the “infringing nature” of his song. After he allegedly refused to remove the song himself, the company filed takedown requests in August 2022 to get it pulled from TikTok, YouTube and Spotify. The company first sued Trefuego in December in Arizona federal court but refiled the case on Monday (March 20) in Texas federal court.
A manager for Trefuego did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday.
An instrumental featuring strings and piano, “Reflections” was released on a 1986 album but has made recent appearances in Netflix’s 2020 film Tigertail and in popular ambient music playlists on Spotify. Amid a “surge” in interest in such music on TikTok and other platforms, Sony says it’s been “highly selective” about allowing the song to be used, granting licenses “only for those projects that Hinata himself might endorse.”
But Trefuego “simply stole” the sample, Sony says.
“Trefuego took a very different approach,” the company claims. “He used and copied plaintiffs’ work without so much as asking, or paying a cent to plaintiffs, and he continued to exploit that music despite plaintiffs’ demand that he stop.”
In terms of the specific music borrowed, Sony claims that Trefuego sampled a 15-note melodic strings sequence accompanied by a looping chord progression played on the piano. That clip is looped throughout the entirety of “90mh,” Sony says.
“Trefuego’s infringement is blatant,” the company wrote. “[His] use of ‘Reflections’ permeates the entirety of the infringing works, and for many listeners, is the only reason they listen to them.”
An attorney for Sony did not immediately return a request for additional comment on the dispute with Trefuego.
Nick Lachey will avoid any charges in connection with a paparazzi run-in last March in which the 98 Degrees singer confronted a photographer after she took a picture of him. People magazine reported that Lachey, 49, has been ordered to attend anger management classes and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings as part of a prefiling diversion program, citing a spokesperson for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
“Mr. Lachey has not been charged with misdemeanor assault and battery. Instead he is participating in LADA’s Prefiling Diversion program,” the LA DA’s office said in a statement. “As part of these conditions he must participate in anger management classes and attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Successful completion of the Prefiling Diversion Program will result in no criminal charges being filed.”
At press time a spokesperson for Lachey had not returned Billboard‘s request for comment. According to reports at the time, Lachey reached into the photog’s car in March 2022 and attempted to grab her phone after he noticed her taking his picture. Writing on Twitter shortly after, Lachey said he’s been “harassed” while walking back to his hotel after dinner with wife Vanessa Lachey and their friend.
“Last night, after enjoying a great dinner with my wife and our dear friend, the paparazzi harassed us as we walked back to our hotel,” he wrote. “I clearly overreacted. I’ve been in this game long enough to know that their antics are sadly part of the deal. Stupid of me. Done.”
In a follow-up tweet, Lachey denied getting violent. “However, for TMZ or anyone else to say that I was violent or that I ‘got physical’ with someone is reckless and absolutely false.” TMZ posted video of the alleged incident at the time, in which Lachey walks toward the car and confronts a woman inside, asking, “is paparazzi still a thing?,” before appearing to reach into the car to take her phone and then turning around, sticking out his tongue and walking away.
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: Post Malone reaches a last-minute settlement to avoid trial in a closely-watched copyright case over his smash hit “Circles”; Bad Bunny faces a lawsuit from an ex-girlfriend over his alleged use of a recording of her voice in songs; a federal appeals court upholds Cardi B’s defamation verdict against a gossip blogger; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: The Big Post Malone Trial … That Didn’t Happen
This morning, I was ready to tell you all about The Next Big Music Trial.
Set to run all this week, it was going to pit Post Malone against Tyler Armes, a musician who claims that he co-wrote the superstar’s chart-topping song “Circles” but was unfairly cut out of the credits. Billboard had reporters at the courthouse, and the case had it all: dramatic text message exchanges; a fateful all-night studio session; thorny questions about who owns what when a song gets written; and much more.
But now, there’s one big thing the case won’t have: a trial.
Minutes before the proceedings were set to start in Los Angeles federal court Tuesday (March 21), a settlement was reached. The judge jokingly waved goodbye to media members gathered to cover the case, and staffers could later be seen wheeling out musical equipment that was set to be utilized during the trial. What a letdown.
The specific terms of the settlement aren’t yet known, and neither side is commenting; we’ll keep an eye out to see if any credits for “Circles” are changed in the coming months. And I’ll let you know about the Next Big Music Trial — for real this time.
To get the full story, go read our full deep-dive breakdown of the case against Malone and our breaking news story about today’s big settlement.
Other top stories this week…
BAD BUNNY FACES VOICE LAWSUIT – Bad Bunny was sued by an ex-girlfriend who says he violated the law by using a recording of her uttering a now-famous catchphrase — “Bad Bunny Baby” — in two of his songs without her consent.
CARDI B’S LIBEL VERDICT AFFIRMED – A federal appeals court upheld Cardi B’s $4 million defamation verdict against Tasha K, a gossip blogger who made salacious false claims about the rapper on YouTube and social media concerning drug use, STDs and prostitution.
CHER v. MARY BONO MOVES AHEAD – More than a year after Cher sued Sonny Bono’s widow, Mary Bono, over a messy mix of royalties, termination rights and divorce law, a federal judge issued an initial ruling refusing to dismiss the case.
XXXTENTACION KILLERS CONVICTED – Three men were found guilty of the 2018 killing of star rapper XXXTentacion, who was shot outside a South Florida motorcycle shop while being robbed of $50,000; all three now face mandatory life sentences. The convictions came after a jury trial that was sometimes overshadowed by defense attorneys’ unsuccessful efforts to pull Drake into the proceedings over his alleged beef with the late rapper.
“THEY DO NOT SOUND ALIKE” – Nickelback beat a copyright lawsuit claiming the band ripped off its 2006 hit “Rockstar” from an earlier song called “Rock Star.” A judge ruled there was zero evidence that the band’s frontman, Chad Kroeger, ever heard the earlier song, adding that the two tracks simply “do not sound alike.”
THE WEEKND SETTLES COPYRIGHT FIGHT – Suniel Fox and Henry Strange, two musicians who sued The Weeknd for allegedly stealing key elements of his 2018 track “Call Out My Name,” reached a settlement with the superstar to end the lawsuit.
YOU KNOW YOU MAKE ME WANNA SUE – The Isley Brothers member Rudolph Isley filed a lawsuit against his brother Ronald Isley, accusing him of improperly attempting to secure a federal trademark registration on the “The Isley Brothers” — even though the name is supposed to be jointly owned.
COPYRIGHTS FOR AI SONGS? – Amid growing interest in the role that could be played in the music industry by “generative AI” tools similar to ChatGPT, a new report from the Copyright Office aimed to offer clarity on when such works can be protected by copyrights — and hinted that a more sweeping study might be in the works.
JAMES DOLAN v. EVERYBODY – Madison Square Garden filed a lawsuit challenging efforts by New York state regulators to revoke the company’s liquor licenses over its use of facial recognition technology, marking the latest defiant act by MSG chairman James Dolan in his increasingly sprawling battle to ban plaintiffs lawyers from his venues.
Post Malone has reached an apparent settlement with a musician who claims he helped create the smash hit “Circles,” ending a contentious lawsuit minutes before a jury trial was set to begin.
Tyler Armes sued in 2020 over allegations that he and Malone co-wrote the song during an all-night jam session in 2018, but that the superstar refused to give him credit. Malone strongly denied the allegations, and a hotly-anticipated trial was set to kick off Tuesday (March 21) in Los Angeles federal court.
But in an abrupt turn of events, U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright indicated Tuesday morning that a settlement had been reached to avert trial.
Just before a jury was to be selected, the judge jokingly waved goodbye to assembled media and cleared the courtroom. Staffers could later been seen removing musical equipment from the courtroom that had been prepared for the pending trial, and Armes himself was eventually seen leaving. A deputy court clerk later confirmed to Billboard a settlement had been reached.
The terms of the agreement have not been publicly disclosed, and neither side’s attorneys immediately returned a request for comment.
Armes, best known as a member of the Canadian rap-rock band Down With Webster, sued Malone in 2020, claiming he had played a key role (along with Malone and collaborator Frank Dukes) during an August 2018 all-nighter that led to the creation of “Circles.” That allegation was no small thing, because the song was eventually a smash hit, spending three weeks atop the Hot 100 and ultimately spending 61 weeks on the chart.
After the “Circles” was released and Armes reached out to complain, he claimed that Malone offered to give him a 5% share of the publishing royalties. But when he tried to negotiate for a better deal, he says the star’s people revoked the offer and refused to give him anything.
Malone (real name Austin Richard Post) strongly denied the allegations, arguing that Armes “did not write or author any portion of the ‘Circles’ composition” and that he was simply trying to get an undeserved cut from a lucrative song.
“It is an age-old story in the music business that when a song earns the type of runaway success that ‘Circles’ has garnered, an individual will come out of the woodwork to falsely claim to take credit for the song, and demand unwarranted and unearned windfall profits from the song,” Post’s lawyers wrote. “This lawsuit arises from such a story.”
Last year, Judge Wright refused to dismiss Armes’ allegations, ruling that he might ultimately be able to persuade a jury that he deserved to own a piece of “Circles.” If the jury believed Armes, the judge said, they could find that Malone, Dukes and Armes “shared equal control in the session, making nonhierarchical contributions to a unitary whole.”
That set the stage for a trial set to kick off on Tuesday, which had been expected to run through the end of the week.
The Isley Brothers are headed to court over the trademark rights to the band’s name.
In a lawsuit filed Monday in Chicago federal court, Rudolph Isley accused his brother Ronald Isley of improperly attempting to secure a federal trademark registration on the “The Isley Brothers” – even though the name is supposed to be jointly owned.
“Counsel for defendant Ronald Isley has asserted in correspondence that defendant alone has exclusive ownership of the [trade]mark,” Rudolph’s lawyers wrote in their complaint. “These assertions … are false.”
The lawsuit claims that Ronald, “acting without the knowledge or approval of Rudolph,” applied in 2021 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register “The Isley Brothers” as a trademark under his name alone. The agency approved the application and registered the trademark last year.
In filing the case, Rudolph is asking a judge to declare that the trademark rights to the name are “jointly owned by Plaintiff and Defendant equally.” He also wants a ruling that forces Ronald to explain how he has “exploited” the trademark and to share any revenue derived from it.
An attorney for Ronald did not immediately return a request for comment.
Band names are a constant source of trademark disputes, typically among various current and former members who disagree about who has the right to keep using a famous title. Who truly constitutes the band? Is it the members, or an LLC that owns the rights to the name? Is it the original lineup, or the one that produced the biggest hits?
Journey, Stone Temple Pilots, Jefferson Starship, the Rascals, the Ebonys, the Commodores and the Platters have all resorted to such litigation over the years. Members of the Beach Boys spent more than 10 years fighting over their name, before a settlement was reached in 2008. And Morris Day recently had an ugly fight with the Prince estate over the trademark rights to his band name, The Time.
In the case of the Isleys, Rudolph claims that since the 1986 death of their third brother O’Kelly Isley, he and Ronald have been the equal co-owners of the group’s intellectual property. He says that arrangement is formalized in two overlapping holding companies, Isley Brothers Royalty Venture I SPC Inc. and Isley Brothers L.L.C.
“Both plaintiff and defendant are currently 50% owners of all rights and interests of the group, with neither party having the authority to enter into deals concerning the group or the exploitation of the mark without consent of the other party,” Rudolph’s lawyers wrote.
Ronald’s lawyers see things differently. In back-and-forth legal correspondence sent before Monday’s case was filed, his attorneys had argued that the “Isley Brothers” trademarks are the property of those who have actually been using a name – and that Rudolph has not performed with the band since 1986.
“Rudolph has not used the mark in approximately thirty-six (36) years,” Ronald’s lawyer, Navarro W. Gray, wrote to his brother’s attorneys in a January letter. “Thus, Ronald’s profits from the business endeavors he has sought and created for himself, in relation to The Isley Brother’s brand, are not to be shared as he has been the party actually using the mark in commerce.”
Read Rudolph Isley’s entire complaint here:
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Cardi B’s $4 million defamation verdict against a gossip blogger who made salacious claims on YouTube about drug use, STDs and prostitution.
In a five-page decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected an appeal from Tasha K, who had claimed that the massive verdict against her was the result of “very lopsided presentation of evidence to the jury.”
The appeals court ruled that Tasha K (real name Latasha Kebe) had failed to properly make that argument to the trial judge, meaning she forfeited the right to do so before an appeals court.
“Defendant Latasha Kebe asks for a new trial, saying that there was insufficient evidence for the jury verdict against her,” the appeals court wrote. “But as she all but admits, she didn’t make either of the required post-verdict motions in the district court.”
Tasha’s attorneys had also argued that the judge overseeing the trial withheld key evidence that might have helped her beat Cardi’s accusations, but the Eleventh Circuit rejected that argument, too.
“She never tells us where in the 5500-page record the district court’s alleged errors can be found,” the appeals court wrote. “Because Kebe’s brief falls well short of what we require, she has abandoned this argument.”
Cardi B (real name Belcalis Almánzar) sued Tasha in 2019, over what the rapper’s lawyers called a “malicious campaign” on social media and YouTube aimed at hurting Cardi’s reputation. The star’s attorneys said they had repeatedly tried – and failed – to get her to pull her videos down.
One Tasha video cited in the lawsuit includes a statement that Cardi had done sex acts “with beer bottles on f—ing stripper stages.” Others videos said the superstar had contracted herpes; that she had been a prostitute; that she had cheated on her husband; and that she had done hard drugs.
Following a trial in January, jurors sided decisively with Cardi B, holding Tasha liable for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They awarded more than $2.5 million in damages and another $1.3 million in legal fees incurred by the rapper. Judge William Ray later issued an injunction forcing her to pull the videos from the internet.
Tasha appealed that verdict last summer, arguing in her opening appellate brief that Judge Ray withheld key details from jurors and the verdict was the result of a “very lopsided” trial. She’s vowed to keep fighting the case “all the way to the Supreme Court if need be,” even if it “takes years” to do so.
Following Tuesday’s decision, a trip to the Supreme Court would be the procedural next step, but it’s unclear if Tasha will actually do so. The high court hears only a tiny fraction of the cases it is sent, and Tasha’s appeal does not likely present the kind of close questions that the justices typically want to tackle.
Tasha’s attorney did not return a request for comment on Tuesday’s ruling.
The status of the $4 million damages award is also unclear. In September, Cardi’s attorneys warned Judge Ray that Tasha might use the delay caused by her appeals to avoid paying.
“This is more than a hypothetical concern in this case,” attorney Lisa F. Moore and Cardi’s other lawyers at the time. “During the litigation, Kebe bragged publicly that she had taken steps to insulate herself from a judgment. And there have been recent online reports that Kebe has moved from Georgia to avoid enforcement of the judgment.”
A month later, Judge Ray ruled that Tasha would need to either immediately pay Cardi B, or secure a bond covering the entire amount while she appeals. It’s unclear if she ever did either.