Legal
Page: 10
Megan Thee Stallion can proceed with a defamation lawsuit accusing social media personality Milagro Gramz of waging a âcampaign of harassmentâ against the star on behalf of Tory Lanez, a federal judge says.
The rapper sued Gramz (Milagro Cooper) last year, claiming the YouTuber had been âchurning out falsehoodsâ about the high-profile criminal case against Lanez, in which he was convicted of shooting Megan in the foot during a 2020 dispute in the Hollywood Hills.
In a 25-page decision on Friday (Feb. 7), Judge Cecilia Altonaga denied a request by Gramz to dismiss the case, saying Megan had made a âcompelling caseâ that the blogger had defamed her by claiming the star lied during Lanezâs trial and that she was âmentally retarded.â
âPlaintiffâs claims extend far beyond mere negligence â they paint a picture of an intentional campaign to destroy her reputation,â the judge wrote. âThat is more than enough to [deny the motion to dismiss].â
The judge also refused to dismiss Meganâs other claims against Gramz, including that Gramz had violated a Florida state law by sharing a pornographic âdeepfakeâ of the rapper. Defense attorneys had argued that Gramz had not actually shared the clip merely by âlikingâ it on X, but Judge Altonaga noted Friday that sheâd allegedly done more than that.
âBy âlikingâ an X.com post that featured the deepfake video, the video was exhibited on defendantâs X.com accountâs âLikesâ page,â the judge wrote. âDefendant also brought the video âbefore the publicâ when she allegedly directed viewers of her post to click on her âLikesâ page where the video had been archived.â
The judge did dismiss one claim â Meganâs accusation of cyberstalking â but allowed her to refile the case this month to try to fix the error.
In a statement to Billboard, Gramzâs attorney Michael A. Pancier stressed that the decision was an early-stage ruling subject only to a âmore lenient legal standardâ and that âmany of these issues will be revisited at a later stage following the completion of the discovery process.â
âThis decision does not reflect a determination on the merits of the case,â Pancier said. âThe plaintiff must now substantiate her claims with credible and admissible evidence.â
A rep for Megan declined to comment on the ruling.
Lanez (Daystar Peterson) was convicted in December 2022 on three felony counts over the violent 2020 incident, in which he shot at the feet of Megan during an argument following a pool party at Kylie Jennerâs house in the Hollywood Hills. In August 2023, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. He has filed an appeal, which remains pending.
In an October lawsuit, Meganâs attorneys accused Gramz of repeatedly spreading falsehoods about that criminal case, including questioning whether Megan was even shot and claiming she was âcaught trying to deceive the courts.â More recently, they said Gramz had pushed the âoutlandish claimâ that the gun Lanez used in the shooting had gone missing from evidence.
The lawsuit claimed the blogger made those claims because she was serving as a âmouthpiece and puppetâ for Lanez as the singer sat behind bars. In an updated version of the lawsuit filed in December, Meganâs attorneys said prison call logs suggested that Lanez and his father had arranged to pay Gramz.
In seeking to dismiss the case, defense attorneys argued that Megan could not meet the difficult requirement of showing that Gramz had acted with âactual maliceâ â that she had either intentionally lied about Megan or had acted with a reckless disregard for the truth.
But in Fridayâs ruling, Judge Altonaga said that the rapperâs claims, if later proven with evidence, would likely be enough to win a defamation case.
âThe [lawsuit] makes a compelling case that defendant acted with reckless disregard for the truth,â the judge wrote. âPlaintiff asserts that readily available information contradicted defendantâs statements at the time of publication [and that] defendant knowingly spread these falsehoods at Petersonâs direction, fully aware they were fabricated to harm plaintiff.â
âFinally, defendant seemingly profited from the defamation â gaining a larger social media following, online notoriety, and lucrative sponsorship opportunities,â the judge added.
MTV owner Viacom has filed a lawsuit claiming that Nick Cannonâs new comedy battle rap game show â called Bad vs. Wild â is a âflagrantâ copycat of his long-running series Wild âN Out.
In a case filed Monday (Feb. 7) against the streaming service Zeus Network, the cable giant claimed that the new show âgoes far beyond mere imitationâ and instead steals âeach and everyâ element of Wild âN Out, a popular hip-hop comedy show thatâs aired for more than 20 seasons on MTV and VH1.
The lawsuit doesnât name Cannon as a defendant but instead accuses Zeus of essentially poaching him. It says the new show is âcosplayingâ as a Wild âN Out âsuccessor,â profiting from Viacomâs years-long investment âwithout having to do the work of creating original content itself.â
Trending on Billboard
âIn an era where original content is at a premium, Zeus has chosen the path of least resistance: stealing the fruits of Viacomâs goodwill and decades of labor and innovation, and pawning it off as its own original idea for its own financial gain,â Viacomâs lawyers wrote.
Worse yet, the lawsuit says, episodes of Bad vs. Wild (which debuted in March) have repeatedly featured âoffensive and inappropriate content that glorifies violence, objectifies women, and perpetuates insidious stereotypes,â threatening to tarnish the legacy of Wild âN Out.
âThe potential damage to Viacom and Wild âN Out cannot be overstated,â the companyâs lawyers continued. âThis blatant copying and association with offensive content threaten to erode two decades of Viacomâs carefully built reputation and goodwill. It is an attack not just on Viacomâs intellectual property, but on its very brand identity.â
The lawsuit accuses Zeus of infringing both Viacomâs copyrights to the show and also its trademarks, saying that consumers have been duped into thinking the two shows are somehow connected. The filing cites a press release that explicitly referred to the show as âWild âN Out on steroids.â
Wild âN Out, which debuted on MTV in 2005, features teams of comedy and hip-hop stars battling in a series of competitions, capped off by a freestyle battle and then a musical performance. Over the years â the show has run for 21 seasons â it has boasted guests including Snoop Dogg, Kanye West, A$AP Rocky and Lil Wayne.
In this weekâs lawsuit, Viacom claimed that Zeus had stolen almost all of the showâs core elements when it created Bad v. Wild. The two names are âextremely similarâ; the new logo âcopies the look, typeface, and arrangementâ; the format and stage design of the two shows are ânearly identicalâ; and, of course, they feature the same host.
âZeus enlists Mr. Cannon as host of a show that maliciously infringes upon the intellectual property of Wild âN Out ⌠and has tainted Mr. Cannonâs image as on-camera talent for Wild âN Out,â Viacomâs lawyers wrote.
Though it doesnât name him as defendant, the lawsuit does accuse Cannon of wrongdoing.
Viacomâs lawyers say heâs currently subject to his contract from Wild, which prohibits him from doing anything that that would âtarnishâ his image as the showâs host and bans him from using âany characters or materialsâ from the show in other projects. By producing and hosting Bad v. Wild, the lawsuit says Cannon has violated that agreement.
But rather than sue Cannon directly for that alleged breach of contract, the lawsuit instead pins the legal blame entirely on Zeus â accusing the network of âintentional interferenceâ with Viacomâs deal with Cannon by âinducingâ him to break it. And the company claims itâs not the first time.
âZeus â having previously violated exclusivity provisions when working with Viacom talent, and having knowledge of industry custom and practice â was aware that Mr. Cannon is under contract,â the companyâs lawyers wrote. âThe damage caused by Zeusâs interference with Mr. Cannonâs contract is magnified by the wave of negative publicity which emanated from Zeusâs unoriginal content and colorist and sizeist stereotyping.â
Reps for both Zeus and Cannon did not immediately return requests for comment.
Read the entire complaint here:
A long-running legal battle over the rights to Jimi Hendrixâs music is going to trial after a U.K. appeals court rejected Sony Musicâs bid to dismiss a lawsuit filed by his former bandmates.
The estates of bassist Noel Redding and drummer Mitch Mitchell say they own a share of the rights to three albums created by the trioâs Jimi Hendrix Experience, and theyâve been battling in court with Sony and Experience Hendrix LLC for more than three years to prove it.
In a ruling Thursday, the U.K.âs Court of Appeal upheld a decision issued last year that said the dispute must be decided at trial, rejecting Sonyâs request to overturn that ruling and dismiss the case: âIn my judgment the judge was correct,â Lord Justice Richard Arnold wrote in the new ruling, obtained by Billboard.
Trending on Billboard
In a statement celebrating that ruling, a rep for Redding and Mitchellâs heirs say that their case is now scheduled to proceed to trial in December â more than four years after they first sued.
âNoel and Mitch first issued their complaint in November 2021 and after the latest delaying tactic of Sony to deny them justice the case now moves to a full trial,â said Edward Adams, a director for the heirs. âWe retain our faith in the justice system that they and [Experience Hendrix] will be finally held fully to account at that time.â
A spokesperson for Sony did not immediately return a request for comment on the ruling.
Hendrix teamed up with Redding and Mitchell in 1966 to form the Experience, and the trio went on to release a number of now-iconic songs including âAll Along The Watchtower,â which spent nine weeks on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1968 and peaked at No. 20. The group split up in 1969, a little over a year before Hendrix died suddenly at the age of 27 from an accidental drug overdose.
The current fight kicked off in 2021, when Redding and Mitchellâs heirs sent a letter in the U.K. claiming they own a stake in Hendrixâs music and arguing that theyâre owed millions in royalties.
Experience Hendrix, a company that owns his intellectual property, and Sony, which distributes his music under a licensing deal, responded a month later by preemptively suing in New York federal court, aiming to disprove those allegations. Redding and Mitchellâs heirs then filed their own case against Sony in British court, seeking control of the records and accusing the label of copyright infringement.
After months of jockeying, a U.S. federal judge ruled in 2023 that the English litigation could take precedence.
Seeking to end that lawsuit, Sony argued that Redding and Mitchell both signed away their rights shortly after Hendrix died. In a 1973 legal settlement cited by Sony, the two men purportedly agreed not to sue Jimiâs estate and any record companies distributing his music in return for one-time payments â $100,000 paid to Redding and $247,500 to Mitchell.
But last year, a judge on Londonâs High Court ruled that the dispute â over âarguably the greatest rock guitarist everâ â was close enough that it would need to be decided at trial.
âMy overall conclusion is that the claims in respect of copyright and performersâ property rights survive and should go to trial,â Justice Michael Green wrote at the time. The judge wrote that Redding and Mitchellâs heirs had âa real prospect of succeedingâ on their argument that the decades-old releases âdo not provide a complete defenceâ for Sony.
Sony appealed that ruling, setting the stage for Thursdayâs decision. In doing so, the company didnât actually challenge judgeâs ruling on the core issue of the 1973 settlement; instead, Sonyâs lawyers argued that Redding and Mitchellâs heirs were ineligible to file their case under various U.K. statutes.
Joined by two other appellate judges on the panel, Lord Justice Arnold rejected those arguments on Thursday, ruling that the heirsâ claims were fair game under the statutes cited by Sony.
Itâs unclear if Sony will file further appeals, or whether such additional challenges might delay the trial beyond December. Such rulings can typically be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the countryâs highest appeals court; but like the U.S. Supreme Court, the British top court only accepts a limited number of cases, based on whether they raise big and important legal questions.
If the case does proceed to trial, attorneys for the Redding and Mitchell estates said Thursday that they were looking forward to the showdown. In the statement, they compared their late clients to the Freddie Mercuryâs bandmates in Queen.
âNo one is denying that Jimi Hendrix was one of the greatest guitarists of all time, just as Freddie Mercury was a great singer. But neither of them made their recordings alone,â said Lawrence Abramson of the law firm Keystone Law. âIt has never been suggested that Brian May, John Deacon nor Roger Taylor should not have participated in Queenâs success so why should Noel and Mitch lose out from the success of the Jimi Hendrix Experience?â
Itâs been nearly five years since Pop Smoke (Bashar Jackson) was killed in Californiaâs Hidden Hills â and now, the only adult defendant in the murder trial has reached a plea deal. According to Rolling Stone, Corey Walker, 24, pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and home invasion robbery charges in Los Angeles court on Wednesday […]
The estate of legendary rapper Notorious B.I.G. is suing Target, Home Depot and others over allegations that they sold unauthorized canvas prints of the famed âKing of New Yorkâ photo that was snapped just days before his death.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court, Notorious BIG LLC claims the retailers sold prints illegally created by iCanvas â a small firm that the estate says showed a âcomplete disregard for celebritiesâ personality rights, lack of respect for artistsâ efforts, and disdain for intellectual property law.â
âDefendants specifically chose to use Mr. Wallaceâs persona, name, image, likeness ⌠in an attempt to capitalize on their fame and extraordinary financial value,â Biggieâs estate writes, referring to his legal name, Christopher George Latore Wallace.
Trending on Billboard
The image at issue in the new lawsuit is âThe King Of New Yorkâ â a portrait of Biggie wearing a gold crown in front of a red backdrop, snapped in March 1997 only three days before the rapper was killed in a Los Angeles shooting.
The photos â taken by photographer Barron Claiborne, who is also named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit â are some of the most well-known images of the late rapper. One is featured in a huge mural in his Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn, and the plastic crown featured in the image sold at auction in 2020 for a whopping $594,750.
In their Tuesday lawsuit, the estate and Claiborne say that iCanvas sold canvas prints of the images for more than eight years without permission. In addition to selling them directly, the lawsuit claims the prints were also sold by Bed Bath & Beyond, Home Depot, Nordstrom and Target â each of which is named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
When contacted about the problem in 2023, Home Depot, Nordstrom and Target removed the offending products, the lawsuit says, but iCanvas and Bed Bath & Beyond allegedly continue to sell them.
The case claims that the sale of the images not only infringed Claiborneâs copyrights to the King images, but also breached federal trademark law and violated the rapperâs likeness rights.
âMr. Wallaceâs fan base has continued to expand since his passing,â the estateâs lawyers write. âMr. Wallaceâs persona, name, image, likeness, and artistic works are so well known that they are almost universally and instantly recognizable, even by those born after he died.â
The case could portend bigger problems for iCanvas. The lawyers for Biggieâs estate say theyâre only a few of the âvictimsâ of a âmulti-year unlawful campaignâ by the company to sell unauthorized prints of famous people and images, including musicians Beyonce, Prince, Jay-Z, Snoop Dog and LL Cool J.
None of the defendants immediately returned requests for comment on Wednesday.
Itâs not the first time the Notorious B.I.G. estate has sued over photographs. In 2019, the estate sued hip-hop photographer Chi Modu over his famed 1996 image of Biggie standing in front of the World Trade Center. Though Modu owns the copyrights to the image, the estate claimed he was violating the rapperâs likeness rights by using it on merchandise.
That case settled last year on undisclosed terms â a deal that came with a warning from the estateâs attorneys about the use of his image: âPictures of Christopher cannot be commercially exploited without a license from our client.â
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: Experts weigh whether Kendrick Lamar can play âNot Like Usâ during his Super Bowl halftime show amid Drakeâs defamation lawsuit; Spotify wins a ruling dismissing a lawsuit over streaming royalties; federal prosecutors file a superseding indictment against Sean âDiddyâ Combs; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Can Kendrick Play âNot Like Usâ At The Super Bowl?
Under normal circumstances, itâs silly to even ask the question. Obviously a Super Bowl halftime performer will play their chart-topping banger â a track that just swept record and song of the year at the Grammys and was arguably musicâs most significant song of the past year.
Trending on Billboard
But these are very much not normal circumstances. Last month, Drake sued Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamarâs âNot Like Us,â claiming the label spread the songâs âmalicious narrativeâ â namely, that Drake is a pedophile â despite knowing it was false.
That pending legal action makes it fair to wonder: When Lamar steps onto the worldâs biggest stage on Sunday night, will he face pressure to avoid the whole mess by just skipping âNot Like Usâ entirely?
To answer that question, I turned to top legal experts â who told me that Drake probably wonât win in court, but that corporate legal departments are also famously risk averse and might want to avoid trouble. For the full breakdown of how Sunday might go, read my entire story here.
Other top stories this weekâŚ
SPOTIFY BEATS âBUNDLEâ CASE â A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed against Spotify by the Mechanical Licensing Collective, rejecting the groupâs allegations that the streamer illegally slashed its music royalty rates. The lawsuit, filed last year, accused Spotify of bookmaking trickery â namely, claiming that the addition of audiobooks to the platform entitled the company to pay a lower âbundledâ rate for music. But in her ruling, the judge said Spotify had done nothing wrong under âunambiguousâ regulations â and that if anything, the company had paid too much in royalties.
A.I. COPYRIGHT REPORT â The U.S. Copyright Office issued a long-awaited report on artificial intelligence. The reportâs overall message was hardly groundbreaking: only human authors are eligible for copyrights, but material created with the assistance of AI can qualify on a case-by-case basis. But it included key assurances for existing music industry practices â saying using AI as a âbrainstorming toolâ to help write a song, or using it to assist in a recording studio session, would not automatically void copyright protection for the resulting songs.
TERMINATION GOES GLOBAL? A Louisiana federal judge issued an unusual legal decision on copyright termination, breaking with existing precedents and handing a major win to songwriters and their heirs. Ruling on a dispute over the 1963 rock classic âDouble Shot (Of My Babyâs Love),â the judge said that termination rules apply not just to American copyrights but also to the rights to a song around the world â an outcome that legal experts have said would represent a âmajor upheavalâ and could âradically revolutionize the way the music business runs.â The losing party in the case, who has warned the decision will cause âchaos,â is almost certain to appeal the ruling.
LYFT DISCRIMINATION CASE â A Detroit rapper named Dank Demoss (Dajua Blanding) filed a discrimination lawsuit against Lyft over allegations that one of the companyâs drivers told her she was âtoo bigâ for the backseat of his car and that âhis tires were not capable of supporting plaintiffâs weight.â In a viral video of the January incident, the driver can be heard telling Blanding that heâs âbeen in this situation before,â and that she needs to order a pricier âUber XLâ to accommodate her size.
UPDATED DIDDY INDICTMENT â New York federal prosecutors filed a superseding indictment against Sean âDiddyâ Combs, adding additional victims and new allegations in the sprawling criminal case against him. Among the new claims: that he or his associates paid a $100,000 bribe to hotel staff to bury the now-infamous surveillance video of him assaulting his ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura in 2016. Another civil lawsuit was also filed against Combs, the latest in a long list of such cases filed by Texas attorney Tony Buzbee.
Sean âDiddyâ Combs has been hit with a pair of new sexual assault lawsuits that allege he drugged and sexually assaulted the plaintiffs and/or forced them to engage in sex acts with others during a âgroup-sexâ party at Trump Hotel in midtown Manhattan.
Filed in New York state court on Tuesday (Feb. 4), the lawsuits â the latest to be lodged by Texas attorney Tony Buzbee against the disgraced hip-hop mogul â were filed by Jane Doe plaintiffs who say they were involved in the New York hip-hop scene in the â80s and â90s.
The first complaint was filed by a woman who says she was âan active member of New Yorkâs hip-hop industry from the 1980s onwardâ and âappeared in numerous music videos for varying hip hop artists, was employed as a hip hop dancer for live productions, as well as having roles in major motion pictures.â According to the complaint, she was subject to âsexual assault, coercion, abuse and violence either at the hands of, or direction of Combsâ on numerous occasions.
In the first alleged incident, the woman claims she was drugged and âforced to participate in group sexual activityâ with Combs and others while attending (and being prevented from leaving) a so-called âshadow partyâ held at a New York bar sometime in the 1990s.
Later in the decade, while allegedly dating Combsâ security guard, the woman says she attended another of Combsâ parties at the five-story New York nightclub Limelight, where she says âgroup-sex partiesâ were occurring on the top two floors. After the party, she claims Combs and the security guard took her and a friend to a penthouse at a Trump hotel in midtown Manhattan, where she says she was âphysically and sexually assaultedâ by the guard as Combs watched. Later that evening, she claims she and her friend were forced to take âecstasy or [a] similar âpartyâ drugâ and âengage in a group sex activity that [they] did not want to participate in.â
This alleged incident is echoed in the second lawsuit filed on Tuesday by a woman who claims she was âa part of the hip-hop scene that was developing in New York Cityâ in the â80s and â90s and âappeared in numerous music videos for various hip-hop artists and participated in other projects within the industry.â
After attending a party also allegedly held at the Limelight â which reads like the same event described by the first plaintiff â the woman claims she and a friend were taken to the Trump Hotel in midtown Manhattan against their will, drugged âand forced to participate in group-sex activity during which she [was] sexually assaulted over the next several hours. For instance, Plaintiff was vaginally raped by a club promoter at Combsâ direction, while Combs observed.â
The woman also outlines a second incident she says occurred after she was hired to serve as a âbottle-service attendantâ at a party Combs hosted in the Hamptons in 1997. Shortly after arriving at the event, the woman says she and others hired for the event were encouraged by Combs to drink from coolers and offered marijuana, after which she âbegan to feel woozy, slipping in and out of consciousness.â At this point, she says she was âsexually assaulted and vaginally raped by Combsâ associates, at Combsâ direction, while Combs was present.â After suspecting the assault was videotaped, she says she reached out to Combs âto request that he delete the video, but Combs refused to comply.â
The woman further alleges she âsuffered several incidences of sexual assault at Combsâ hands while traveling to other states, including California,â though only the New York incidents are included in the complaint.
Both women are asking for compensatory and punitive damages from Combs and his various Combs Global businesses, which are named as co-defendants for âenabl[ing]â the alleged abuse.
A representative for Combs and Combs Global did not immediately respond to Billboardâs request for comment.
Combs is currently awaiting the start of his criminal trial, which is set to commence on May 5, at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. He is charged with running a criminal enterprise aimed at satisfying his need for âsexual gratification.â Among other accusations, Combs is alleged to have held so-called âfreak offsâ during which he and others drugged victims and coerced them into having sex. He is also accused of acts of violence and intimidation to silence his alleged victims. Combs faces a potential life prison sentence if convicted on all charges.
Killer Mike has reportedly filed a lawsuit against the security firm that executed his arrest at the 2024 Grammy Awards in Los Angeles.
Per Rolling Stone, Killer Mike â born Michael Render â claimed that S & S Labor Force attempted to âdegrade, embarrass and physically hurtâ him during the arrest, which saw the Run The Jewels rapper escorted out of Crypto.com Arena on Feb. 4, 2024.
Filed on Monday (Feb. 3) in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Mike made claims of assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false arrest and imprisonment.
âDefendants wrongly caused plaintiff to be falsely arrested and had him placed in jail during the remainder of the Grammy Awards Ceremony,â the suit reportedly states. âPlaintiff was therefore deprived of the valuable opportunity to be present at the awards ceremony where he was scheduled to appear on primetime television in front of a huge international audience to appear and speak and be recognized on the telecast for his historic achievements.â
Trending on Billboard
S & S Labor Force called Mikeâs legal allegations âunfoundedâ in a statement to Rolling Stone. The security company did not immediately respond to Billboardâs request for comment.
Shortly after the arrest, sources close to Billboard relayed that the altercation stemmed from an issue with a Grammy Awards security guard over media access credentials outside the Peacock Theater where the pre-show was taking place.
The confrontation took place about an hour after Killer Mike won best rap album for Michael and best rap song for the track âScientists & Engineersâ with AndrĂŠ 3000. During the scuffle, Mike allegedly shoved a female security worker, after which LAPD officers reported to the scene and handcuffed the rapper.
Killer Mike was charged with one count of misdemeanor battery and released without bail. However, the Los Angeles City Attorney decided not to pursue the charges.
âEven though plaintiff sought to explain the situation in a respectful way, defendants used physical force to invade plaintiffâs bodily autonomy, using hands to touch plaintiffâs person in a manner both offensive and harmful without any justification or provocation from plaintiff, and to restrain him against his will,â the suit continues.
Killer Mike is seeking damages for the incident.
In an appearance on V103âs Big Tigger Morning Show shortly after the 2024 arrest, Killer Mike downplayed the situation, which he called a âspeed bump.â âI won a Grammy,â he said. âWe party all night. Shout out to my record label. Ainât nothing had happened, man. But we winners. Thatâs it.â
Sean âDiddyâ Combs has been hit with yet another lawsuit, this one filed by a man who says the hip-hop mogul drugged and sexually assaulted him at a Los Angeles party in 2015 after luring him with the promise of a record deal.
The new lawsuit was filed Monday (Feb. 3) in New York state court by Texas attorney Tony Buzbee, who has already filed a slew of other lawsuits against Combs. In it, a man identified only as John Doe claims that before performing for an audience at a Los Angeles venue called QCâs 20/20 with Combs in attendance, âa long-time and wellknown associate of Combsâ told him âthat Combs had heard of his talent and would be watching him perform. The associate specifically told Doe that if he performed well, Combs would discuss getting a deal with Bad Boy Records and arrange studio time between him and Combs.â
Following the performance, the man says that he attended an afterparty in the back of club, during which he was handed an âalcoholic beverageâ containing Ciroc â Combsâ vodka brand â that was allegedly âfrom Combs himself.â After consuming the drink, the man claims he âquickly felt lightheaded and began slipping in and out of consciousness.â
During this time, according to the complaint, âDoe observed Combs and his entourage engaging in group sexual activity, often with other attendees who appeared either drugged, unconscious, or as if they were paid escorts. Doe believed most of the men participating in the sexual activities belonged to Combsâ entourage.â
At one point, the man claims that he regained consciousness to see Combs âgrabbing his crotch while his pants had already been removed,â adding that âhe believes that Combs had been performing oral sex on him because his penis was noticeably wet.â He goes on to allege that after regaining consciousness again, he âattempted to fight Combs off, but Combsâ security team stepped in,â and that Combs subsequently âthreatenedâ him, âstating that he could easily contact his manager and ruin any chances he had of succeeding in the music industry if he did not comply.â
At this point, the man claims Combs ordered him âto have sex with a woman he did not know while Combs wanted to watch,â but that he escaped the venue after convincing Combs and his security team to let him use the bathroom.
He says that after the assault, he was afraid to report the alleged assault for fear of being blackballed in the music industry and later experienced âpain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment and emotional torment,â adding that it âgreatly affectedâ his desire to continue pursuing a music career.
Also named as defendants in the suit are Combsâ various business entities under the Combs Global umbrella, which are alleged to have âenabledâ the assault.
The man is asking for compensatory and punitive damages.
âAs weâve said before, Mr. Combs cannot respond to every new publicity stunt, even in response to claims that are facially ridiculous or demonstrably false,â said attorneys for Combs in a statement sent to Billboard. âMr. Combs and his legal team have full confidence in the facts and the integrity of the judicial process. In court, the truth will prevail: that Mr. Combs never sexually assaulted or trafficked anyone â man or woman, adult or minor.â
Combs is currently awaiting the start of his criminal trial, which is set to commence on May 5, at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. He is charged with running a criminal enterprise aimed at satisfying his need for âsexual gratification.â Among other accusations, Combs is alleged to have held so-called âfreak offsâ during which he and others drugged victims and coerced them into having sex. He is also accused of acts of violence and intimidation to silence his alleged victims. Combs faces a potential life prison sentence if convicted on all charges.
A ticketing reform law meant to clean up the concert industry has been revived in the U.S. Senate after nearly becoming law at the end of last year.
Originally introduced by representative Gus M. Bilirakis (R-Florida), the Transparency in Charges for Key Events Ticketing Act (TICKET Act) would introduce a number of reforms to the ticket-buying process. That includes rules to increase pricing transparency, which would require sports teams and concert promoters to clearly and prominently display the full price of a concert ticket, with fees and taxes added, so that the price they first see is the price they pay at checkout.
The TICKET Act died with the end of the 2023-2024 congressional term but has been reintroduced in the U.S. Senate by senators Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri) and Ed Markey (D- Massachusetts). It heads to the Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday (Feb. 5) for a hearing.
Trending on Billboard
The TICKET Act would also mandate refunds for canceled events, ban speculative ticket sales and crack down on the unauthorized use of venues, teams and artists on resell sites designed to confuse fans. Born out of the bungled Taylor Swift ticket sale for her record-breaking Eras Tour â which was crashed by scalpers and billions of bots trying to buy up tickets to flip for profit â the TICKET Act passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee in December 2023 and passed the House in June of last year in a 344 to 24 vote. The bill was even included in the first iteration of the end-of-year Continuing Resolution spending bill signed by former president Joe Biden at the end of last year before eventually being pulled from it.
Whether or not the TICKET Act ends up on President Donald Trumpâs desk, one of its key tenets â all-in pricing â was solidified in December by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) when it announced a rule change tackling âjunk fees.â The so-called Junk Fees Rule â which also applies to hotel rooms and airline fees â requires total price disclosure including fees for any event tickets listed for sale on the internet.
âPeople deserve to know up-front what theyâre being asked to pay â without worrying that theyâll later be saddled with mysterious fees that they havenât budgeted for and canât avoid,â former FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said on Dec. 17, hours after FTC commissioners announced the rule change.
The TICKET Act isnât the only bill designed to create a more hospitable ticketing marketplace for consumers â though some have claimed that violators of existing laws arenât being held to account. In September, the National Independent Talent Organization (NITO) sent Khan a letter urging her to begin enforcing the 2016 BOTS Act, which prohibits scalpers from using technology that circumvents âa security measure, access control system, or other technological measure used to enforce ticket purchasing limits for events with over 200 attendees.â The Sept. 9 letter claimed NITO members had attended a ticket resale conference and âobserved a sold-out exhibition hall filled with vendors selling and marketing products designed to bypass security measures for ticket purchases, in direct violation of the BOTS Act.â
In July, songwriter and music industry analyst Chris Castle wrote that the BOTS Act has only been enforced one time since its 2017 passage. He went on to argue that the government needs to focus on enforcing its existing laws before moving on to a new regime of legislation that will ultimately go âunder-enforced.â