Legal News
Page: 92
More than a year into litigation over the deadly Astroworld music festival, attorneys for the event’s organizers say that nearly 1,000 fans who sued over their alleged injuries have ignored deadlines and failed to hand over “critical evidence.”
In a filing last week, attorneys for the defendants in the case — Live Nation, Travis Scott, Apple and many others involved in the festival — alerted Judge Kristen Brauchle Hawkins that 956 alleged victims had “not provided any response whatsoever” to basic requests for information.
“There is no excuse for the non-responsive plaintiffs’ complete disregard of their discovery obligations,” the lawyers for the organizers wrote in the Nov. 23 filing. “They should be compelled to comply immediately.”
Some lawyers for victims quickly pushed back, though. In responses on Monday (Nov. 28), attorneys repping dozens of purported non-responders said many of their clients had in fact filed the necessary papers — or had been dropped from the case entirely. Others said their clients had “experienced serious trauma” and that lawyers were “working diligently with them to complete their discovery response.”
The dueling filings came in sprawling litigation over Astroworld, in which a crowd crush during Scott’s Nov. 5, 2021 performance left 10 dead and hundreds physically injured. Thousands of alleged victims are seeking billions in total damages, claiming the organizers were legally negligent in how they planned and conducted the event.
As of May, court filings said that more than 4,900 alleged victims had filed claims in the case. But the latest filings this week suggest that number has now been winnowed down to around 2,500.
The two sides are currently in the midst of what is known as discovery, the legal process in which each side hands over evidence to their opponents. Earlier this year, Live Nation, Scott and other defendants had sought a variety of information about each plaintiff, including details about their particular injury, documentary evidence that they attended the festival and any messages or other digital records related to the festival.
In the filing last week, attorneys for the Astroworld organizers said a huge number of alleged victims had “wholly failed to respond,” despite the fact that the questions had been heavily negotiated with the legal team for the concertgoers.
“It has now been more than six months since defendants served their original discovery requests and more than a month since all extensions have expired,” the Astroworld lawyers wrote. “Yet approximately 38% of the Plaintiffs … have provided absolutely zero response.”
Failing to hand over this “critical evidence” soon could hamper the litigation in ways that cannot be undone, the organizers warned.
“The longer the non-responsive plaintiffs delay, the higher the risk that critical evidence or information in their possession will be lost, destroyed, or forgotten,” they wrote. “Cell phones get lost or destroyed, and the photographs and videos on them get deleted.”
Spotify CEO Daniel Ek on Wednesday (Nov. 30) blasted Apple for “stifling innovation and hurting consumers,” publicly renewing his company’s longstanding grievance that the tech giant abuses its dominant position over the market for smartphone apps.
In a series of tweets, the Spotify founder said Apple was “shameless in their bullying” of app developers and called on lawmakers in both the U.S. and the European Union to take “action” against a company that he said “doesn’t seem to care about the law or courts.”
“Over and over again @Apple gives itself every advantage while at the same time stifling innovation and hurting consumers,” Ek wrote. “Apple offers consumers the illusion of choice and give[s] developers the illusion of control.”
A spokeswoman for Apple did not immediately return a request for comment on Ek’s tweets.
Spotify has long been an outspoken critic of the rules Apple imposes on its app store — namely a 30% surcharge on most transactions made within the platform, and provisions that restrict how apps steer customers toward outside payment systems.
Apple says tight rules for app developers are needed to protect users from payment fraud and privacy violations. But critics say the company — which currently controls more than half the U.S. smartphone market with the iPhone and iOS operating system — is merely exploiting its dominant position to extract more money. Those complaints are even stronger from Spotify, since it also directly competes with Apple Music for subscribers.
Google, which accounts for the vast majority of the rest of the market for smartphone apps, is facing similar criticism and litigation.
The arguments against Apple’s app policies won a powerful ally last week when new Twitter owner Elon Musk raised the issue amid his own messy dispute with the tech giant. After claiming Apple had pulled its advertising and had threatened to pull Twitter from its app store, the polarizing billionaire asked his 120 million followers if they were aware that Apple “puts a secret 30% tax on everything you buy.”
In Wednesday’s thread, Ek directly quoted Musk’s tweet, as well as others who have voiced similar criticism. Citing “bipartisan support and global interest,” he said that “momentum” was building for some kind of action against Apple.
“So how much longer will we look away from this threat to the future of the internet?” Ek wrote. “How many more consumers will be denied choice? There’s been a lot of talk. Talk is helpful but we need action.”
Apple is already facing a high-profile lawsuit, filed by Fortnite creator Epic Games, that claims the app store policies violate federal antitrust laws. A trial court issued a split ruling on the case last year, and the battle is currently pending before a federal appeals court.
Though not directly involved in the Epic case, Spotify filed its own complaint against Apple in 2019 with the European Commission, the EU’s regulatory enforcement watchdog. Last year, EU regulators released preliminary findings that Apple had likely broken the law, saying the company “deprives users of cheaper music streaming choices and distorts competition.”
Even bigger changes could be coming via new legislation. In Washington, D.C., a bipartisan trio of senators are pushing a bill called the Open App Markets Act, which would impose strict new rules on both Apple and Google’s app stores. And lawmakers in the EU have already passed a new statute called the Digital Markets Act, which will place a raft of new restrictions on how app stores are run.
Though it will take time for the new EU law to fully go into effect, it was aimed directly at complaints like the one Ek voiced Wednesday against Apple. In an interview with Wired last month, one of the law’s architects said he expected “significant” consequences: “If you have an iPhone, you should be able to download apps not just from the App Store but from other app stores or from the internet.”
A former Atlantic Records talent scout is suing over allegations that label co-founder Ahmet Ertegun sexually assaulted her repeatedly from the 1980s to the 2000s – and that his conduct was enabled by a “boys will be boys” culture at the company.
In a lawsuit filed Monday in Manhattan court, Jan Roeg said Ertegun (who died in 2006) assaulted her on their first meeting in 1983 and that his abuse then continued for “decades” after that. She says Atlantic had “ample opportunities” to observe his behavior, but “did not act” to protect its female employees.
“The permissive ‘boys will be boys’ attitude that prevailed at companies such as Atlantic Records was not just about having harmless fun,” her lawyers wrote. “Instead, it gave license to powerful figures like [Ertegun] to physically and sexually abuse women with impunity, with no fear of repercussions or opposition from the people who depended on his company for their livelihood and lifestyle.”
Roeg’s lawsuit was filed under the New York’s Adult Survivors Act, a new law that created a one-year window for alleged abuse victims to file long-delayed lawsuits that would normally be barred by the statute of limitations. The statute just went into effect last week, and more high-profile cases in the music industry are expected over the next year.
The complaint contained extensive details of alleged misconduct by Ertegun, who co-founded Atlantic in 1947 and went on to become one of the industry’s most powerful executives. After the first incident, the complaint says he “violently sexually assaulted Ms. Roeg at his Upper East Side home.” On at least two occasions, she says she found him “openly masturbating in his office.”
But she says he made very clear that she could not push back: “Women who wanted to do business with Atlantic had to play along with Mr. Ertegun’s sexual desires, and could not rock the boat with a complaint or lawsuit.”
In addition to naming Ertegun’s estate as a defendant, the case also directly names Atlantic Records, which is a unit Warner Music Group. Her lawyers say the company failed to take action to rein him in – and that the company even took actions to cover up his misconduct.
“Atlantic’s top executives and other management had ample opportunities to observe Mr. Ertegun’s drunken, abusive conduct and hateful attitude towards women, including in Company meetings in which he would openly brag about and recount in detail sexually exploitative escapades he engaged in backstage at concerts and the like,” her lawyers wrote. “Atlantic also is known to have regularly paid money to women accusing Mr. Ertegun of sexual misconduct, both before and after his abuse of Ms. Roeg had begun.”
In a statement to Billboard, a representative for Warner Music Group said the company takes such allegations “very seriously” and stressed that the allegations dated years into the past. As is often the case in such long-delayed lawsuits, Atlantic’s corporate structure, polices and executives have changed dramatically in the years since the alleged misconduct took place.
“These allegations date back nearly 40 years, to before WMG was a standalone company. We are speaking with people who were there at the time, taking into consideration that many key individuals are deceased or into their 80s and 90s,” WMG wrote in the statement. “To ensure a safe, equitable, and inclusive working environment, we have a comprehensive Code of Conduct, and mandatory workplace training, to which all of our employees must adhere. We regularly evaluate how we can evolve our policies to ensure our work environment is free from discrimination and harassment.”
A representative for Ertegun’s estate could not be located for comment. But in a statement released to Rolling Stone, an attorney for the late executive’s widow said the case was “meritless and will be be vigorously defended on her behalf.”
Just a week after Ticketmaster’s disastrous presale for Taylor Swift‘s The Eras Tour, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) are asking the chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) how the agency plans to combat bots in the online ticketing marketplace.
In a letter sent Monday (Nov. 28), Sens. Blumenthal and Blackburn — chair and ranking member of the Senate’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Data Security, respectively — are requesting information from FTC chair Lina Khan about what steps the FTC is taking to enforce the 2016 law known as the Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act, which was designed to crack down on the kind of illegal bots that have plagued online ticket sales for recent tours by Swift and other major stars.
That law, which “prohibits the circumvention of a security measure, access control system, or other technological control measure used online by a ticket issuer” and the sale of tickets knowingly obtained through those means, grants the FTC and state attorneys general the authority to enforce violations, according to the letter. But since the BOTS Act became law, Blumenthal and Blackburn claim the FTC has taken only a single enforcement action despite numerous incidents involving the use of bots in online ticket sales.
“Given the numerous high-profile incidents in the online ticket marketplace, it would be helpful to understand how the FTC intends to act to address such conduct going forward,” the letter reads.
Monday’s letter follows Ticketmaster’s earlier claim that the Swift debacle was caused in part by tens of millions of uninvited users and billions of bots crashing the Eras presale, forcing the company to shut down the tour’s final onsale after more than 90% of ticketing inventory was snapped up.
In the wake of the fiasco, politicians including Sen. Amy Klobuchar — chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights — and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggested Ticketmaster and its owner Live Nation represent a monopoly and cried out for accountability, with the latter directly calling for the companies, which merged in 2010, to be broken up. Last week, Klobuchar and her counterpart on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), jointly announced they would be holding a hearing to examine the effects of consolidation on the ticketing industry. Live Nation and Ticketmaster are also reportedly under investigation by the Justice Department over whether the companies represent an illegal monopoly, though that probe is said to have predated the Swift incident.
In addition to the Swift debacle, in the letter Blumenthal and Blackburn point to various other recent online ticketing mishaps involving bots, including tours for Bob Dylan, Blake Shelton, Bruce Springsteen and Adele.
“While bots may not be the only reason for these problems, which Congress is evaluating, fighting bots is an important step in reducing consumer costs in the online ticketing industry,” the senators continued. They point out that the infiltration of bots, among other factors, creates an unfair environment that prevents regular fans from purchasing tickets, forcing them to resort to secondary sites where tickets are often marked up dramatically. “Some reports have found secondary ticket sales ranging from $1,000 (Bruce Springsteen) to $40,000 (Adele),” the lawmakers added.
Though Swift may benefit from Blackburn’s interest in addressing the ticketing bots issue, the two have not exactly gotten along in the past. The pop star made a rare-at-the-time political statement in 2018, denouncing Blackburn for her conservative voting record and urging voters to choose her opponent in the Senate race that year. She later called the lawmaker “Trump in a wig.” Last year, Blackburn addressed the tiff in an interview, arguing Swift would the “first victim” in a “socialistic government.”
In addition to asking whether the FTC has any “pending enforcement matters before it” with respect to the BOTS Act, Blumenthal and Blackburn are asking why only a single enforcement action has been taken to date; whether there are “obstacles preventing” the FTC from enforcing the law; and whether there are “other solutions that Congress needs to consider” to prevent bots from operating in the future.
You can read the full letter below.
Dear Chair Khan:
We write to ask for information about the steps the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is taking to combat the use and operation of bots in the online ticket marketplace. As you know, the Better Online Ticket Sales, or BOTS Act, became law in 2016. This law prohibits the circumvention of a security measure, access control system, or other technological control measure used online by a ticket issuer. It also prohibits the selling or offering of an event ticket obtained through a circumvention violation if the seller participated in, had the ability to control, or should have known about the violation. The BOTS Act gives the FTC and state attorneys general the authority to enforce violations as unfair and deceptive practices.
Recently, several high profile incidents arose where consumers encountered serious difficulties purchasing tickets through online ticket vendors, including Ticketmaster and AXS. While bots may not be the only reason for these problems, which Congress is evaluating, fighting bots is an important step in reducing consumer costs in the online ticketing industry. For example, consumers reported trying to purchase tickets to see Bob Dylan at the Ryman Auditorium in Nashville, only to be told the tickets in their shopping cart no longer existed. Similarly, 22,000 fans preregistered to buy tickets for Blake Shelton, but only a few hundred actually got tickets. Finally, Ticketmaster/LiveNation pointed to online bots as a reason why fans could not get Taylor Swift concert tickets, leading the ticket seller to shut down sales to the general public.
While some consumers opt to purchase tickets on the secondary market, most fans cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars for a single concert ticket. Some reports have found secondary ticket sales ranging from $1,000 (Bruce Springsteen) to $40,000 (Adele).3 Preventing this type of consumer harm is exactly why Congress chose to enact the BOTS Act six years ago and why we both chose to sponsor that bill.
We understand that, in January 2021, the FTC took its first enforcement actions under the BOTS Act. However, given the numerous high-profile incidents in the online ticket marketplace, it would be helpful to understand how the FTC intends to act to address such conduct going forward. We request answers to the following, which may be provided in a confidential briefing if needed:
Does the FTC have any pending enforcement matters before it with respect to the BOTS Act?
Why has the FTC only undertaken a single enforcement action to date using its BOTS Act authority?
Are there obstacles preventing the FTC from exercising its authority under the BOTS Act that Congress should be aware of?
Are there other solutions that Congress needs to consider in conjunction with the BOTS Act?
We appreciate your timely attention to this issue.
Sincerely,
Marsha BlackburnRanking MemberSubcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security
Richard BlumenthalChairSubcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security
HONG KONG — Chinese-Canadian pop star Kris Wu was sentenced to 13 years in prison for rape and other sexual offenses, a Chinese court said on its official Weibo account on Friday (Nov. 25).
The Chaoyang District People’s Court in Beijing said that from November to December 2020, Wu, also known as Wu Yifan, raped three women at his home when they were under the effect of alcohol.
Wu was sentenced to 11.5 years for rape and 22 months for “assembling a crowd to engage in promiscuous activities” in July 2018, according to the Weibo post. Wu, who is a Canadian citizen, will serve a 13-year term in China before being deported.
“Justice was delayed, but now it’s here,” Du Meizhu, the Chinese influencer who blew the whistle on Wu, wrote on Weibo after the announcement.
Born in China and raised in Canada, Wu was a former member of the popular K-pop group EXO before returning to China to pursue his solo career in 2014.
Wu was detained in Beijing in July last year and was formally arrested on suspicion of rape in August, after the then-18-year-old Du accused him of luring her and other underaged girls into having sex under the pretense that they would be promised an acting career. The closed-door trial began in Beijing in June.
The sexual assault allegations against Wu prompted widespread criticism and became one of the most high-profile #MeToo cases in China.
Wu was also ordered to pay a 600 million yuan ($83.5 million) fine for hiding personal income through domestic and foreign affiliated enterprises, local taxation authorities said on their website.
Wu’s scandal came at a time when Chinese internet and media regulators have pledged to silence “unhealthy” online fan groups and crack down on “tainted artists” who have used drugs, visited prostitutes or broken the law, from all forms of broadcast.
Artists in China have been under great pressure to refrain from “immoral conduct,” which includes acts as minor as smoking or having tattoos.
Under public pressure from the sex-crimes allegations, some 20 brands — including Lancôme, Louis Vuitton, Bulgari and Porsche — cut ties with Wu last year. Chinese music streaming platforms, including Tencent’s QQ Music and NetEase Cloud Music, pulled his songs, and his Weibo social media account, where he had over 51 million followers, was taken down shortly after his detention.
Wu’s former group, EXO, became one of the most successful boy bands of South Korea, selling over 1.4 million albums in their first year, according to its label, SM Entertainment, and performed sold-out gigs around the world.
He has also starred in films and appeared as a judge on The Rap of China, a popular reality television program. By 2017, Wu was named Forbes’ 10th most influential Chinese celebrity of the year, with an annual income of 150 million yuan ($23 million).
In 2018, Wu signed with Universal Music to distribute his music in global territories besides Japan and South Korea. His debut studio album, Antares (2018), knocked Ariana Grande off the U.S. iTunes music charts and was platinum-certified in China. It peaked at No. 100 on the Billboard 200 albums chart, while the single “Like That” rose to No. 73 on the Billboard Hot 100. (Each lasted one week on the charts.)
Wu’s contract with Universal expired in March 2021 and the label has not renewed it.
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: Live Nation faces potential legal fallout from Ticketmaster’s Taylor Swift fiasco, Journey bandmates sue each other over an American Express account, Mariah Carey loses a bid for ‘Queen of Christmas’ trademarks, and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Taylor Swift … Trust Buster?
A week removed from Ticketmaster’s disastrous presale for Taylor Swift’s upcoming Eras Tour, criticism of parent company Live Nation isn’t getting any quieter – and the threat of legal repercussions is growing.Live Nation has apologized to fans and pinned the blame on a “staggering number of bot attacks” and “unprecedented traffic.” And whether or not the star really was forced to use Ticketmaster is a complicated question, as Billboard’s Dave Brooks writes.But the debacle, which saw widespread service delays and website crashes as millions of fans tried (and many failed) to buy tickets for Swift’s 2023 Eras Tour, has nonetheless resurfaced some uncomfortable legal questions for the all-powerful concert giant.Since they merged in 2010, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have been dogged by accusations that they form a near-monopoly in the market for live concerts, potentially violating federal antitrust laws. Federal regulators at the U.S. Department of Justice approved that deal, but only after Live Nation signed a so-called consent decree that aimed to allay fears that they might abuse their dominant position. Among other things, the agreement prohibits the company from retaliating against venues or acts that refuse to use Ticketmaster. Those rules were set to expire in 2020, but were extended by five years in 2019 after the DOJ accused Live Nation of repeatedly violating the decree.In the wake of the Swift fiasco, those same monopoly questions are back in the spotlight – and some lawmakers want more than just another extension of the consent decree.On Tuesday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) blasted Live Nation as a “monopoly” and called for regulators to “break them up.” Two days later, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the chair of the Senate subcommittee for antitrust issues, warned that the company’s market share “insulates it from the competitive pressures that typically push companies to innovate and improve their services.”Then on Friday, the New York Times reported that DOJ had already been investigating Live Nation for months over potential antitrust violations, reaching out to venues across the country to ask about the company’s conduct. Reacting to that news, Klobuchar and two other Democratic senators on Monday urged the Justice Department to take hard action if they discover more violations, including “unwinding the Ticketmaster-Live Nation merger and breaking up the company.”“This may be the only way to truly protect consumers, artists, and venue operators and to restore competition in the ticketing market,” the senators wrote.Such action might have been unthinkable just a few years ago, amid a decades-long period of relatively lax antitrust enforcement that saw airlines and mobile providers (and yes, music companies) merging into ever-larger conglomerations. But the Biden-era Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission have embarked on an aggressive new effort to crack down on such mega-mergers, including successfully blocking book publisher Penguin Random House from buying up rival Simon & Schuster.Beyond the Justice Department probe, other legal threats also potentially loom for Live Nation. The attorneys general of Tennessee, North Carolina, Nevada and Pennsylvania have all launched investigations into whether state consumer protection and antitrust laws were violated, including a Tennessee state law that aims to fight the use of automated “bots” on ticketing websites.And don’t forget about class actions. Live Nation is already facing an existing case that accuses the company of “blatant, anti-consumer behavior,” and the rest of the plaintiffs bar could be eager to try similar cases in the wake of such a high-profile snafu. At least one group of Swift-loving lawyers is already brainstorming how to bring cases.Faced with all that, can Live Nation shake it off? Stay tuned…
Other top stories this week…
JOURNEY’S CREDIT CARD CLASH – Journey guitarist Neal Schon filed a lawsuit against bandmate Jonathan Cain over allegations that he’s blocking access to “critical” financial records for the band’s American Express account, through which “millions” in Journey money has allegedly flowed: “This action is brought to turn the lights on, so to speak, and obtain critical financial information Schon has been trying to obtain but has been denied.” The case is the third legal battle among Journey members in the past two years, but the first to divide Schon and Cain — the only core members remaining in the band from Journey’s heyday.I FEEL SUED – Primary Wave and the estate of James Brown were hit with a lawsuit claiming their $90 million catalog sale last year violated an agreement that the iconic singer had struck decades earlier with another company. The case was filed by David Pullman’s Pullman Group (best known for creating so-called Bowie Bonds in the 1990s) over allegations that the blockbuster sale breached a contract that Pullman company struck with Brown way back in 1999, which allegedly guaranteed the company the right to broker any such deal in the future.YOUNG THUG GANG TRIAL SET FOR JANUARY – A Georgia judge refused to delay the closely-watched criminal case against Young Thug, Gunna and others accused of participating in an Atlanta gang, meaning their trial is now locked in to start on January 9. Prosecutors wanted to move the trial back by nearly three months because a few defendants had not yet been appointed a lawyer. But with Young Thug, Gunna and many others stuck in jail until trial, defense lawyers strongly opposed the delay: “It is unjust that [Young Thug] rots in the county jail and … is being required to wait on the appointment of counsel for co-indictees.”DUA LIPA RIPS COPYRIGHT SUIT – Attorneys for Dua Lipa asked a federal judge to quickly toss out a lawsuit claiming she stole her smash hit song “Levitating” from a little-known reggae track called “Live Your Life.” Florida band Artikal Sound System sued the star for copyright infringement last year, arguing the songs were so similar it was “highly unlikely that ‘Levitating’ was created independently.” But in their response last week, Lipa’s attorneys said those allegations were full of “vague, boilerplate labels and conclusions” and “devoid of a shred of factual detail.”MARIAH CANT GET ‘CHRISTMAS’ TRADEMARKS – The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected Mariah Carey’s application to register “Queen of Christmas” as a federal trademark, siding instead with Elizabeth Chan, another singer who says she’s used the same name for years. Repped pro bono by BigLaw attorneys, Chan had argued that no single singer or company should be able to lock up the title. “It is wrong for an individual to attempt to own and monopolize a nickname like ‘Queen of Christmas’ for the purposes of abject materialism,” Chan said in a statement after the ruling.R. KELLY MANAGER SENTENCED – Donnell Russell, R. Kelly’s friend and former manager, was sentenced to 20 months in prison after pleading guilty to charges that he stalked one of Kelly’s sexual abuse victims in an effort to keep her silent. Prosecutors said Russell used “reprehensible” tactics against the unnamed victim after she filed a civil lawsuit against the disgraced singer in 2018, including threatening messages to her mother and leaking explicit photos online.SLACKER ON HOOK FOR HUGE ROYALTY JUDGMENT – A federal judge refused to undo his own earlier ruling that Slacker owes nearly $10 million in unpaid music royalties to SoundExchange, despite the steamer’s warnings that the huge judgment could trigger financial ruin for the company. SoundExchange urged the judge to ignore those pleas and last week he obliged – ruling that the seven-figure judgment was simply the result of an agreement that Slacker itself had signed.
Journey guitarist Neal Schon is suing bandmate Jonathan Cain over allegations that he’s blocking access to “critical” financial records — the latest in a string of legal clashes among members of the iconic ’80s rock band.
In a lawsuit filed last month in California state court, Schon accused Cain — the only other core band member remaining from Journey’s heyday — of refusing to give him access to records from an American Express account, through which he claims that “millions in Journey funds have flowed.”
As fifty-fifty co-owners of the band’s corporate entity, Schon says each of them has a right to inspect all financial records, but claims that Cain has “improperly restricted and blocked” him from seeing the Amex records for months.
“This action is brought to turn the lights on, so to speak, and obtain critical financial information Schon has been trying to obtain but has been denied,” his lawyers wrote in an Oct. 31 complaint. “Schon has tried to avoid legal action, repeatedly requesting that Cain grant him access to the AMEX account [but] Cain has not been forthcoming and cooperative, making this action necessary.”
The case is hardly the first legal battle among Journey members.
Back in 2020, Schon and Cain filed a lawsuit against former drummer Steven Smith and former bassist Ross Valory, accusing them of engaging in an “attempted corporate coup d’état” to improperly use the Journey band name. That case ended last year with an “amicable settlement” that saw Smith and Valory depart the band.
And in September, former lead singer Steve Perry took legal action to stop Schon and Cain from registering federal trademarks on the names of many of the band’s biggest hits, including “Anyway You Want It” and “Wheel In The Sky.” Perry, who left Journey in 1998, says his ex-mates cannot unilaterally use the song names because the trio signed a partnership agreement requiring unanimous consent. The case remains pending.
Unlike the earlier cases, the new lawsuit over the Amex account pits Schon and Cain against one another. Schon says each of them should have “unfettered access” to all financial records, but that Cain “set up the account so that only he is authorized to access the records and information.”
And from the wording of the complaint, it sounds like Schon’s gripes potentially go deeper than a single credit card.
“Cain is interfering with Journey, refusing to respond to booking opportunities, blocking payment to band members, crew, and vendors, refusing to execute necessary operating documents, and in other ways as well,” Schon’s lawyers wrote. “Cain has further refused to deal with critical, time-sensitive touring contracts for Journey’s 2023 tour and ensure payment for band members and crew, who Cain contends are ‘non-essential.’ Schon believes those band and crew who are crucial to the band’s success should be paid. Cain’s conduct is inexplicable.”
A rep for Cain did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday.
Read the entire complaint here:
In the wake of Ticketmaster’s disastrous sale of tickets to Taylor Swift’s upcoming tour, a report has surfaced that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating whether parent company Live Nation has abused its huge market share in the live music industry.
According to a story Friday in the New York Times, the DOJ’s antitrust division had already been scrutinizing Live Nation for months before Tuesday’s botched rollout, which saw widespread service delays and website crashes as millions of fans tried – and many failed – to buy tickets for Swift’s 2023 Eras Tour.
The Times report said that antitrust investigators have been contacting music venues and others involved in the live music industry for months to ask about Live Nation’s practices, aiming to determine whether the company maintains an illegal monopoly over the sector. The story was sourced to “two people with knowledge of the matter”; a spokesperson for the DOJ did not immediately return a request for comment.
Though the DOJ probe reportedly predates the Swift debacle, it echoes criticism that has been leveled at Live Nation in the days since the messy Eras presale.
On Thursday, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the chair of the Senate subcommittee for antitrust issues, wrote an open letter to Live Nation, complaining that the company’s market power “insulates it from the competitive pressures that typically push companies to innovate and improve their services.” Klobuchar said the results were the kind of “dramatic service failures” that took place during Swift’s presale.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), was even blunter, tweeting Tuesday: “Daily reminder that Ticketmaster is a monopoly, it’s merger with Live Nation should never have been approved, and they need to be reigned in. Break them up.”
As alluded to by Ocasio-Cortez, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have long been dogged by accusations that they exert an unfair dominance over the market for live concerts, particularly since they merged in 2010 to create their current structure.
The combined entity has operated for its entire existence under a so-called consent decree imposed by the DOJ when it approved the merger. Under the decree, Live Nation is prohibited from retaliating against venues that refuse to use Ticketmaster. Those restrictions were set to expire in 2020 but were extended by five years in 2019 after the DOJ accused Live Nation of repeatedly violating the decree.
Ticketmaster has already tried to offer explanations for what went wrong on Tuesday, publishing a since-deleted in-depth blog post that said that it had misjudged demand for presale tickets and was ill-prepared for the millions of fans that tried to log in.
“I apologize to all our fans. We are working hard on this,” Liberty Media CEO and Live Nation chairman Greg Maffei said in an appearance on CNBC on Thursday. “Building capacity for peak demand is something we attempt to do, but this exceeded every expectation.”
Whether or not that explanation satisfies federal antitrust investigators, it does not appear to have been enough for Swift. In a statement issued Friday in which the star said the calamitous presale “really pisses me off,” Swift did not call out Ticketmaster explicitly, but laid the blame on an unnamed “outside entity.”
“I’m not going to make excuses for anyone because we asked them, multiple times, if they could handle this kind of demand and we were assured they could,” Swift wrote.
A federal judge says he won’t undo his ruling that Slacker owes nearly $10 million in unpaid music royalties to SoundExchange, seemingly unmoved by the streamer’s warning that the ruling will have a “devastating” impact on the company’s finances.
SoundExchange claims Slacker’s parent LiveOne has failed to pay royalties for years, and last month won a ruling requiring the streamer to hand over $9,765,396. Slacker said last month that the huge judgment could trigger financial ruin for the company – a warning SoundExchange urged the court to disregard.
In a decision issued Wednesday, Judge André Birotte Jr. did exactly that. He ruled that the seven-figure judgment was simply the result of an agreement that Slacker itself had signed – and noted that the streamer was not actually legally disputing the terms of that deal.
“Defendants cannot argue that the judgment is a result of ‘excusable neglect’ or that it is ‘without fault,’ when the judgment was entered pursuant to stipulation that defendants negotiated for and assented to,” Judge Birotte wrote. “Because Defendants signed the stipulation, and in fact do not dispute the amount of money Plaintiff is entitled to, the court finds the judgment is fair, adequate, and reasonable.”
SoundExchange, which collects performance royalties for sound recording copyrights, sued LiveOne in June, claiming the company had stopped paying artists and labels way back in 2017. And it claimed that a subsequent audit revealed it had been underpaying for years before that.
Court records show the two sides entered into the repayment plan in 2020, which gave Slacker two years to pay off its debts. But in the June lawsuit, SoundExchange claimed that Slacker had quickly failed to live up to the terms of the agreement.
“By refusing to pay royalties for the use of protected sound recordings, Slacker and LiveOne have directly harmed creators over the years,” SoundExchange president and CEO Michael Huppe said at the time. “Today, SoundExchange is taking a stand through necessary legal action to protect the value of music and ensure creators are compensated fairly for their work.”
Just a few months into the litigation, SoundExchange played an unusual legal trump card. On Oct. 12, the group invoked a so-called consent judgment, which had been inked and pre-signed by execs at Slacker back in 2020 as part of the repayment plan. Under the terms of that earlier deal, if Slacker ever defaulted again, its executives agreed that a judge should enter a so-called judgment against the company for the full sum owed.
On Oct. 13, Judge Birotte did so, ordering the Slacker to pay $9,765,396, which covered both unpaid royalties and late fees. He also permanently barred the company from using the so-called statutory license, an important federal provision that makes copyright licenses for recorded music automatically available to internet radio companies like Slacker and Pandora at a fixed price.
A week later, Slacker asked the judge to overturn his own ruling, saying it had been procedurally improper. To support the request, Slacker warned the judge had quickly caused other creditors to call in other debts owed, threatening “economic damage” to the company that would be “unsustainable.”
“Plaintiff’s surreptitious request for entry of judgment has triggered LiveOne’s default on two substantial senior secured notes which are secured by all of LiveOne’s and their subsidiaries assets,” the streamer wrote.
SoundExchange urged the judge to deny the request, saying it had spent years “indulging” the company’s “many excuses for non-payment,” and that it had simply become time for the streamer to be legally forced to pay up: “Five years is long enough.”
In Wednesday’s decision, Judge Birotte sided with SoundExchange, ruling there was no legal wiggle room for Slacker to challenge an agreement signed by its own executives. The judge said that unless there is proof of “fraud or misconduct” – and there is none – there was no reason to undo the ruling. And he was unmoved by the company’s warnings of economic ruin.
“Defendants argue that the ‘repercussions will be devastating to LiveOne, its employees, and to its creditors,” the judge wrote. Defendants, however, have failed to explain what balance is actually due, whether defendants’ creditors have elected to require immediate payment, or how the repercussions will actually impact its business or livelihood.”
A representative for Slacker parent LiveOne did not immediately return a request for comment on the decision.
Read the entire decision here:
A man charged with arranging the killing of Young Dolph pleaded not guilty Thursday (Nov. 18) — one year after the rapper and record label owner was ambushed and shot to death while buying cookies at a bakery in his hometown of Memphis, Tennessee.
Hernandez Govan, 43, made a brief appearance in Shelby County Criminal Court in Memphis. He was arrested last week after he was indicted on charges including first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder in the killing of the rapper, who was 36 when he died. The judge scheduled Govan’s next hearing for Dec. 16.
Govan is the third man charged in the Nov. 17, 2021, slaying of Young Dolph, whose real name was Adolph Thornton Jr. The killing in broad daylight stunned Memphis and shocked the entertainment world. Police said two men exited a white Mercedes-Benz and fired shots into Makeda’s Homemade Cookies, which is near the rapper’s boyhood home in the Castalia neighborhood. Police released photos taken from surveillance video that captured the shooting, and authorities later found the car abandoned.
Justin Johnson and Cornelius Smith Jr., have pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and other charges in the shooting and are being held in jail without bond. They are scheduled to appear in court on Jan. 20.
In a weekly newsletter, Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy said Govan “solicited the murder and put it in motion.” But no evidence has been made public to support that statement, and a suspected motive has not been disclosed. The investigation is ongoing.
“I know that you all are wanting details, you’re wanting facts, you’re wanting sort of answers to some of these mysteries and things like that,” prosecutor Paul Hagerman told reporters after Thursday’s hearing. “Even if we knew them, we couldn’t tell you. As a matter of ethics and our requirements under the law, we’ve got to confine ourselves to what’s made public.”
Govan’s lawyer, Bill Massey, said he was seeking the prosecution’s evidence in the case, which Massey said may not go to trial until after next year due to the amount of evidence and the number of defendants.
Known for his depictions of tough street life and his independent approach to the music business, Young Dolph was admired for charitable works in Memphis. He organized Thanksgiving turkey giveaways, donated thousands of dollars to high schools, and paid rent and covered funeral costs for people in the Castalia Heights neighborhood where he was raised.
His work as a rapper, producer and owner of the independent label Paper Route Empire took him away from Memphis, but the father of two had returned to the city days before his killing to visit a sick relative and organize a turkey giveaway that took place without him.
After Young Dolph’s death, a section of a street near his boyhood home was renamed for him. A private funeral was held and he was honored during a public celebration at FedExForum, the home of the Memphis Grizzles of the NBA and the University of Memphis men’s basketball team.
City officials and community activists also pointed to the killing as a symbol of the scourge of gun violence in Memphis. Since the rapper’s death, Memphis has seen several other high-profile killings this year, including the shooting of a United Methodist Church pastor during a carjacking in her driveway; the kidnapping and shooting of an elementary school teacher who police said was abducted during an early morning run; and a man’s daylong shooting rampage that was partially livestreamed and led to the death of three people.
Young Dolph is one of several prominent hip-hop artists to be killed in recent years. His independent approach to the music business drew comparisons to Los Angeles rapper Nipsey Hussle, who was fatally shot in 2019. Other rappers who have lost their lives to gun violence since 2018 include XXXTentacion, Pop Smoke and, most recently, Takeoff, who was killed outside of a bowling alley after a party in Houston on Nov. 1.
In an article in The Atlantic dated Tuesday, rappers Too Short and E-40 called for the hip-hop community to find ways to come together and support each other amid the spate of gun deaths in the industry.
Young Dolph was born in Chicago and moved to Memphis with his parents when he was 2. He released numerous mixtapes, starting with 2008′s Paper Route Campaign, and multiple studio albums, including his 2016 debut King of Memphis. He also collaborated on other mixtapes and albums with fellow rappers Key Glock, Megan Thee Stallion, T.I., Gucci Mane, 2 Chainz and others.
He had three albums reach the top 10 on the Billboard 200, with 2020′s “Rich Slave” peaking at No. 4. Makeda’s, the bakery where he was shot, was boarded up and closed before it reopened in September.