Legal
Page: 109
A Florida jury on Wednesday (Jan. 18) awarded Flo Rida $82 million in damages from energy drink maker Celsius in a lawsuit that claimed the company violated an endorsement deal with the rapper.
After a day of deliberations, a Broward County jury awarded the sum after finding that Celsius breached two contracts it had struck with the rapper in the mid-2010s, his lawyers confirmed to Billboard. Flo Rida’s lawsuit, filed in 2021, claimed he was owed millions in additional stock and ongoing royalties under the terms of the deals.
In an interview with Billboard, Flo Rida’s attorneys said their client was pleased with the outcome and believed that “the justice system performed well today.”
“It was a matter of respect,” said John J. Uustal of the firm Kelley Uustal PLC, who repped the rapper along with partner Cristina M. Pierson. “He was due these shares, he worked for them, and he wasn’t going to just let it go.”
An attorney for Celsius did not immediately return a request for comment on the verdict. Celsius will be able to appeal the verdict, first by asking the judge to overturn it and later by appealing the case to a state appeals court.
During a five-day trial, attorneys for the rapper (real name Tramar Dillard) argued that Celsius had met key sales thresholds that entitled Flo Rida to additional stock amounting to a one-percent stake in the business — a cut his lawyers claimed was worth at least $75 million now that Celsius had grown successful. They said his promotion had helped boost “a tiny local company that was about to go out of business.”
Celsius’ lawyers argued back that the company had broken no promises, saying the sales thresholds hadn’t been triggered and that the rapper had already been paid “far in excess” of what he was owed. They told the jury that Flo Rida was simply chasing a large cash payout to which he wasn’t entitled: “A business deal is a business deal. You don’t get a do-over just because you’re unhappy with the results.”
On Thursday, the lawyers for Flo Rida told Billboard that they believed arguments painting their client as “greedy” had backfired with jurors: “They understood all these complicated legal issues and in our view came to the right conclusion,” Uustal said. “After our client finished testifying, the was no doubt that this was not a greedy individual.”
After three years of silence and in the midst of an ongoing legal battle, Bassnectar (real name Lorin Ashton), appears to be staging a comeback.
On Tuesday evening, a new mix was uploaded to the Bassnectar Mixcloud account, with the producer’s official Instagram account wiped clean around the same time. Most significantly, however, is a new website, UnlockTheOtherSide.com, which went live around the same time and features the signature Bassnectar logo. Fans discovered the site — the landing page for which was live but password protected on Tuesday evening but is currently offline — with copy describing it as “the new home for the Bassnectar universe & beyond,” according to screenshots reviewed by Billboard.
Access for a membership to the site, according to additional screenshots, costs $150 with an “early bird” discount being offered for $100. Membership promises access to “tickets to curated events,” “exclusive access to music,” archived content, “in-depth conversations,” “unreleased mixtapes and radio shows” delivered monthly, behind-the-scene access, remastered albums, a new album and more.
Despite these developments — which have spurred chatter in online Bassnectar communities on Reddit, Twitter and a longstanding private Bassnectar Discord channel — there has been no official announcement of a return from the artist himself. Ashton’s last public remark was a social media post on July 3, 2020, that has since been deleted, addressing sexual misconduct allegations made against him at the time and announcing an indefinite hiatus. He has not performed any known shows or released any new music since — until now.
On April 6, 2021, Ashton was sued by two women, who allege that he engaged in sexual abuse of minors, child pornography and human trafficking. Just a month later, two more women joined the lawsuit. (One of these women who joined the suit anonymously later removed herself when the court required her to reveal her legal name in order to proceed.)
Ashton, alongside the four other defendants named in the case (his management, label, and others), filed motions to dismiss. On Jan. 11, 2022, Judge Aleta A. Trauger granted all motions to dismiss except for Ashton’s, which was denied. The case is currently in discovery with a target trial date set for September.
Ashton now appears to be taking a comeback strategy with his Bassnectar project that goes directly to fans without reliance on intermediaries such as record labels and promoters, who may be reluctant to work with him. That tactic has already proven successful for Louis C.K., the comic who similarly stepped back from the public eye in 2017 after facing numerous sexual misconduct allegations. (Unlike Ashton, C.K. has not faced any criminal or civil charges.) Three years later — the same length of time as Bassnectar’s hiatus — in April 2020, C.K. announced a new comedy special called Sincerely Louis CK that he released directly to fans through his own website, with no advance notice. That album went on to win a Grammy for best comedy album last year and the comedian is performing at Madison Square Garden next week. He continues to release material strictly on LouisCK.com.
As for Bassnectar, Ashton’s fans appear thrilled about the return of an artist who for many represented the apex of the bass music realm. “THE KING IS BACK!! Happy Nectar Day to all the Fam!!!,” posted one fan to Twitter on Tuesday.
A representative from Ashton did not respond to Billboard‘s request for comment at time of publishing.
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings, and all the fun stuff in between. This week: Kanye West’s former lawyers go to extraordinary lengths to cut ties, indie rockers OK Go somehow find themselves in litigation over cereal, BMG is sued over the royalties to “Uptown Funk,” and much more.
Sign up for the free email version of The Legal Beat here.
THE BIG STORY: Kanye’s Lawyers Really, Really Want Out
Just like his corporate partners, his longtime record label, and many of his fans, Kanye West’s lawyers now want nothing to do with him.
In the wake of a string of antisemitic comments last fall, a who’s who of the nation’s top law firms publicly distanced themselves from the rapper. That included Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, the prestigious Wall Street firm that repped him in his dealings with The Gap; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, a white-shoe litigation firm that West had reportedly sought to hire; and Cohen Clair Lans Greifer Thorpe & Rottenstreich, one of many law firms that briefly handled his divorce from Kim Kardashian.
But no firm has done so with quite the flair of Greenberg Traurig, which had been handling a copyright case that accused West of using an unauthorized sample in one of the songs on Donda 2. After months of being unable to formally notify him that he’d been dropped, the firm has proposed an extraordinary alternative: printing newspaper ads announcing they’re no longer repping the disgraced rapper.
Yes, you read that right. Read the entire story here.
Other top stories this week…
A BAND VERSUS A CEREAL BRAND – In a bizarre new lawsuit, indie rockers OK Go found themselves embroiled in trademark litigation with Post Foods over a new line of on-the-go cereal cups called “OK Go!” The band says Post “chose to steal the name of our band”; Post says those allegations are “unfounded.”
“UPTOWN FUNK” ROYALTIES FIGHT – BMG was hit with a lawsuit claiming it has failed to pay royalties from the smash hit “Uptown Funk” to the families of late members of the Gap Band, who are credited as co-writers on the song. As reported by Billboard at the time, those credits were suddenly added in 2015 (months after the song was released) in an apparent effort to avoid litigation. So much for that…
DRAKEO DEATH CASE MOVES FORWARD – A Los Angeles judge rejected Live Nation’s first attempt to end a wrongful death lawsuit over the 2021 murder of Drakeo The Ruler at a music festival, ruling that the late rapper’s family might have a valid case against the concert giant.
HARRY STYLES FIGHTS COUNTERFEITS – Attorneys for Harry Styles filed a lawsuit against online retailers for allegedly violating his intellectual property rights by selling counterfeit merchandise to unsuspecting fans. The aim was to freeze assets and shut down the fake sites, which the lawyers said were mostly based in China.
DRE’S COPYRIGHT THREATS WORK – Marjorie Taylor Greene responded to a cease and desist letter from Dr. Dre over her unlicensed use of the rapper’s 1999 smash hit “Still D.R.E.,” promising to make “no further use” of the song. Dre had blasted the lawmaker for using his hit to “promote your divisive and hateful political agenda.”
SOCIAL MEDIA STAR SUED FOR ABUSE – Singer and influencer Malú Trevejo was sued by four former staffers, who alleged that they “endured mental, emotional, sexual and physical punishment” during their employment with the 20-year-old artist.
If you saw a portable snack package of Fruity Pebbles or Honey Bunches of Oats under the brand name “OK Go!” on a supermarket shelf, would you think that the rock band OK Go was somehow involved?
That bizarre question is at the center of a new lawsuit filed by cereal giant Post Foods against the power pop band, which is best known for its viral music videos, including a Grammy-winning video for the song “Here It Goes Again.”
In a complaint filed Friday (Jan. 13) in Minnesota federal court, Post said OK Go had been quietly threatening to sue for months, claiming that the company had infringed the trademark rights to the band’s name by launching the new on-the-go packages earlier this month.
“Without resolution by this court, Post will be unfairly forced to continue investing in its new OK GO! brand while under the constant threat of unfounded future litigation by defendants,” the cereal company wrote in its lawsuit.
Post is seeking what’s known as a “declaratory judgment,” meaning a ruling by a judge that says the company did nothing wrong. Post says the trademark rights of a rock band like OK Go don’t extend to an unrelated product like cereal, and that the new cups of Fruity Pebbles and other cereals are clearly marked with Post’s own branding to avoid any confusion.
In a statement to Billboard, the members of OK Go said they’d been surprised to learn of Post’s lawsuit.
“A big corporation chose to steal the name of our band to market disposable plastic cups of sugar to children. That was an unwelcome surprise, to say the least,” the band wrote. “But then they sue US about it? Presumably, the idea is that they can just bully us out of our own name, since they have so much more money to spend on lawyers? I guess that’s often how it works, but hopefully, we’ll be the exception.”
According to Post’s lawsuit, the dispute with OK Go goes back many months — and court records reveal the kind of legal back-and-forth that often precedes such litigation.
Back in September, an attorney for the band sent a cease-and-desist letter to Post, saying that OK Go had been “surprised and alarmed” to see Post’s use of its name on the new products. He claimed the new brand name would “suggest to consumers that OK Go is endorsing Post’s products,” or falsely imply that the cereal company had received permission to use the band’s name on its products.
Citing advertising collaborations with brands like Sony, Mercedes Benz, Google and Chevrolet, the band’s attorney argued that consumers had come to associate the “OK Go” name with consumer products across an array of industries. And he made particular mention that the band had even previously worked with Post itself, releasing a series of promotional videos for Honey Bunches of Oats back in 2011.
“Our client regards this matter with the utmost seriousness and has authorized us to take all steps necessary in any venue to protect its rights,” OK Go’s attorney wrote in the September letter. “If we do not hear from you within 10 days of the date of this letter, we will assume that Post does not wish to resolve this matter amicably.”
A week later, an attorney representing Post responded, saying that the company must “respectfully disagree” with the band’s accusations. The attorney argued that rock music and breakfast cereal were “clearly unrelated” products and that the phrase “OK Go” was merely a common term that had previously been used by many other companies on their products. He also flatly rejected the band’s arguments about its previous work promoting Honey Bunches of Oats.
“Given the length of time that has passed since that limited collaboration over a decade ago, the very small number of views indicated on the YouTube videos you referenced, and the general consuming public’s rather short attention span, it will also have absolutely no bearing on consumer perception of Post’s mark OK GO! used with cereal or cereal-based snacks, and will not lead to any mistaken association with OK Go,” Post’s attorney wrote in the response.
According to Post’s complaint on Friday, the company offered to pay the band as part of a “good faith effort” to resolve the dispute without resorting to litigation, despite its belief that the accusations lacked legal merit. The total figure that Post offered for such a “branding collaboration/co-marketing arrangement” was not disclosed in court documents.
But the food company says OK Go rejected that offer last week and made no counter-proposal, leaving Post with no choice but to file a lawsuit. Citing a “clear threat of potential litigation,” Post wrote that the judge must rule that the company is “free to use the OK GO! Mark.”
The case was filed in federal court in Minnesota, where Post is headquartered. An attorney for Post did not immediately return a request for comment on the lawsuit.
Read the entire lawsuit here:
Kanye West’s lawyers are asking a federal judge to let them print newspaper ads announcing they’ve dropped the embattled rapper, claiming he has thus far evaded all their efforts to formally notify him that he’s been fired as a client.
Greenberg Traurig, one of the many law firms that have cut ties with West in the wake of his antisemitic statements last year, told a California federal judge on Friday (Jan. 13) that the firm had “exhausted all methods” of contacting the rapper, who has legally changed his name to Ye. The cell phone he listed is deactivated, they said, and his reps no longer work for him.
“GT has been unable to locate Ye for personal service despite its best efforts,” attorneys from the prestigious firm wrote. “GT has tried to arrange for personal service by dispatching process servers to his last known location and using all available means to contact Ye and his representatives since November but has not been successful.”
Claiming that Kanye appears to be engaged in “deliberate avoidance and obstruction,” the firm asked the judge to permit an extraordinary alternative: printing a formal public notice in Los Angeles newspapers.
“Publication of the Withdrawal Order’s contents in two Los Angeles-area newspapers, where Ye appears to reside, will also apprise him of the Withdrawal Order,” his former lawyers wrote. “Given Ye’s public status, publication of the Withdrawal Order will likely garner significant media attention, resulting in broader publication and provide an even greater likelihood of apprising Ye of the Order.”
The filing came in a copyright lawsuit that alleged West had failed to pay for a sample he used in the track “Flowers” from his album Donda 2. Greenberg had represented him from the beginning of the case, but following West’s ugly statements, the firm announced publicly in October that it would withdraw: “This firm was founded by individuals who faced discrimination and many of us lost ancestors because of that kind of hate and prejudice.”
The firm got formal approval from the judge to withdraw from the case a short time later. But federal litigation rules and legal ethics require lawyers to serve clients with formal notice that they’ve been dropped; it’s this step that Greenberg says Kanye has evaded.
The request will require approval from the judge overseeing the case. West could not immediately be located for comment on Friday’s letter from his former lawyers.
In the wake of his public self-destruction last year, West has lost nearly every aspect of his once-formidable business empire. His representatives at CAA have dropped him, and his signature fashion partnerships with Adidas, The Gap and Balenciaga have all been terminated.
His lawyers have done the same. In addition to Greenberg, West has also been dropped by Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, the prestigious Wall Street firm that repped him in his dealings with The Gap; Cohen Clair Lans Greifer Thorpe & Rottenstreich, who repped him in his divorce from Kim Kardashian; and Brown Rudnick partner Camille Vasquez, who rose to prominence representing Johnny Depp in his defamation case against Amber Heard and briefly repped West last fall. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan partner Alex Spiro, who reps Jay-Z and Elon Musk, publicly clarified that West sought to hire him but never did so.
Read Greenberg Traurig’s full letter here:
BMG Rights Management is facing a new lawsuit claiming the publisher has failed to pay royalties from Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars‘ smash hit “Uptown Funk” to the families of late members of the Gap Band who are credited as co-writers on the song.
In a complaint filed Thursday in Manhattan federal court, the heirs of Robert and Ronnie Wilson claim that BMG breached a 2015 deal that was inked because “Uptown Funk” incorporated elements of the Gap Band’s 1979 song “I Don’t Believe You Want to Get Up and Dance (Oops Upside Your Head).”
“Despite its obligations to account for and pay to plaintiffs their share of all income received from the Uptown Funk musical composition, BMG has refused and failed to provide either the funds due to plaintiffs or an accounting despite plaintiffs’ repeated demands,” the lawsuit says.
A rep for BMG did not immediately return a request for comment on the allegations on Friday. Mars and Ronson are not accused of any wrongdoing and are not named in the lawsuit.
In a statement, Wilson family attorney Michael Steger told Billboard that his clients had been “working for years” to receive credit for their contributions to “Uptown Funk” and had been “left with no choice but to pursue litigation to protect their rights.”
As reported by Billboard at the time, the songwriting credits to “Uptown Funk” were suddenly amended in 2015, months after the song was released. After the owners of “Oops Upside Your Head” filed a claim against the song on YouTube – and in the cautious aftermath of a blockbuster infringement verdict over Robin Thicke‘s “Blurred Lines” — the five co-writers of the Gap Band song were each given 3.4% stakes in the then-new track.
The new case was filed by Linda Wilson, the widow of Ronnie Wilson, and by Robin Lynn Wilson, LaTina Wilson and Robena Wilson, the heirs of Robert Wilson, over those two late band members’ respective 3.4% stakes. The other three members who received such stakes are not involved in the case.
In their complaint, the Wilson heirs called the new allegations of non-payment against BMG “yet another chapter in a long-running series of disputes” over the hit song, which spent 14 weeks atop the Hot 100 and 56 total weeks on the chart.
They aren’t wrong. In the years after “Uptown Funk” was released, at least three lawsuits were filed claiming Ronson and Mars stole elements from earlier songs. One case involved the 1983 song “Young Girls” by the band Collage; another centered on the 1980 funk song “More Bounce to the Ounce” by the band Zapp; the third alleged they copied material from the 1979 classic “Funk You Up” by The Sequence.
All three cases were later dropped or settled.
Read the entire new lawsuit against BMG here:
Meek Mill celebrated a momentous day on Thursday (Jan. 12) when he announced that outgoing Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf had granted him a pardon on the 15-year-old drug and gun charges that for years bedeviled the rapper’s life and career. The moves means the offenses will be permanently expunged from his criminal record. “Thankyall. I’m only gone do more for my community on God!,” Meek wrote on Instagram alongside a slightly redacted copy of the official pardon document. “#newlevelsunlocked,” he added.
Over on Twitter, Meek, 35, added, “I got pardoned today…, I’m taking things really far from being a trench baby!” The pardon reads, “Therefore, know ye that in consideration of the premises and by virtue of the authority vested in me by the [redacted] said Robert R. Williams (Alias: Meek Mill) born on May 6, 1987, identified [redacted]… crime(s) whereof he was convicted as aforesaid, and he is thereby fully pardoned [redacted].
Mill (born Robert Rihmeek Williams), was convicted on drug and weapons charges in 2008 — when he was 18-years-old — and sentenced to 11-23 months in prison and released after serving eights months of his sentence and was later placed on probation for five years. What followed was a years-long series of legal entanglements that helped transform the rapper into an advocate for criminal justice reform.
Mill was arrested again in 2012 after cops said they smelled marijuana coming from his car, then was back in court two years later on a probation violation for booking performances outside of his native Philly without a judge’s approval, resulting in another prison sentence. The same judge sentenced him to 90 days of house arrest in 2016 for another alleged violation for traveling outside Philly, and once more in 2017 for violating his terms of probation, netting him a two to four year sentence in state prison.
In July 2019, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania granted Mill’s appeal, thereby overturning his 2008 conviction and ordering a new trial to be overseen by a different judge. That same year, Mill launched the non-profit REFORM Alliance, whose mission is to “transform probation and parole by changing laws, systems and culture to create real pathways to work and wellbeing.”
See a copy of the pardon document below.
I got pardoned today …, I’m taking things really far from being a trench baby!— MeekMill (@MeekMill) January 13, 2023
A Los Angeles judge has rejected Live Nation’s first attempt to end a wrongful death lawsuit over the 2021 murder of Drakeo The Ruler at a music festival, ruling that the late rapper’s family might have a valid case against the concert giant.
In a decision issued on Wednesday (Jan. 11), Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco denied Live Nation’s motion to dismiss the case at the outset, ruling that the lawsuit’s allegations, if later proven to be true, could put the company on the hook for Drakeo’s killing.
“[The lawsuit] sufficiently alleges that security was lax at the second checkpoint and that despite the presence of security guards and metal detectors, some vehicles were not adequately searched or not searched at all, thus allowing the assailants to enter the ‘all-access VIP’ area,” Judge Orozco wrote in the ruling.
Seeking to dismiss the case at the outset, Live Nation had argued that the mob attack on Drakeo backstage at the Once Upon A Time in L.A. festival was a unique tragedy and not the kind of thing a concert promoter could have “foreseen” in planning the event — a key requirement in any such negligence case. But in her ruling, Judge Orozco rejected that argument.
“The fact that defendants knew security would be needed for the event, supports the finding that the performing artists’ safety was a concern for defendants and foreseeable to defendants,” the judge wrote.
Wednesday’s ruling is not a decision on the merits of the allegations; it merely allows the case to move forward into discovery, where Drakeo’s family will be able to gather evidence. They will then need to show factual proof that their allegations are true.
A rep for Live Nation did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday.
Then a rising star in the hip hop world, Drakeo the Ruler (real name Darrell Caldwell) was attacked by a large group of assailants and stabbed repeatedly on Dec. 18 while preparing to perform at Once Upon a Time in L.A. The rapper was rushed to the hospital in critical condition, where he later died from his injuries. The Los Angeles Police Department is investigating the attack, but no criminal charges have yet been filed and a suspect has not been named.
Drakeo’s brother, Devante Caldwell, filed the current lawsuit in February, accusing Live Nation of legal negligence over security measures at the concert that he claimed ranged from “lackadaisical to totally absent.” He said Live Nation should have known that nearby South Central Los Angeles was “rife with gang activity” and should have beefed up protection accordingly.
In seeking to toss the case out, Live Nation’s attorneys argued back in July that such generalizations were not enough to legally put the company on the hook for the attack; they said Caldwell’s lawyers needed to point to a specific previous attack that could have raised red flags for Live Nation. But on Wednesday, Judge Orozco rejected that argument — ruling that a broader awareness of danger could suffice.
“Although the occurrence of a mob/gang attack may have occurred for the first time, defendants may nevertheless be held liable if the facts show that the danger was foreseeable and/or preventable,” the judge wrote.
Devante Caldwell’s lawyer, Jovan Blacknell, did not immediately return a request for comment on the decision.
Read the entire decision here:
A lawyer for Marjorie Taylor Greene responded Wednesday to a cease and desist letter from Dr. Dre over her unlicensed use of the rapper’s 1999 smash hit “Still D.R.E.,” promising that the conservative lawmaker would make “no further use” of the song.
Two days after attorneys for Dre threatened to sue the Republican congresswoman for posting a video featuring the song to “promote your divisive and hateful political agenda,” Greene waved the white flag in a brief response.
“We are in receipt of your correspondence of January 9, 2023,” Greene’s lawyer wrote in a copy of the letter obtained by Billboard. “On behalf of Congresswoman Greene, please be advised that no further use of Mr. Young’s copyright will be made by a political committee or via social media outlet she controls.”
Notably, the response letter was signed by Stefan Passantino, a former Trump administration lawyer who briefly made headlines last month over his work representing White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, a key witness for the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
The video in question — posted Monday morning (Jan. 9) on Greene’s social media accounts — featured the Republican representative strutting through the halls of Congress in slow motion, grinning at the camera as Dre’s infamous piano riff from “Still D.R.E.” repeats on a loop. By Monday evening, the video had already been disabled by Twitter.
After the video was posted, Dre quickly released a public statement, saying he would never license his music to someone as “divisive and hateful” as Greene. In a letter later that day, his attorney Howard King threatened to sue for copyright infringement — warning Greene that a federal lawmaker “should be making laws not breaking laws.”
“One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country,” King wrote. “It’s possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on.”
Wednesday’s response from Greene was exactly what was requested of her by Dre and King, who demanded that she respond with confirmation that the video had been removed by 5 p.m. ET on Wednesday. But it would not prevent the star from still choosing to sue her over the republication of his song, however briefly it existed online.
Perhaps hinting at that possibility, Greene and Passantino’s letter stressed that it should not be read as “an admission of any fact or waiver of any rights or defenses.” Dre’s lawyer King did not immediately return a request for comment on whether he would pursue additional action against Greene.
The response is a notable change of tone for Greene, who on Monday responded to Dre’s threats with a sharply-worded statement to TMZ: “While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs.”
Harry Styles is on the legal offensive to combat fake merch on the internet.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Chicago federal court, the pop star sued a number of online sellers for allegedly violating his intellectual property rights by selling counterfeit merchandise to unsuspecting Harry fans.
Arguing that the counterfeiters use misleading tactics to make it “difficult for consumers to distinguish such stores from an authorized retailer,” attorneys for Styles want a judge to issue a sweeping court order that would, among other things, force big web platforms like Amazon and Etsy (who are not named as defendants) to immediately shut down the listings.
“Plaintiff is forced to file this action to combat defendants’ counterfeiting of its registered trademarks, as well as to protect unknowing consumers from purchasing counterfeit products over the Internet,” the star’s lawyers wrote.
In bringing the case, Styles is employing an anti-counterfeiting tactic that’s frequently used by big brands to fight fakes on the internet.
Such cases, filed against huge lists of URLs rather than actual people, allow brands to shut pirate sites down en masse, win court orders to freeze their assets, and continue to kill new sites if they pop up. The lawsuits also usually result in massive monetary judgments against the sellers, but those are typically hard to actually collect from elusive counterfeiters.
Notably, the counterfeiters that Styles is targeting in the lawsuit are not currently disclosed, because such lawsuits are designed to take them by surprise: “If defendants were to learn of these proceedings prematurely, the likely result would be the destruction of relevant documentary evidence and the hiding or transferring of assets to foreign jurisdictions,” the pop star’s lawyers told the judge.
Such lawsuits are more common among big retails brands — Nike, Ray-Ban, Toyota and Tommy Hilfiger have all filed nearly-identical cases in the past two months — but the music industry also regularly uses the same tactic. Nirvana sued nearly 200 sites for selling fake gear in January; a few months later, the late rapper XXXTentacion’s company filed a similar case.
In his lawsuit, Styles claimed the counterfeiters are mostly located in China, or in “other foreign jurisdictions with lax trademark enforcement system.” And he claimed they used sophisticated methods to target fans searching for Harry’s merch while avoiding detection, including “multiple fictitious aliases” and the use of meta tags.
“Tactics used by defendants to conceal their identities and the full scope of their operation make it virtually impossible for plaintiff to learn defendants’ true identities and the exact interworking of their counterfeit network,” the star’s attorneys wrote.