Legal
Page: 44
Duane “Keefe D” Davis, the man charged in connection with Tupac Shakur‘s 1999 murder, has been denied release despite coming up with the money to post bail, Las Vegas ABC affiliate KTNV reports.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Davis had notified the Clark County District Court in Nevada on June 20 that he would be able to post his $750,000 bail and faced Clark County Judge Carli Kierny on June 25 to hear the conditions for his release to house arrest and to verify where the funds had come from. The next day, the magistrate denied releasing him due to concerns over the legitimacy of the funds posted by entertainment manager Cash “Wack 100” Jones, according to KTNV.
Jones, who currently manages The Game and Blueface, appeared in court through a video link and said the $112,500 down payment was “a gift” and claimed there wasn’t a quid pro quo arraignment between him and Davis.
Trending on Billboard
“The court cannot say that Mr. Davis has shown the funds were legally obtained,” the judge wrote in her order, according to the local ABC affiliate, which also provided video of the hearing.
Jones had appeared on VladTV in a video interview posted in early June and said he would bail Davis out if he allowed him to make a TV series about his life. “It’s only $75,000,” he told DJ Vlad at the time. “I’ve been thinking about going to get him with the stipulations that I’ll do the series on it.”
But Jones admitted to the court that he sometimes says things for entertainment purposes and to drive engagement.
“That’s what I said to Vlad, but Keefe D is already involved with somebody. I have no contracts with him,” said Jones, according to KTNV. “Before you go on Vlad, you have a discussion about what you’re going to talk about and what needs to be said to draw up views. There’s nothing about Vlad and nothing about YouTube that says that we’re being truthful about what we’re saying for entertainment.”
[embedded content]
Prosecutors responded with a recorded jailhouse phone call between Jones and Davis, during which they seemed to be talking about a contract of sorts. “You got to remember, this s—t can set you up for the rest of your life,” Jones says on the call played by prosectors. “I will get you out, and then we’ll sit down and talk about all that.”
“While Mr. Jones testified he was bonding out Mr. Davis because Mr. Davis was fighting cancer and had been a pillar of the community, his previous interviews with VladTV suggested another motive,” some of the ruling reads, according to KTNV.
Kierny concluded the bank records that Jones provided were “insufficient to make the requisite showing that the $112,500 bail premium was paid by a legitimate source,” according to KOLO 8, a local ABC affiliate in Reno, Nev.
Davis has been in jail since last September, when he was taken into custody for his alleged involvement in the murder of hip-hop legend Shakur.
SiriusXM is facing a class action lawsuit that claims the company has been earning billions in revenue by tacking a deceptive “royalty fee” onto consumers’ bills.
In a complaint filed last week in federal court, attorneys for four aggrieved subscribers claim that SiriusXM adds a “U.S. Music Royalty Fee” – allegedly 21.4 percent of the actual advertised price – onto the normal price that users pay for satellite radio plans.
“This action challenges a deceptive pricing scheme whereby SiriusXM falsely advertises its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges,” attorneys for the users write. “SiriusXM intentionally does not disclose the Fee to its subscribers. SiriusXM even goes so far as to not mention the words ‘U.S. Music Royalty Fee’ in any of its advertising, including in the fine print.”
The lawsuit claims the royalty fee is an “invented” charge that SiriusXM has “deceptively” labeled to falsely suggest that it’s mandated by the government to pay for music rights. In reality, the lawsuit says, it’s a really just a “disguised double-charge for the music plan itself” that no other competing music services imposes on their users.
Trending on Billboard
“Reasonable consumers would expect that the advertised price for SiriusXM’s music plans would include the fundamental costs of obtaining the permissions necessary to provide the music content that SiriusXM has promised is included in those plans,” lawyers for the subscribers say.
According to the lawsuit, SiriusXM has reaped huge benefits from the “unlawful advertising scheme” since it was implemented in 2009, allegedly collecting $1.36 billion in such royalty fees in 2023 alone. In just in the states of Washington and Florida — the locations where the plaintiffs live — the lawsuit claims Sirius has collected $932 million in royalty fees since the charge was created.
And, according to the complaint, SiriusXM allegedly tries its best to ensure that consumers never find out: “SiriusXM’s sign-up process, automatic renewal process, and policy of not sending monthly or ongoing billing notices or invoices are deliberately designed to prevent subscribers from learning of the U.S. Music Royalty Fee.”
Those allegations echo claims made by New York’s attorney general, who sued SiriusXM in December over claims that the company made it “extremely difficult” for listeners to cancel their subscriptions. In a statement at the time, SiriusXM called those claims “baseless allegations” that “grossly mischaracterize” its customer service practices.
The new lawsuit was filed in the form of a proposed class action, aimed at eventually representing “millions of individuals” who have allegedly paid the royalty fee after seeing a lower price advertised.
“To be clear, plaintiffs are not seeking to regulate the existence or amount of the U.S. Music Royalty Fee,” lawyers for the subscribers wrote. “Rather, plaintiffs want SiriusXM to include the [fee] in the music plan prices it advertises to the general public.”
A representative for SiriusXM did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday.
Read the entire lawsuit here:
Mathew Rosengart, a powerhouse litigator whose resume includes clerking for U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter and a stint as a Department of Justice trial attorney, has a stable of high-profile Hollywood clients like Steven Spielberg, Michael Mann, Sean Penn and Casey Affleck. But it’s his work with Britney Spears in successfully freeing the pop superstar from a controversial, restrictive and highly scrutinized 13-year conservatorship that catapulted the Greenberg Traurig partner into something of a household name and globally recognized legal eagle.
In a swift four months, from July to November 2021, Rosengart dove headfirst into the probate court case after being handpicked by the singer herself with one goal in mind — to free Spears from the arrangement that limited her rights and left all life decisions in the hands of a team led by her father Jamie Spears. Rosengart accomplished that on Nov. 12, 2021, when L.A. County Superior Court Judge Brenda Penny granted a petition to terminate the conservatorship. Over the past three years, Rosengart remained on the case to settle loose ends while resolving an ongoing legal dispute with the singer’s father, Jamie Spears, over his attorney’s fees. The latter matter was resolved two months ago, bringing a quieter end to the entire ordeal but delivering an exclamation point nonetheless.
Trending on Billboard
There’s no active litigation at this time, Rosengart has said. “As she desired, her freedom now includes that she will no longer need to attend or be involved with court or entangled with legal proceedings in this matter,” he explained in a statement issued on April 26.
As such, Rosengart is closing the chapter as Spears’ litigator of record as he shifts focus toward to other clients. “It has been an honor to serve as Britney’s litigator, to work with her to achieve her goals in obtaining the court-ordered suspension of her former conservator, followed by restoring her fundamental rights and civil liberties, while continuing to protect her and more recently to extricate her from all outstanding litigation and the byzantine probate court proceedings. As I’ve always said, the credit goes to Britney,” Rosengart says in a statement obtained by The Hollywood Reporter.
Rosengart’s work with Spears over these past three years extended beyond the conservatorship as he emerged wearing many hats as a trusted counsel and point of contact in a number of high-profile negotiations and situations. It is understood, however, that his role in her life was always as a litigator and such an arrangement would always have an end date.
Rosengart played a key role in shepherding a number of deals and developments in Spears’ life. Those included a massive Simon & Schuster book deal for her best-selling memoir The Woman in Me, a prenuptial agreement and subsequent divorce with ex-husband Sam Asghari, a restraining order against ex-husband Jason Alexander (who attempted to crash her Asghari wedding) and more. In May, following an incident at Chateau Marmont that reportedly left her with an ankle injury, Spears credited Rosengart with helping her through the aftermath. “This man is wonderful!!! He’s like a father to me,” she posted. “I adore you and admire you mister Matthew!!!”
For his work, Spears has repeatedly and profusely praised Rosengart through multiple Instagram posts (her primary source of public commentary) and in The Woman in Me. Rosengart has also been hailed as a hero by the pop star’s legions of fans, a group that doggedly propelled the #FreeBritney movement. Though the attention, compliments and numerous accolades and awards may have been a surprise for Rosengart, it wasn’t completely new. Rosengart once triumphed on behalf of Penn in a defamation case against Lee Daniels, and the Oscar-winning actor has since praised his lawyer as a “tough-as-nails street fighter with a big brain and bigger principles.”
He previously told THR that he leaned on those principles when taking the case. “I’ve always detested bullying, even growing up,” he told THR. “Bullying a woman is even more unacceptable and abhorrent. It was troubling to me both personally and professionally, and I felt I could help stop it, as a lawyer and otherwise. That’s a pledge I made, and it was really rewarding to be able to help.”
Spears’ life started to change in June 2021, when, for the first time, the singer addressed the court herself, by phone, during a conservatorship hearing. Spears spent more than 20 minutes unloading to Judge Brenda Penny in a scorching declaration of life under the “abusive” restrictions she’d been under since 2008. “It is my wish and my dream for all of this to end,” said Spears who requested during prepared remarks that she be able to hire an attorney of her choosing rather than continue with conservatorship-approved counsel Samuel Ingham.
Within days, on July 10, 2021, Rosengart made his way to Spears’ residence where, in a pool house, they met to discuss a plan that would see the powerhouse litigator and former Department of Justice trial attorney to take the case. The court approved his appointment in July, and in a swift four months Spears’ wish was granted. On Nov. 12, 2021, Judge Penny granted a petition to terminate the 13-year arrangement in a landmark probate court decision, delivering a seismic shift for Spears that freed her from the conservatorship and opened her life in a way that left her future open ended.
Last October, California Gov. Mathew Rosengart signed Senate Bill 43 that updated the state’s conservatorship laws for the first time in half a century. The bill was designed to give individuals protected rights while also increasing transparency on the process.
When the conservatorship was terminated that day in November, Rosengart fielded a question from reporters outside the court house in Downtown Los Angeles. “What’s next for Britney?” asked a journalist, to which Rosengart replied, “What’s next for Britney — and this is the first time this could be said for about a decade — is up to one person: Britney.”
This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter.
Given the glacial pace at which federal antitrust litigation moves, the U.S. Department of Justice’s historic lawsuit against Live Nation and its wholly owned subsidiary Ticketmaster is expected to take years to wind its way through the legal system whether it’s fully adjudicated or the live-event Goliath agrees to make changes to its business, which the government often terms “behavioral remedies.”
And though it’s clearly too early to predict how the case will play out, legal expert and antitrust attorney Lawrence J. White from New York University’s Stern School of Business says the potential winners and losers have already been largely pre-determined based on hints found in the 128-page complaint that the DOJ filed May 23 in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York.
“The companies mentioned in the complaint as being the most harmed by anti-competitive behavior are typically the same companies that stand the most to gain in the solution,” White says.
Trending on Billboard
In the case of Live Nation, the winners will very likely be the company’s main concert promotion rival, AEG Presents; secondary-market ticketing competitor SeatGeek; and a handful of major independent promoters like Chicago’s Jam Productions. The losers would likely be Live Nation; Irving Azoff and Tim Leiweke’s venue owner, management and hospitality company, Oak View Group — which the DOJ alleges “has described itself as a ‘hammer’ and ‘protect[or]’ for Live Nation” — as well as, potentially, major artist management companies and talent agencies, depending on the government’s solution for more competitive ticket pricing.
“The government tends to rely on private companies to carry out its policy goals during the remedy phase of an antitrust case,” explains White, pointing toward the original consent decree drafted around the 2010 merger of Live Nation and Ticketmaster. That agreement unsuccessfully propped up two private companies — AEG and Comcast Spectacor — to serve as competitors to Ticketmaster.
Whether the DOJ wins in court or ends up settling with Live Nation, White says it will lean on large corporations to assist with enforcement of the ruling. As Live Nation’s only major competitor for ticketing and concert promotion, AEG, which owns AXS Ticketing, is an obvious choice as a DOJ partner because of the company’s large scale, which will be critical for the DOJ’s long-shot goal to lower ticket prices. (The DOJ is believed to have interviewed more than 100 individuals from the live-music industry as part of its recent antitrust investigation into Live Nation.)
In a May 23 press release that announced the lawsuit filing, Attorney General Merrick Garland said, “We allege that Live Nation relies on unlawful, anti-competitive conduct to exercise its monopolistic control over the live-events industry in the United States at the cost of fans, artists, smaller promoters and venue operators.” He contends that increasing competition among Live Nation’s ticketing rivals and in the artist promotion space will lower the face value prices of tickets.
Prior to the 2010 merger of Live Nation and Ticketmaster, four or five ticketing companies were capable of competing with the latter at the arena level. In 2024, only two remain: AXS and SeatGeek, the secondary site that also happens to own one of the only primary ticketing products capable of servicing major arenas and stadiums.
In a statement released to Billboard, SeatGeek said, “We are hopeful that the Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit to break up the Live Nation-Ticketmaster monopoly will restore fair market competition to live entertainment.” On the concert promotion front, there are far fewer major independent promoters now than there were prior to 2010 and only a handful capable of touring major arena acts across the country. In addition to Jam Productions, they include Nashville’s Outback Concerts and Another Planet Entertainment in the San Francisco Bay Area. All three promoters declined to comment for this story.
In a May 31 letter to his staff, AEG chairman/CEO Jay Marciano outlined how the DOJ could make concert promotion fairer and drive down the cost of ticketing by dismantling Live Nation’s “flywheel” business model, which is cited in the DOJ’s complaint and described in its May 23 press release as “a self-reinforcing business model that captures fees and revenue from concert fans and sponsorship, uses that revenue to lock up artists to exclusive promotion deals and then uses its powerful cache of live content to sign venues into long-term exclusive ticketing deals, thereby starting the cycle all over again.”
Marciano’s letter said Live Nation’s flywheel model “deploys the excessive profits of its ticketing monopoly to outspend what the concert market can profitably sustain.”
Under this theory, ticket prices would drop if Live Nation was prevented from using its other revenue sources to overpay artists and compete with other promoters offering artists an 85/15 or a 90/10 split on ticket sales.
Although the theory is not widely accepted by most major talent agents or managers — IAG executive vp/head of global music Jarred Arfa calls it “unrealistic” and “illogical” — it is gaining popularity among large indie promoters and DOJ lawyers, sources tell Billboard. White notes that whether the government settles or takes Ticketmaster to trial will depend on “the time and resources the DOJ wants to expend on the case and the evidence against Live Nation it has collected.”
Boyd Tinsley, a violist of Dave Matthews Band from 1992 to 2018, has been arrested for a DUI in Rio, Virginia, according to a video first posted by TMZ and confirmed by Billboard. Explore Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest videos, charts and news According to a statement shared to Billboard by […]
A California judge is refusing — for now — to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Village People against Disney that claims the Hollywood giant blackballed the legendary disco band from performing at Walt Disney World.
In a ruling issued Friday (June 21), San Diego County Superior Judge Katherine Bacal ruled that the Village People could move forward with the case, which accuses Disney of violating state laws and committing fraud by placing a “do not book edict” on the group.
Disney had argued that it has a First Amendment right to hire — or to not hire — any band it chooses, citing a special California law designed to protect free speech. But in her ruling last week, the judge said the company had failed to prove that the statute applied to the case.
Trending on Billboard
Importantly, the decision does not mean the Village People will win the lawsuit. Instead, Bacal merely rejected Disney’s request to dismiss the case at the earliest stage. The two sides will now proceed to discovery and an eventual trial, where the band will need to fully prove its claims.
A spokesperson for Disney did not immediately return a request for comment.
Karen Willis, the wife of Village People lead singer Victor Willis, filed the case in September, claiming that Disney had broken the law by “outright refusing to seriously consider the group” for bookings at the Orlando, Fla., theme park: “This unfair business practice by Disney denied Village People an opportunity to fairly compete for a slot to perform at Disney,” the complaint read.
Though the case targets Disney, the lawsuit appears to be rooted in a dispute between members of the original Village People lineup over who gets to perform under the iconic name.
According to court filings, Willis returned to the group in 2017 and formed a “re-vamped version” of the Village People — in the process, replacing an existing lineup that had been touring under the name for years. The case claims that the earlier iteration, featuring two other original members, “did not go away quietly,” and that they “took offense” when Willis’ Village People took over their existing slot at Disney World for a series of 2018 performances.
After the spurned members allegedly contacted Disney to complain and “started a campaign” against the new band, the lawsuit claims that Disney “engaged in a series of outrageous and egregious conduct,” including failing to provide security and refusing to properly pay the act.
After Willis complained about being “treated very badly” during the new band’s 2018 run at the park, the lawsuit claims, Disney has since refused to rebook the group — imposing an effective ban on performing at the theme park. The lawsuit includes claims of breach of contract, unfair competition, fraud and conspiracy.
Ahead of last week’s ruling, Disney had argued that the case must be tossed out under California’s so-called anti-SLAPP provision — a law designed to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech. The studio argued that deciding which concerts to book was a form of constitutionally protected free speech rights and that it had the legal right to refuse to book the Village People.
Though Disney could very well still defeat the lawsuit, Bacal ruled on Friday that the company had failed to meet the specific legal requirements to use the anti-SLAPP law. In particular, the judge said Disney had failed to show that the dispute in the case was linked to the kind of “public conversation” that’s protected under the statute.
“There is no indication that defendants’ statements entered the public sphere,” Bacal wrote. “Defendants have not shown that the alleged statements contributed to or furthered the public conversation on an issue of public interest.”
LONDON — Scottish indie rock band The Jesus and Mary Chain and Robert Fripp, a founder member of British prog rock act King Crimson, are among a group of musicians and songwriters who have filed a joint lawsuit against U.K. collecting society PRS for Music over how it licenses and administers their live performance rights, accusing the organization of a “lack of transparency” and “unreasonable” terms for its members.
According to legal papers filed at London’s High Court, which have been viewed by Billboard, the 10 claimants are suing PRS for Music for damages resulting from what they describe as “unnecessary contractual requirements and practices.”
Trending on Billboard
These include PRS placing a number of “unreasonable” obstructions on members who wish to withdraw their live public performance rights and instead strike their own direct licensing deals with promoters, venues or festivals, say attorneys.
The claimants also accuse PRS for Music — which represents the rights of more than 160,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers — of charging higher administration fees to smaller acts than some of its most popular and highest-grossing songwriter members, thus creating a two-tier system where the most successful musicians are effectively being subsidized by the rest of PRS’s membership.
Such preferential treatment goes against the society’s mandate as a collective management organization, say the claimants. As part of their legal action, they cite internal PRS figures that, according to a spokesperson, indicate that rights holders participating in the organization’s Major Live Concert Service — which handles royalty administration for acts playing venues with a capacity of above 5,000 people — can pay an average administration fee effective to 0.2% while the wider PRS membership pays 23%, proportionately around 115 times more.
The lawsuit additionally accuses PRS of deliberately withholding information from its members about deductions from their royalty income when their rights are licensed internationally. This lack of transparency means writers are unable to make fully informed decisions about licensing their rights, say the claimants’ attorneys, who accuse the London-based collecting society of “not acting in their [members’] best interests.”
The lawsuit is being led by Pace Rights Management, a direct competitor to PRS for Music, which licenses and administers live performance rights for composers, lyricists, songwriters, publishers and other rights-holders.
Also listed among the 10 claimants are five members of the band Haken; The Jesus and Mary Chain’s founders and core duo, Jim and William Reid; and Fripps’ King Crimson bandmate Michael Jaksyk.
In a joint statement, the ten claimants say that PRS has repeatedly refused to discuss or “constructively engage” with their complaints over a period of several years and accuse the society of straying “significantly from the principles on which it was founded 110 years ago, to the point that the organisation’s policies no longer appear to be operating in the best interests of its members.”
“Regretfully,” the claimants’ statement continues, “we have been left with no option but to seek redress through the courts. The ball is now firmly in PRS’s court. Either they constructively engage with much needed reforms to empower and benefit writers and publishers, or they continue to resist these necessary changes, and attempt to defend the indefensible.”
“I am yet to be persuaded that the PRS operates on behalf of the membership’s best interests,” added Fripp in a statement.
In response, PRS for Music said that it “fundamentally” rejects the allegations and “will be vigorously defending the society against these claims.”
“PRS for Music has consistently sought constructive dialogue with PACE for many years, proposing and implementing solutions to the issues raised,” said the organization in a statement, which accused PACE of itself failing to engage with PRS to find a solution.
“This has resulted in royalties being unnecessarily withheld from PRS members for the live performance of their works at concerts and also created complexity and uncertainty for live music venues and promoters,” the society hit back.
Referring to the terms of its Major Live Concert Service (MLCS), PRS said the initiative was “just one part of a wide range of services” which it provides to members at different stages of their career, including songwriting camps, mentoring schemes and touring and hardship grants for new acts. Last year, the organization paid out £943 million in royalties to its members.
“Given PRS for Music’s sincere efforts to engage constructively, it is disappointing that PACE has taken the step to issue proceedings against us,” said PRS for Music.
Amid an ugly divorce case, Billy Ray Cyrus is now claiming in new court filings that he was abused physically, verbally and emotionally by his soon-to-be-ex-wife Firerose.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
A week after Firerose (Johanna Rose Hodges) accused Cyrus of “psychological abuse” during their short-lived marriage, the singer fired back with his own filing on Monday – not only “vehemently” denying her allegations, but leveling his own claims of abusive behavior against his estranged wife.
“Defendant’s allegations of abuse were only made to sensationalize her false complaints by using the word abuse,” Cyrus’ lawyers write. “While the plaintiff would acknowledge that he was certainly vocal, frustrated and angry with the defendant in May 2024, it is the plaintiff who, in fact, has been abused. Not only verbally and emotionally by the defendant, but PHYSICALLY.”
Trending on Billboard
Cyrus filed for divorce on May 22, citing “irreconcilable differences” and “inappropriate marital conduct.” The pair, who first started dating in 2022 after years of friendship, were married for only 7 months before the split.
The proceedings have since turned nasty. In a June 13 filing, Cyrus filed an emergency motion accusing Firerose of nearly $100,000 in unauthorized “fraudulent” credit card charges and seeking a temporary restraining order to stop her. Her attorneys later said the accusations were “untrue.”
Then in a June 14 response to the complaint, Firerose claimed that she had been the “victim of extreme verbal, emotional, and psychological abuse. She claimed that Cyrus had been “unpredictable and volatile” due to substance abuse, and had filed for divorce just a day before she had been scheduled to undergo a preventive double mastectomy.
In his response filing on Monday, Cyrus argued that Firerose had scheduled the “elective” surgery as part of an ongoing threat to use the surgery to “ruin his longstanding career in the entertainment industry” if he chose to file for divorce. He claims that she at one point made the threat explicit, allegedly saying: “If you even think about divorcing me right now, I will tell everyone that you did it because of the double mastectomy and your career will be over.”
An attorney for Firerose did not immediately return a request for comment.
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: The world’s biggest music companies file lawsuits against AI music firms accusing them of stealing copyrighted music at “an “unimaginable scale”; a federal judge rules that Megan Thee Stallion didn’t copy her chart-topping “Savage” from an earlier song; the artist formerly known as Kanye West settles a copyright lawsuit filed by Donna Summer’s estate; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Major Labels Sue AI Music Cos. Over Training
In the latest battle between the music industry and artificial intelligence firms, the three major music companies filed lawsuits against AI startups Suno and Udio over allegations that they copyrighted music to train their models on an “unimaginable scale.” Like numerous other copyright cases already filed by book authors, visual artists, newspaper publishers and other creative industries, the new lawsuits ask what could ultimately wind up being a trillion-dollar legal question: Is it copyright infringement to use vast troves of proprietary works to build an AI model that spits out new creations? Or is it just a form of legal fair use, transforming all those old works into something entirely new? The music business already picked that fight once, when major publishers sued AI giant Anthropic last year over its use of written lyrics to train AI models. (That case remains pending). But the new case, spearheaded by the Recording Industry Association of America, is the first to deal with sound and music itself, targeting two companies that are offering models that spit out full songs at the push of a button. Suno and Udio have quickly become two of the most important players in the emerging field of AI-generated music. Udio has already produced what could be considered an AI-generated hit song with “BBL Drizzy,” a parody track popularized with a remix by super-producer Metro Boomin and later sampled by Drake himself. And as of May, Suno had raised a total of $125 million in funding to create what Rolling Stone called a “ChatGPT for music.” In the new lawsuit, the record labels alleged that that success had been built on the backs of real human artists: “Since the day it launched, Udio has flouted the rights of copyright owners in the music industry as part of a mad dash to become the dominant AI music generation service. Neither Udio, nor any other generative AI company, can be allowed to advance toward this goal by trampling the rights of copyright owners.” For more, go read Kristin Robinson’s full story on the new lawsuits, complete with access to the actual complaints filed against Suno and Udio. And stay tuned to Billboard for more updates as the two cases unfold in the federal courts…
Trending on Billboard
Other top stories this week…
MEGAN WINS COPYRIGHT CASE – A federal judge ruled that Megan Thee Stallion didn’t copy her chart-topping song “Savage” from an earlier song, saying the songs were “qualitatively different” and that there was no evidence the superstar has ever even heard the little-known instrumental track. SUMMER SAMPLE SETTLEMENT – Ye (formerly Kanye West) finalized a settlement with the estate of Donna Summer to resolve a copyright lawsuit that accused him of “shamelessly” using her 1977 hit “I Feel Love” without permission in his song “Good (Don’t Die).” An attorney for the Summer estate confirmed to Billboard that the settlement did not include a license for West to legally re-release the offending track: “We got what we wanted.” YSL TRIAL DRAMA CONTINUES – Yak Gotti, one of Young Thug’s co-defendants in the YSL gang case in Atlanta, asked the Georgia Supreme Court to force Judge Ural Glanville to recuse himself from the ongoing trial, citing recent revelations about a secret meeting between the judge, prosecutors and a key witness. Gotti’s lawyers warned that the judge’s actions “offend public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.” ALBUM HACKING SUIT RESOLVED – Kelsea Ballerini reached a settlement to end her lawsuit against Bo Ewing, a superfan she had accused of hacking her and then leaking her unreleased album. Ballerini agreed to drop the case after Ewing promised to never again share or access the offending materials. MADONNA CASE CLOSED – Two Madonna fans dropped their lawsuit complaining about delayed starts to her concerts, but the star’s lawyers quickly clarified that the move was “not the result of any settlement.” Reiterating earlier claims that the lawsuit had been a “strike suit” aimed at extorting a settlement, Madonna’s attorneys say they might still seek legal sanctions against the lawyers who filed the “frivolous” case. PETTY DOC SPARKS LAWSUIT – A filmmaker named Martyn Atkins filed a lawsuitagainst Warner Music over the 2021 Tom Petty documentary Somewhere You Feel Free, claiming the movie featured 45 minutes of his copyrighted film footage of the late rock legend without permission or payment. Atkins claimed he had been “conned” into sharing the footage with the producers after they promised him the chance to direct the documentary.
Kelsea Ballerini has reached a settlement to end her lawsuit against a superfan she had accused of leaking her unreleased album, agreeing to drop the case after the alleged hacker promised to never again share the materials.
Ballerini sued Bo Ewing in April over accusations that he hacked her unfinished album and shared it with a fan club. The country star claimed Ewing — allegedly an ex-fan who had become disillusioned with her — had gained illegal “back-door access” to song still in production.
But Ewing’s lawyers quickly promised to stop sharing her songs and to name names of any people he’d already sent them to, suggesting he was unwilling to fight Ballerini’s lawsuit. And in a Monday filing signed by both sides, Ewing agreed to permanently be barred from leaking the star’s songs.
Trending on Billboard
“Defendant is enjoined from knowingly or purposefully accessing any unreleased recordings, unreleased performances, unreleased videos, or any other unreleased content created by, believed to have been created by, or otherwise associated with plaintiffs in any form,” the two sides wrote in a joint filing. “Defendant is enjoined further accessing any of the recordings that are the subject of this litigation and which defendant has affirmatively declared are no longer in his possession.”
In return for such an agreement, Ballerini asked the judge overseeing the case to dismiss her lawsuit permanently. Any other specific terms of the settlement, including potential monetary payments, were not disclosed in court filings. Neither side immediately returned requests for comment on Tuesday.
Ballerini filed the case in April, claiming she had been the victim of a “nefarious digital attack” carried out by “unscrupulous individuals seeking attention.” The leak not only undercut “the most critical time” for an album’s commercial success, her attorneys said, but also deprived her of her artistic agency.
“Ms. Ballerini and her team are the only people who can say when the recordings are complete,” her lawyers wrote at the time. “Defendant’s actions have stripped plaintiffs of that right and caused the distribution of unfinished work that may not yet be up to plaintiffs’ high professional standards.”
Almost immediately, though, Ewing agreed to play ball with Ballerini’s attorneys. In a filing just days after he was sued, he agreed to be bound by a preliminary injunction that required him divulge who he has already shared them with and how he came into possession of her music.
“Defendant shall, within thirty days of entry of this order, provide plaintiffs with the names and contact information for all people to whom defendant disseminated the recordings,” the agreement reads. “Defendant shall use his best efforts to disclose to Plaintiffs from whom and by what means he obtained the recordings.”
The names of any alleged co-leakers were not disclosed in court filings, and it’s unclear if Ballerini will take further legal action against any others who may have been involved the alleged hack.