State Champ Radio Legal
Page: 26
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: Young Thug’s Atlanta prosecutors get really mad over a social media post; Diddy’s sex trafficking case heats up as a trial date looms; Mariah Carey seeks payback after beating a “Christmas” copyright case; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: DA Gets Mad About Young Thug’s Tweets
Less than six months after Young Thug pleaded guilty to gang charges and was sentenced to probation, he found himself facing accusations from Atlanta prosecutors that he had violated his release terms. The issue? A mean tweet.
To rewind: After sitting in jail for more than two years on felony accusations over his “YSL” group, Thug rebuffed a plea deal and simply pleaded guilty in October, winning a sentence of only probation — a humiliating result for the Fulton County District Attorney’s office after the longest-running trial in state history had descended into chaos.
Trending on Billboard
While Thug avoided prison, he was hit with strict release terms from the judge, who warned him that “there better be no violations.” And on Wednesday (April 2), prosecutors accused him of just such a misstep — citing a social media post on X (formerly Twitter) in which the rapper had criticized an investigator as “the biggest liar in the DA’s office.” They called that post “a blatant disregard for the law” and part of a “a calculated campaign of intimidation.”
Unsurprisingly, Thug’s attorneys disagreed — calling those accusations “baseless” and arguing that the rapper was legally entitled to voice his opinion about the government even while under probation: “Mr. Williams can admit to all of the allegations alleged and still not have violated any term of his probationary sentence.”
When the dust settled Thursday (April 3), Judge Paige Reese Whitaker sided with Thug and declined to revoke his probation. But she also suggested that he be more careful on social media: “While the court does not find that the cited social media post rises to the level of a violation of defendant’s probation, it may be prudent for defendant to exercise restraint regarding certain topics.”
Other top stories this week…
DIDDY CASE HEATS UP – The sweeping sexual abuse case against Sean “Diddy” Combs heated up with the trial looming next month, first with a new superseding indictment that added new legal charges against the star, and then with news that his ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura would testify against him at the trial using her real name. Prosecutors argued that the other three alleged victims should remain anonymous, though, citing such treatment in previous cases against R. Kelly and Ghislaine Maxwell.
PRE-TRIAL CLASH – Meanwhile, federal prosecutors and Diddy’s defense attorneys sparred over a crucial pre-trial question: Whether jurors can hear testimony from numerous other accusers beyond the four women at the core of the government’s case. His lawyers say the feds are trying to “pollute the trial with decades of dirt” by adding last-minute “incendiary” claims to paint him as a “bad guy”; the government says Combs is “desperately” trying to keep relevant testimony about his other intent and knowledge “hidden from the jury.”
MARIAH’S REVENGE – After beating a copyright lawsuit over her holiday classic “All I Want for Christmas is You,” Mariah Carey and other defendants demanded that Vince Vance, the little-known songwriter who filed the case, repay more than $180,000 they spent on lawyers defending certain “frivolous” motions. That might sound like a lot for just a few motions, but Carey says she was “perfectly justified” in paying elite lawyers because Vance was seeking drastic remedies like $20 million in damages and the “destruction of all copies” of the song.
DRAKE DISCOVERY – A federal judge ruled that Drake could move forward with discovery in his defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” allowing his attorneys to begin demanding documents like Lamar’s record deal. The ruling went against UMG, which had argued that Drake’s case was so flawed that it would likely be quickly dismissed, making discovery a waste of everyone’s time. But discovery in a civil lawsuit is a two-way street — infamously so in defamation cases — and UMG can now also seek vast swathes of sensitive materials about Drake, including demanding to depose the rapper himself.
HAYES v. TRUMP SURVIVES – A federal judge ruled that President Donald Trump must face a copyright lawsuit filed by the estate of Isaac Hayes over the president’s alleged use of the 1966 song “Hold On, I’m Coming” on the campaign trail. The president’s attorneys had argued that Hayes’ estate had failed to show that it even owned a copyright to the song, but a judge said the estate had done just enough to avoid having the case tossed at the outset.
“NOTHING MISLEADING” – SiriusXM asked a federal judge to dismiss a class action claiming the company earns billions by foisting a deceptive “U.S. Music Royalty Fee” onto subscribers, arguing there had been “nothing misleading” about its pricing and marketing. The lawsuit claims the fee makes the service far more expensive than advertised, but SiriusXM argued that users “received what they paid for” and knew about the fee: “Sirius XM has done exactly what it said it would do: charge a monthly price for music subscriptions, plus ‘fees and taxes’.”
Sean “Diddy” Combs and federal prosecutors are locked in a pre-trial battle over a crucial question: Whether jurors can hear testimony from numerous other accusers beyond the four women at the core of the government’s case.
In dueling court filings Monday, attorneys for the two sides exchanged heated arguments over the prosecution’s plan to call witnesses that it identifies as “non-statutory victims” – women who say they were sexually assaulted by Combs but whose claims don’t form the basis for the actual charges.
Diddy’s lawyers say the feds are trying to “pollute the trial with decades of dirt” by adding last-minute “incendiary” claims to paint him as a “bad guy”; prosecutors say Combs is “desperately” trying to keep relevant testimony about his other intent and knowledge “hidden from the jury.”
Trending on Billboard
“That testimony powerfully establishes that the defendant made no mistake when he coerced other victims into unwanted sex,” the government wrote in its filing Monday. “It proves that the defendant intended to take the sexual gratification he wanted, regardless of consent.”
Combs was indicted in September, charged with running a sprawling criminal operation that aimed to “fulfill his sexual desires.” The case centers on elaborate “freak off” parties in which Combs and others would allegedly ply victims with drugs and then coerce them into having sex, as well as on alleged acts of violence to keep victims silent.
A trial is currently set to start on May 5. If convicted on all of the charges, which include sex trafficking and racketeering, Combs faces a potential life prison sentence.
The actual criminal counts against Diddy center on four alleged victims, identified in court documents as Victim-1, Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4. While Victim-1 is known to be Combs’ ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura, the identities of the others are unknown and prosecutors are seeking to keep it that way.
On Monday, attorneys for Combs lodged a scathing filing claiming the government had “suddenly” moved to add new accusations from other alleged victims beyond those four women. They claimed the “incendiary” new claims of sexual assault were “substantially more serious” than the actual sex trafficking and racketeering allegations – and would “make it impossible for Mr. Combs to receive a fair trial.”
“The government should not be permitted to pollute the trial with decades of dirt and invite a conviction based on propensity evidence with no proper purpose by painting Mr. Combs as a bad guy who must have committed the charged crimes,” his lawyers wrote.
Diddy’s lawyers say such testimony would not only “double the length of a trial,” but is improper “character evidence” – material not directly linked to the alleged wrongdoing that’s designed to convince jurors that a defendant could have committed the crime.
“This tactic cannot be allowed to succeed,” Combs’ lawyers wrote in their filing. “If the government’s evidence were allowed, it would mark one of the worst abuses of the character evidence rule in the history of American law.”
Later on Monday, prosecutors fired back to defend their plan, arguing that Combs himself had opened the door to such testimony by planning to argue that the alleged victims had consensually partaken in the “freak offs” and other sexual activity. They say testimony about other numerous other assaults will clearly disprove such a defense strategy.
“When the defendant inevitably argues at trial that he had no clue these four women did not want the sexual experiences that he demanded, the government should be able to point out that someone as practiced as he is in sexual assault surely recognized the signs of non-consent,” prosecutors wrote. “And when the defendant claims that he only ever intended to have consensual, loving sexual experiences with the [charged] victims, the government should be able to point out his repeated intent to sexually gratify himself with unwilling participants.”
Neither side disclosed in court filings who the new alleged victims are, or how many of them the government plans to call as witnesses. But Combs’ lawyers said that “all but one of the alleged incidents happened over twenty years ago” and that the new accusations “implicate dozens of unidentified witnesses and alleged co-conspirators around the world.”
Sean “Diddy” Combs’ ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura will testify against him under her real name at his looming sex trafficking and racketeering trial, according to new court filings.
Ventura, whose civil rape lawsuit triggered the rapper’s downfall, will not use the pseudonym “Victim-1” when she takes the stand at his May trial and will instead “testify under her own name,” federal prosecutors told a judge in filings on Friday (April 4). But three other alleged victims of Combs should remain anonymous in court filings and at the trial, prosecutors wrote.
“This case has already received an exceptional amount of media coverage, which will presumably only increase as trial proceeds,” the government lawyers wrote. “Permitting these measures will prevent unnecessary public disclosure of the victims’ identities, and the harassment from the media and others, undue embarrassment, and other adverse consequences.”
Trending on Billboard
Combs, also known as Puff Daddy and P. Diddy, was once one of the most powerful men in the music industry. But in November 2023, Cassie filed a civil lawsuit claiming he had repeatedly physically abused her over the course of their decade-long relationship, including one instance of rape. That case quickly ended with a settlement, but it sparked a cascade of allegations that has not yet stopped.
In September, Combs was indicted on charges that he misused the “employees, resources, and influence” of his business empire to “fulfill his sexual desires.” The case centers on elaborate “freak off” parties in which Combs and others would allegedly ply victims with drugs and then coerce them into having sex, as well as on alleged acts of violence to keep victims silent.
A trial is currently set to start on May 5. If convicted on all of the charges, Combs faces a potential life prison sentence.
Since filing her civil lawsuit under her real name, Cassie has been known as one of Combs’ accusers, but she has been listed in court documents only as “Victim-1.” The identities of three other women cited in court documents as Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4 remain unknown.
In Friday’s filing, prosecutors said they wanted to keep it that way. They cited recent cases against R. Kelly, Ghislaine Maxwell and others in which judges allowed alleged victims to remain anonymous.
“The practice of allowing alleged victims of sexual abuse to testify under a pseudonym has been widely permitted because requiring alleged victims to publicly provide their names could chill their willingness to testify for fear of having their personal histories publicized and may cause further harassment or embarrassment,” prosecutors wrote. “There is no reason for this Court to deviate from that well-established practice here.”
British police on Friday (April 4) charged Russell Brand with rape and sexual assault following an 18-month investigation sparked when four women alleged they had been assaulted by the controversial comedian.
London’s Metropolitan Police force said Brand, 50, faces one count of rape, one of indecent assault, one of oral rape and two of sexual assault.
Brand denied engaging in “non-consensual” sexual activity.
The alleged offenses involve four women and took place between 1999 and 2005 — one in the English seaside town of Bournemouth and the other three in the Westminster area of central London.
Police said the investigation remains open and urged anyone with relevant information to contact the force.
In September 2023, British media outlets Channel 4 and the Sunday Times published claims by four women of being sexually assaulted or raped by Brand. The accusers have not been identified.
The comedian, author and Get Him to the Greek actor has been interviewed by police about the allegations, which he denies.
In a video posted Friday on X, Brand said “I’ve never engaged in non-consensual activity. I pray that you can see that by looking in my eyes.”
He added that “I am now going to have the opportunity to defend these charges in court and I’m incredibly grateful for that.”
Known for his unbridled and risqué standup routines, Brand hosted shows on radio and television, wrote memoirs charting his battles with drugs and alcohol, appeared in several Hollywood movies and was briefly married to pop star Katy Perry between 2010 and 2012.
In recent years, Brand has largely disappeared from mainstream media but has built up a large following online with videos mixing wellness and conspiracy theories. He recently said he had moved to the United States.
Brand is due to appear in a London court on May 2.
Jaswant Narwal, of Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service, said prosecutors “carefully reviewed the evidence after a police investigation into allegations made following the broadcast of a Channel 4 documentary in September 2023.
“We have concluded that Russell Brand should be charged with offences including rape, sexual assault and indecent assault,” Narwal said.
“The Crown Prosecution Service reminds everyone that criminal proceedings are active, and the defendant has the right to a fair trial.”
In January the BBC apologized to staff members who felt unable to complain about Brand’s conduct because of his celebrity status. Brand had two weekly radio shows on the BBC from 2006 to 2008 and worked periodically on a number of short-term projects.
The BBC acknowledged that it was “clear that presenters have been able to abuse their positions” in the past.
Federal prosecutors have unveiled an updated indictment against Sean “Diddy” Combs, adding new charges to the sex trafficking and racketeering case just over a month before trial. In a superseding indictment filed Thursday (April 3) in Manhattan federal court, prosecutors made several tweaks to the sweeping case against Combs, which claims that the hip-hop mogul […]
A Fulton County judge has declined to revoke Young Thug‘s probation after Atlanta prosecutors pushed for his imprisonment over a social media post the rapper made calling a government investigator “the biggest liar,” according to court documents filed on Thursday (April 3). Though Judge Paige Reese Whitaker decided in the rapper’s favor, in a footnote […]
Young Thug’s attorneys fired back Thursday (April 3) at a push by Atlanta prosecutors to revoke his probation, strongly denying that he violated his release terms merely by posting to social media that a government investigator was the “biggest liar.”
Just a day after the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office told a Georgia judge that Thug should be imprisoned over the X post criticizing Marissa Viverito, the star’s attorneys said the government motion was filled with “baseless assertions” and ought to be denied.
“Mr. Williams did not violate any term of probation,” lawyer Brian Steel wrote in the filing. “There is no violation of Mr. Williams’ probation by reposting an image on social media and opining that Investigator Viverito is untruthful.”
Trending on Billboard
After sitting in jail for more than two years on felony gang accusations over his “YSL” group, Thug pleaded guilty last year and was sentenced to serve only probation — a stunning end to a legal saga that could have seen him face a life sentence. While he avoided prison, Thug was hit with strict release terms from the judge, who warned him that “there better be no violations.”
The current dispute started on Tuesday (April 1), when Thug posted an image of Viverito to X (formerly Twitter) with the caption that read: “Marissa Viverito is the biggest liar in the DA’s office.” The post, apparently a reference to her testimony in an unrelated gang case, quickly spread across social media.
A day later, the DA’s office went to court, saying Thug had shown “a blatant disregard for the law, the safety of witnesses, and the integrity of judicial proceedings.” Prosecutors argued that the tweet had been part of “a calculated campaign of intimidation” and had led to subsequent posts by others revealing Viverito’s home address and making death threats against DA Fani Willis.
“The escalation from targeting a testifying witness to making a direct death threat against the elected District Attorney of Fulton County is a grave and unprecedented attack on the justice system,” prosecutors wrote in the Wednesday (April 2) filing.
But in Thursday’s response, Steel said Thug was legally entitled to voice his opinion about Viverito’s credibility even while living under the terms of his probation: “Mr. Williams can admit to all of the allegations alleged and still not have violated any term of his probationary sentence.”
Steel also argued that Thug himself was clearly not responsible for later posts by other users: “Mr. Williams, undersigned counsel and all moral persons do not condone threatening another without justification. However, these comments on social media by unknown persons cannot be attributed to Mr. Williams in order to support a violation of his probationary sentence.”
A judge will weigh the arguments from both sides and potentially order a hearing to decide whether to revoke probation. In Thursday’s response, Steel said that the judge could deny the request without a hearing — but that his client would be ready for one: “If a hearing is needed, Mr. Williams will be prepared.”
After beating a copyright lawsuit over her holiday classic “All I Want for Christmas is You,” Mariah Carey and other defendants say the little-known songwriter who filed the case must now repay more than $180,000 they spent on lawyers defending his “frivolous” arguments.
When a federal judge dismissed Vince Vance’s lawsuit last month – ruling the two songs mostly just shared “Christmas song clichés” – she sharply criticized the songwriter and his lawyers for “egregious” conduct during the case and ordered him to repay some of Carey’s legal bill.
On Wednesday, that bill came due: Carey and the other defendants in the case told the judge they spent a combined $185,602.30 paying a team of high-priced lawyers to work a total of 295 hours to defeat the “frivolous” motions advanced by Vance’s attorneys.
Trending on Billboard
If that sounds like a lot, Carey’s lawyers say its because Vance was making radical demands.
“The court should consider that [Vance was] seeking, among other things, $20 million in damages, injunctive relief, and even the destruction of all copies of ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You,’” her attorneys say. “Considering such drastic requested relief, and the results obtained, defendants were perfectly justified in incurring the aforementioned attorney’s fees to successfully oppose plaintiffs’ motion.”
Vance (real name Andy Stone) first sued Carey in 2022, claiming “All I Want” infringed the copyrights to a 1989 song of the exact same name recorded by his Vince Vance and the Valiants. He claimed the earlier track received “extensive airplay” during the 1993 holiday season — a year before Carey released her now-better-known hit.
“Carey has … palmed off these works with her incredulous origin story, as if those works were her own,” Vance wrote in his latest complaint. “Her hubris knowing no bounds, even her co-credited songwriter doesn’t believe the story she has spun.”
Vance’s allegations were a big deal because Carey’s song is big business. The 1994 blockbuster, which became even more popular after it was featured in the 2003 holiday rom-com Love Actually, has re-taken the top spot on the Hot 100 for six straight years and earned a whopping $8.5 million in global revenue in 2022.
But in a ruling last month, Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani said Vance had failed to show that the songs were similar enough to violate copyright law. She cited analysis by a musicologist who said the two tracks were “very different songs” that shared only “commonplace Christmas song clichés” that had been used in many earlier tracks.
“Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that [the songs by] Carey and Vance are substantially similar under the extrinsic test,” Ramírez Almadani wrote at the time, using the legal term for how courts assess such allegations.
The judge not only tossed out Vance’s case, but also ruled that he and his lawyers should be punished for advancing meritless arguments that the judge said were aimed to “cause unnecessary delay and needlessly increase the costs of litigation.”
In Wednesday’s filing, the defendants told the judge how much Vance should pay under that order – saying they had been charged reasonable or even below-market rates from elite music litigators at top law firms.
Carey, repped by Peter Anderson and others from the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, asked for about $141,000; Walter Afanasieff, a co-writer on Carey’s track repped by Kenneth D. Freundlich, asked for $7,000; Sony Music, represented by Benjamin Akley, Donald Zakarin, Ilene Farkas and others from Pryor Cashman, asked for $32,000; and Kobalt, repped by Bert Deixler and others from Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP, asked for $5,000.
The judge will rule on the request at some point in the weeks or months ahead. Vance’s attorneys will be allowed to file a response disputing the calculation; they can also appeal the ruling dismissing their case, though such a challenge will likely face long odds.
A federal judge says President Donald Trump must face a copyright lawsuit filed by the estate of Isaac Hayes over the president’s alleged use of the 1966 song “Hold On, I’m Coming” on the campaign trail. In a ruling issued Wednesday (April 2), court records show that Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. denied a motion by […]
A federal judge says Drake can move forward with discovery in his defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” allowing his attorneys to begin demanding documents like Lamar’s record deal.
UMG had asked Judge Jeannette A. Vargas to halt the discovery process last month, arguing that Drake’s case was so flawed that it would likely be quickly dismissed — and that the star was unfairly demanding “highly commercially sensitive documents” in the meantime.
But at a hearing Wednesday (April 2) in Manhattan federal court, the judge denied that motion in a ruling from the bench. The judge had hinted in earlier rulings that she does not typically delay discovery before deciding if a case will be dismissed, barring extraordinary circumstances.
Trending on Billboard
In response to the ruling, Drake’s lead attorney Michael Gottlieb said: “Now it’s time to see what UMG was so desperately trying to hide.” An attorney for UMG declined to comment, and a spokesman for the company did not immediately return a request for comment.
Lamar released “Not Like Us” last May amid a high-profile beef with Drake that saw the two stars release a series of bruising diss tracks. The song, a knockout punch that blasted Drake as a “certified pedophile” over an infectious beat, eventually became a chart-topping hit in its own right and was the centerpiece of Lamar’s Super Bowl halftime show.
In January, Drake took the unusual step of suing UMG over the song, claiming his label had defamed him by boosting the track’s popularity. The lawsuit, which doesn’t name Lamar himself as a defendant, alleges that UMG “waged a campaign” against its own artist to spread a “malicious narrative” about pedophilia that it knew to be false.
UMG filed a scathing motion seeking to dismiss the case last month, arguing not only that it was “meritless” but also ridiculing Drake for suing in the first place. Days later, the company asked Judge Vargas to pause discovery until she ruled on that motion, warning that exchanging evidence would be a waste of time if the case was then immediately tossed out of court.
But in a quick response, Drake’s lawyers argued discovery must go on because the lawsuit was not going anywhere: “UMG completely ignores the complaint’s allegations that millions of people, all over the world, did understand the defamatory material as a factual assertion that plaintiff is a pedophile.”
Following Wednesday’s decision, Drake’s attorneys will now continue to push ahead with seeking key documents and demanding to depose witnesses. That process will continue unless the judge grants UMG’s motion in the months ahead and dismisses the lawsuit.
In the earlier filings in the case, UMG attached the actual discovery requests filed by Drake’s team, detailing the materials his attorneys are seeking.
Among many others, they want documents relating to decisions on “whether to omit or censor any lyrics” from “Not Like Us” during the Super Bowl halftime show; anything related to the promotion of the song on Spotify and Apple Music; and any communications with the Recording Academy ahead of Lamar’s string of award wins at the Grammy Awards in February; and “all contracts and agreements between you and Kendrick Lamar Duckworth, his agents, or anyone working on his behalf.”
