Legal
Page: 4
Sean “Diddy” Combs returned to federal court in New York City on Friday (March 14), pleading not guilty to the latest version of an indictment charging him with two decades of sex trafficking crimes.
The 55-year-old Combs, his beard noticeably grayer than even weeks ago, stood with his hands folded before him as he told Judge Arun Subramanian that he had read the indictment and understood the charges against him.
Combs, who has been held without bail since his September arrest, hugged two of his lawyers as he entered the courtroom and he blew kisses to family members and waved as he was led out by U.S. marshals afterward.
Subramanian told lawyers that questionnaires will be distributed to hundreds of prospective jurors at the end of April so that questioning of would-be jurors can begin on May 5, with opening statements expected to occur on May 12.
According to the indictment, Combs used the “power and prestige” he wielded as a music mogul to intimidate, threaten and lure women into his orbit, often under the pretense of a romantic relationship.
The indictment said he then used force, threats and coercion to cause victims, including three women specified in the court papers, to engage in commercial sex acts.
It said he subjected his victims to violence, threats of violence, threats of financial and reputational harm and verbal abuse.
“On multiple occasions, Combs threw both objects and people, as well as hit, dragged, choked and shoved others,” it said. “On one occasion, Combs dangled a victim over an apartment balcony.”
Defense lawyers have argued that prosecutors used the charges to try to demonize sex acts between consenting adults.
Part of the discussion in court Friday revolved around what will be allowed at the trial regarding a video that aired on CNN last year that showed Combs punching his former protege and girlfriend, the R&B singer Cassie, and throwing her on the floor in a hotel hallway.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Mitzi Steiner said the video was “critical to the case.”
Defense attorney Marc Agnifilo said the video was “deceptive and not in accordance with the actions that took place.”
He said certain actions were speeded up in the video by as much as 50% and others were taken out of order.
“From the defense standpoint, it’s a misleading piece of evidence, a deceptive piece of evidence, a piece of evidence that has been changed,” he said.
Steiner also said the government was reluctant to share information about accusers who may testify in the case with defense lawyers until deadlines arrive that require the information to be turned over.
She said many of the “individuals are incredibly frightened” not only at having their names revealed publicly but having them disclosed to defense attorneys.
A federal judge says the Justice Department can move ahead with a key allegation in its antitrust case against Live Nation: That the company illegally forces artists to use its promotion services if they want to perform in its massive network of amphitheaters.
In a written ruling issued Friday (March 14), Judge Arun Subramanian denied Live Nation’s request to dismiss an accusation that the concert giant illegally required artists to buy one service if they wanted to purchase another one — known in antitrust parlance as “tying.”
Ahead of the ruling, attorneys for Live Nation had argued that it was merely refusing to let rival concert promoters rent its venues, something that’s fair game under longstanding legal precedents. But the judge wrote in his ruling that the DOJ’s accusations were clearly focused on artists, not competing firms.
Trending on Billboard
“The complaint explains that due to Live Nation’s monopoly power in the large-amphitheater market, artists are effectively locked into using Live Nation as the promoter for a tour that stops at large amphitheaters,” the judge wrote, before adding later: “These allegations aren’t just about a refusal to deal with rival promoters. They are about the coercion of artists.”
The decision was not on the final merits of the DOJ’s case; the feds must still provide factual evidence to prove that Live Nation actually coerced artists. But at the earliest stage of the case, when courts must assume allegations are true, Judge Subramanian ruled that the DOJ had done enough to move ahead.
The DOJ and dozens of states filed the sweeping antitrust lawsuit in May, aimed at breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster over accusations that they form an illegal monopoly over the live music industry. The feds alleged Live Nation runs an illegal “flywheel” — reaping revenue from ticket buyers, using that money to sign artists, then leveraging that repertoire to lock venues into exclusive ticketing contracts that yield ever more revenue.
Among other accusations, the government argued that Live Nation was exploiting its massive market share in amphitheaters — allegedly 40 of the top 50 such venues in the country – to force artists to use its concert promotion services.
“Live Nation has a longstanding policy going back more than a decade of preventing artists who prefer and choose third-party promoters from using its venues,” the DOJ wrote in its complaint. “In other words, if an artist wants to use a Live Nation venue as part of a tour, he or she almost always must contract with Live Nation as the tour’s concert promoter.”
Not so, argued attorneys for Live Nation. In its own court filings, the company said that it merely refuses to rent out its portfolio of amphitheaters to the competing concert promotion companies that artists have hired — and that it is “settled law” under federal antitrust statutes that a company has “no duty to aid its competitors.”
In Friday’s decision, Judge Subramanian said that argument could succeed at trial, but that the DOJ’s basic legal theory was sound enough to survive for now: “The facts may ultimately show that the tying claim here is nothing more than a refusal-to-deal claim,” the judge wrote. “But at this stage, the court’s role is to determine whether the complaint states a plausible tying claim, and it does.”
Live Nation did not immediately return a request for comment. A trial is tentatively scheduled for March 2026.
Karol G and Universal Music Group (UMG) are facing a copyright infringement lawsuit over a track from the Colombian superstar’s chart-topping album Mañana Será Bonito. In a case filed in Miami federal court, producers Ocean Vibes (Jack Hernandez) and Alfr3d Beats (Dick Alfredo Caballero Rodriguez) say the singer and her co-writers stole key elements of […]
CNN is denying accusations from Sean “Diddy” Combs’ attorneys that the network altered and then destroyed the infamous 2016 surveillance video of him assaulting his former girlfriend Cassie Ventura.
In court filings Thursday, attorneys for the indicted hip-hop mogul leveled a bombshell accusation: that CNN “substantially altered” the footage in “significant respects” and then destroyed the original copy, even though they knew about the criminal investigation into Diddy.
But in a statement just hours later, CNN flatly rejected the claim: “CNN never altered the video and did not destroy the original copy of the footage, which was retained by the source. CNN aired the story about the video several months before Combs was arrested.”
Thursday’s dispute is significant because Diddy’s attorneys will cite CNN’s alleged mishandling as a reason for the footage to be excluded from the upcoming trial, potentially depriving prosecutors of a visceral piece of evidence to present to jurors. In the filing, Combs’ team confirmed that they would make such arguments would be covered in a upcoming motion.
Combs was indicted in September, charged with running a sprawling criminal operation aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” 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.
The Cassie video, which aired on CNN in May, showed Combs striking his then-girlfriend in the hallway of a Los Angeles hotel in 2016. The clip drew far more attention to the accusations against the star, and prompted an apology from Combs shortly after it aired.
“My behavior on that video is inexcusable,” Combs said at the time. “I take full responsibility for my actions in that video. I was disgusted then when I did it. I’m disgusted now. I went and I sought out professional help. I got into going to therapy, going to rehab. I had to ask God for his mercy and grace. I’m so sorry.”
In the months leading up to trial, attorneys for the star have repeatedly targeted the tape in pre-trial motions, including previously claiming that federal authorities had improperly leaked it to the press to “taint the jury pool.” Prosecutors sharply denied that charge, arguing that Combs was using such claims to in an effort to “suppress a damning piece of evidence.”
In Thursday’s court filing, Diddy’s lawyers said that subpoenas to CNN had proven that the video had been altered, including “covering the time stamp, “changing the video sequence” and “speeding up the video to make it falsely appear that the actions in the video are taking place faster than they are.” As a result of the changes, the clips “do not fairly and accurately depict the events in question.”
In the same filing, the Combs legal team also argued that CNN had “purchased the only known copy” of the footage, uploaded into their systems, and then “destroyed the original footage.”
In a statement to Billboard on Friday, Cassie’s attorney Douglas Wigdor criticized Diddy over the filings: “It is not surprising that Combs would make a disingenuous argument to exclude the disturbing video from being shown to the jury in the upcoming trial. I am confident that the video fairly and accurately represents what happened, will be admitted into evidence, and that Combs will be held accountable for his depravity.”
Offset is suing a producer who worked on his 2023 album Set It Off, claiming the one-time collaborator has been demanding a large increase in fees and royalties long after the deal was done.
In a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles federal court, attorneys for the former Migos member say that reps for ChaseTheMoney (Chase Rose) signed a contract ahead of the album’s October 2023 release, covering payment for his production work on the track “Worth It.” But months later, ChaseTheMoney’s new manager allegedly reached out to demand more money for the same work.
“The new manager proposed new terms for the producer agreement, including a producer fee that was more than five times the amount of the producer fee that was agreed upon, and a royalty percentage more than double,” Offset’s lawyers write in their Tuesday (March 11) court complaint.
Trending on Billboard
After Offset’s team “promptly responded” the deal had already been locked down and “would not be re-negotiated,” his lawyers say reps for ChaseTheMoney repeatedly offered other versions of the contract, each containing “different proposals as to the financial terms.”
When Offset’s team allegedly continued to refuse to alter the deal, the lawsuit claims that ChaseTheMoney began claiming that the previous manager who had negotiated the Set It Off deal — a man identified only as J Hill in court documents — was actually “not his manager” at the time the original deal was struck.
But according to Tuesday’s lawsuit, ChaseTheMoney clearly sent them to J Hill to work out the deal, saying the producer told Offset and his team via text message that Hill would “figure logistics” for clearing his contributions to “Worth It.”
“ChaseTheMoney referred to J Hill as his manager in various correspondence to Offset and his A&R team [and] ChaseTheMoney directed Offset and his A&R team to discuss the clearance of the recording with J Hill on ChaseTheMoney’s behalf,” Offset’s lawyers write. “J Hill had confirmed in writing that he represented ChaseTheMoney as his manager, and no person affiliated with or connected to ChaseTheMoney had ever claimed or contended prior to July of 2024 that that J Hill was not ChaseTheMoney’s manager.”
The terms of the original deal, according to Offset, gave Chase a $10,000 producer fee and half of the 2 percent producer royalty, minus certain amounts that were deemed recording costs and recoupable advances.
When reached for comment Thursday (March 13) via direct message on Instagram, ChaseTheMoney said: “I’m not being sued. It’s the other way around lol.” He declined to comment further, then deleted those messages. After a review of court records, Billboard was not able to locate a lawsuit filed by Chase against Offset.
Reps for Offset did not immediately return requests for comment on Thursday.
In technical terms, the lawsuit filed this week is what’s known as a “declaratory judgment” action —meaning Offset is not accusing Chase of legal wrongdoing but instead is arguing that Chase is improperly accusing him of doing something wrong. By filing such a case, Offset is asking a judge to rule that the original contract is valid and enforceable and that he has complied with all of its requirements.
Tuesday isn’t the first time Offset has filed such a lawsuit over a music contract.
Back in 2022, the rapper filed a similar declaratory judgment lawsuit against Quality Control Music, the record label that helped launch his career as a member of Migos. In it, he claimed the company was continuing to seek to control of his solo work, even though he had “paid handsomely” for the right to break free from his original record deal: “Offset now brings this action to vindicate his rights and to make it clear to the world that Offset, not Quality Control, owns Offset’s music.”
The star later dropped that lawsuit in August 2023.
Sony Music is suing the University of Southern California (USC) for more than $25 million over claims that the college sports powerhouse illegally used songs by Michael Jackson, Beyonce and AC/DC in TikTok and Instagram videos hyping its teams.
In a complaint filed Tuesday (March 11) in New York federal court, the music giant says the school posted more than 250 videos featuring over 170 unlicensed tracks to its social media channels, including those by Britney Spears, Harry Styles, SZA, Mariah Carey, OutKast, Pink Floyd and Travis Scott.
“USC has one of the most lucrative college sports programs in the world, realizing over $200 million annually in revenues from its participation in a multi-billion dollar college sports,” the label’s attorneys write. “Despite having been on notice of its infringing conduct, USC has repeatedly failed to obtain licenses for its use of Sony Music sound recording.”
Trending on Billboard
Seeking $150,000 in so-called statutory damages for every song used, the lawsuit is demanding more than $25 million in potential damages — or more, if Sony can prove that it suffered even greater losses.
According to Sony Music, USC was notified of the problem as early as June 2021 and has been repeatedly warned since
“Rather than cease this infringing conduct, USC chose to flout copyright law, repeatedly posting new videos to the USC Social Media Pages that use Sony Music sound recordings knowingly and willfully and without permission,” the company wrote. “USC even left many uses available online after being put on notice from Sony Music that they were infringing.”
Social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram provide huge libraries of licensed music for users to add to their videos. But there’s a key restriction: The songs can’t be used for commercial or promotional videos posted by brands. That kind of content requires a separate “synch” license, just like any conventional advertisement on TV.
That crucial distinction has led to numerous lawsuits in recent years.
Beginning in 2021, all three majors sued drink maker Bang Energy over its TikTok videos, with Universal Music Group (UMG) and Sony Music eventually winning large judgments. In May, Sony filed a case against Marriott over accusations that the hotel chain had used nearly 1,000 of its songs in social media posts. In July, Kobalt and other publishers sued more than a dozen NBA teams over the same thing. The restaurant chain Chili’s has been sued twice, once by the Beastie Boys and later by UMG over tracks from Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber and dozens of other artists.
In Tuesday’s case against USC, attorneys for Sony say that the school’s own social media brand guidelines expressly warned against using copyrighted music in videos: “If you want to feature ‘popular music’ in your video, as in music you hear on the radio, you must license it from the publishing company and or record company,” USC’s guide allegedly reads.
“In flagrant disregard of this clear guidance, USC itself has distributed hundreds of videos (if not more) which contain infringing uses of Sony Music’s sound recordings,” Sony’s lawyers write in the lawsuit. “These uses were made without permission, without compensation to Sony Music and its artists, and in violation of USC’s own written guidelines.”
A spokesperson for USC did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday (March 12).
George Clinton is suing his one-time business partner, Armen Boladian, over allegations that he fraudulently obtained the rights to the vast majority of the funk pioneer’s music catalog.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (March 11) in Florida federal court, attorneys for Clinton accused Boladian and his Bridgeport Music of “abusive, deceptive, and fraudulent practices” that were aimed at stealing from Clinton and “capitalizing on his success.”
“I’m fighting for my life’s work and to ensure future generations of artists are treated fairly,” Clinton said in a statement released by his lawyers. “When you’re young and just starting out in the music industry, it’s easy for others to take advantage of you.”
Trending on Billboard
The sweeping complaint accuses Boladian of carrying out a “decades long scheme to defraud Clinton,” including improperly using the star’s signature to grant himself rights to Clinton’s music and fabricating key legal agreements. The conduct has left Boladian and Bridgeport in control of 90 percent of Clinton’s catalog, the lawsuit says.
“For decades, George Clinton has shaped the sound of music and inspired generations of artists, yet he has been systematically deprived of the rights and royalties he rightfully deserves,” said Ben Crump, an attorney who is representing Clinton in the lawsuit.
In a statement to Billboard, Boladian’s attorney Richard Busch sharply denied the allegations: “This is just the latest in a series of lawsuits that Mr. Clinton has filed against Armen Boladian and his companies over the last 30 years raising the same exact issues. He has lost each and every time, including in the very courthouse in which he has filed this latest lawsuit. We will obviously therefore be moving to dismiss this lawsuit and will be seeking sanctions.”
Notably, in addition to seeking damages, the lawsuit is seeking an injunction to stop Boladian from shopping Clinton’s catalog to potential buyers — something the star’s lawyers suggest he’s actively doing: “Plaintiff has reason to believe that Boladian is soliciting the sale of assets including the rights and ownership interests in Plaintiff catalog.”
Bridgeport Music is well-known in the world of music law. The company has filed huge numbers of copyright infringement lawsuits against major artists who allegedly sampled songs by Clinton and others, including one case against Jay-Z and another case over an N.W.A. song that resulted in an influential decision on sampling.
In Tuesday’s lawsuit, Clinton’s attorneys cited that litigation campaign in his allegations against Boladian, calling his foe a “copyright troll” who uses lawsuits to exploit songs “he looted the rights to.”
“Interestingly, Clinton, the rightful owner of said catalog, has never been included as a plaintiff in these lawsuits nor has he received any portion of the millions secured by Boladian,” Clinton’s attorneys wrote.
Read the entire lawsuit here:
Director Dan Reed is planning a third chapter in his ongoing Leaving Neverland series about allegations of sexual abuse against late pop icon Michael Jackson by dancer/choreographer Wade Robson and James Safechuck.
According to Variety, the second sequel will focus on the upcoming trial pitting Robson and Safechuck against Jackson’s companies over their allegations that the organizations neglected to protect them from the alleged abuse detailed in the bombshell 2019 two-part doc. In the original film, the men described in graphic detail how the late King of Pop allegedly molested them at his Neverland Ranch in California when they were both minors; Jackson’s estate has continuously and emphatically denied the allegations.
The reported third film will serve as the follow-up to the upcoming Leaving Neverland 2: Surviving Michael Jackson, which will premiere on Channel 4 in the U.K. on March 18 and on YouTube in the United States. The 50-minute movie will primarily focus on Robson and Safechuck fighting to have their lawsuit against Jackson’s estate go forward; the case is slated to go to trial next year.
“It’s taken an awful long time just to get to a trial date that looks as though it could actually happen,” Reed told Variety about his plan to have cameras in the courtroom, despite his belief that the Jackson estate will “find a way to try and sideswipe this whole thing and make sure it never goes to court… But who knows. Maybe justice will prevail and there’ll be a trial. And if there is a trial, I want to be there.”
While we will have to wait to see what will happen when the men have their day in court, Reed is aware that it’s possible that the judge in the case might not let cameras in their courtroom. “It’s really the judge’s discretion,” he said. Reed was allowed to film inside the Santa Monica Courthouse for several hearings depicted in Leaving Neverland 2, which mainly focuses on the legal back-and-forth leading up to Robson and Safechuck being granted a trial.
“It’s a bridge film in between what was a pretty high-profile start and what I hope will be a very dramatic ending,” Reed said. “We could have kept it to include all this material and the trial. But I think the trial will be so dramatic, and you won’t have time for all the stuff in between.”
The original Leaving Neverland won an Emmy for outstanding documentary or nonfiction special, even as it drew fire from Jackson’s family and estate and, in 2019, resulted in a $100 million lawsuit by the estate against HBO over claims that the documentary violated a 27-year-old non-disparagement clause the network signed to air a 1992 concert film for Jackson’s Dangerous World Tour; the case was sent to private arbitration that year and is still pending.
Jackson’s estate has consistently denied a series of allegations of sexual abuse against the singer who died in 2009, often noting that Jackson was acquitted in a 2005 criminal trial and has never been convicted or held liable for any such claims. The estate has also claimed that accusers are looking for a payday from an artist who cannot defend himself because defamation laws do not cover dead people.
As for why he’s planning the third chapter, Reed said that he hopes to keep telling Robson and Safechuck’s story because he thinks it will help viewers “realize that these are real people, with a real story, with real families who are doing this… They’re not just a couple of people who popped up because they saw a pot of gold. These are people who have really dedicated a decade, at least, of their lives to getting justice.”
A federal judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by R. Kelly’s former assistant against Netflix and Lifetime over how she was portrayed in the documentary “Surviving R. Kelly,” ruling that the networks are protected by the First Amendment.
The lawsuit from Diana Copeland, who says she worked for Kelly for more than a decade, claimed that the doc series “depicts her in a sinister and defamatory light” – including falsely suggesting that she had helped the now-convicted singer prey on young women.
But in a ruling Tuesday, Judge Stephanos Bibas said Copeland had failed to clear the “high bar” for filing libel cases over newsworthy subjects: “The First Amendment demands ‘adequate breathing space’ for the free flow of ideas, especially about public figures on matters of public controversy.”
Trending on Billboard
The judge dismissed the lawsuit, but gave Copeland a chance to refile an updated version of her lawsuit. In a statement to Billboard, her attorney said she would successfully do so: “In this new streaming world, platforms like Netflix and documentarians need to be held accountable for any damages caused to people by slander in their content.”
An attorney for Lifetime and Netflix did not immediately return a request for comment.
Released in early 2019 as a six-part documentary series, “Surviving R. Kelly” helped push the longstanding abuse allegations against Kelly back into the public eye. Later that same year, the singer was indicted by federal prosecutors on a slew of criminal charges, eventually resulting in convictions on racketeering, sex trafficking and child pornography and decades-long prison sentences.
Copeland sued last year, with her attorneys claiming that episodes of the Lifetime documentary, which was later added to Netflix’s catalog, “paint Ms. Copeland as Mr. Kelly’s co-conspirator and accomplice in victimizing children and young women.”
But in Tuesday’s decision dismissing those claims, Judge Bibas ruled that Copeland was a so-called public figure — a status that makes it very hard to win a defamation lawsuit.
Under landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings, someone like Copeland must show that Lifetime acted with “actual malice,” meaning the network either knew its claims were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. That difficult-to-meet standard is designed to prevent government officials, business execs and other powerful people from abusing libel suits to stifle free speech.
Copeland had argued that she was no celebrity and simply wanted to “lead a private life” despite her work for Kelly. But Judge Bibas pointed out that she had appeared on Good Morning America to discuss the allegations and defend her conduct: “By going on national TV to discuss Kelly, Copeland voluntarily injected herself into the public discourse [and] invited public attention, comment, and criticism.”
As a public figure, the judge said Copeland’s case would only succeed if she could show “actual malice” – and he said had not done so in her court filings.
“The actual-malice standard shields publishers from liability for mistakes, while still preserving defamation remedies where the publisher knew that he was publishing falsehoods or deliberately ignored the truth,” the judge wrote. “Copeland fails to clear that high bar. The complaint offers only conclusions and speculation of ill will, not allegations of actual malice.”
For similar reasons, the judge also tossed out other allegations of the case, including that the documentary inflicted emotional distress and misappropriated her name and likeness. But the entire ruling came “without prejudice,” meaning Copeland can refile her case with changes in an effort to fix the problems Judge Bibas identified: “Perhaps Copeland can cure these defects.”
Miley Cyrus seems unlikely to immediately escape a copyright lawsuit filed over allegations that her Grammy-winning “Flowers” infringed the Bruno Mars song “When I Was Your Man.”
A Los Angeles federal judge “repeatedly indicated” at a live court hearing Monday that he would likely deny a motion to dismiss the case filed last year by attorneys for Cyrus, according to a report by Rolling Stone.
In that motion, the singer had argued that the plaintiff in the case – not Mars himself, but an financial entity called Tempo Music Investments that bought out the rights of one of his co-writers – lacked the necessary legal “standing” to pursue its claims.
Trending on Billboard
But at the hearing, Judge Dean D. Pregerson appeared skeptical, according to RS – at times seeming to endorse arguments from Tempo’s lawyers that granting the motion would gut longstanding music industry practices. He reportedly asked Cyrus’ lawyer why anyone would buy partial shares in songs “knowing they could never enforce it” without the consent of all the other songwriters.
The judge did not immediately decide the motion at Monday’s hearing and will instead issue a written ruling in the weeks or months ahead.
“Flowers,” which spent eight weeks atop the Hot 100, has been linked to “Your Man” since it was released in January 2023. Many fans immediately saw it as an “answer song,” with lyrics that clearly referenced Mars’ song. The reason, according to internet sleuths, was that “Your Man” was a favorite of Cyrus’ ex-husband Liam Hemsworth – and her allusions were a nod to their divorce.
When “Flowers” was first released, legal experts told Billboard that Cyrus was likely not violating copyrights simply by using similar lyrics to fire back at the earlier song – a time-honored music industry tradition utilized by songs ranging from Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Sweet Home Alabama” to countless rap diss records.
But Tempo sued in September, claiming “Flowers” had lifted numerous elements beyond the clap-back lyrics, including “melodic and harmonic material,” “pitch ending pattern,” and “bass-line structure.” Tempo, which had purchased a fractional share in the song from co-writer Philip Lawrence, argued it was “undeniable” that Cyrus’ hit “would not exist” if not for “Your Man.”
In her first response in November, attorneys for Miley said that the total lack of involvement from Mars and the song’s two other co-writers was not some procedural quirk in the case, but rather a “fatal flaw” that required the outright dismissal of the lawsuit.
“Plaintiff unambiguously [says] that it obtained its claimed rights in the ‘When I Was Your Man’ copyright from only one of that musical composition’s four co-authors,” wrote Peter Anderson, the star’s lead attorney. “That is a fatal and incurable defect in plaintiff’s claim.”
In a statement at the time, Tempo Music lead counsel Alex Weingarten told Billboard that the argument from Cyrus was “intellectually dishonest” and that the group clearly had standing to pursue the lawsuit: “They’re seeking to make bogus technical arguments because they don’t have an actual substantive defense to the case.”
If the motion is denied, lawyers for Cyrus will likely shift focus to those substantive arguments. In previous filings, they have argued that the two songs have “striking differences” and that any similarities are not covered by copyright law: “The songwriter defendants categorically deny copying, and the allegedly copied elements are random, scattered, unprotected ideas and musical building blocks.”