Legal
Page: 45
Roddy Ricch has defeated a copyright lawsuit that claimed the rapper stole key elements of his chart-topping 2019 song “The Box” from a decades-old soul song, with a judge ruling “no reasonable jury” would find the two songs similar.
Songwriter Greg Perry sued Ricch (real name Roderick Wayne Jr.) and Atlantic Records in 2022, claiming the hit track (which spent a whopping 11 weeks at the top of the Billboard Hot 100) had been ripped off from Perry’s 1975 “Come On Down” — an oft-sampled song in the hip-hop world.
But in a decision Monday (Feb. 12), Judge Analisa Torres ruled that the two songs were clearly very different: “No reasonable jury could find that the works are substantially similar,” the judge wrote, noting “significant dissimilarities” between the “aesthetic appeal” of each track.
While Perry’s track is a “soul song that contains a melodic tune” and is performed with acoustic instruments, Judge Torres said, Roddy’s track is “a hip-hop song delivered in a monotone rap” created primarily with a synthesizer. The tempo of the older song is “significantly faster” than that of “The Box,” the judge added, and the overall “feel” of the two songs is also clearly distinct.
“[‘Come On Down’] is a sentimental song about ‘love and heartbreak,’ while ‘The Box’ is a braggadocious song about ‘amassing wealth, sleeping with multiple women, and being more skilled than other rappers’,” the judge wrote.
Perry’s lawyers filed the case back in December 2022, claiming an average music fan would be able to hear the “strikingly similar” aspects of the two tracks simply by listening to them, but that more thorough investigation by music experts has more conclusively proven the theft.
“Comparative analysis of the beat, lyrics, hook, rhythmic structure, metrical placement, and narrative context by a musicology expert demonstrates clearly and convincingly that ‘The Box’ is an unauthorized duplication and infringement of certain elements of ‘Come On Down,’” the suit read.
“Come On Down” is a popular sample in hip-hop — featured in both Young Jeezy’s 2008 “Wordplay” and Yo Gotti’s 2016 “I Remember.” Perry’s lawyers said both of those songs had been fully cleared and licensed by giving him a songwriting credit and an ownership stake.
“Other [artists] in the rap world that have chosen to copy elements of ‘Come On Down’ have done so legally and correctly,” Perry’s lawyers wrote. “Defendants chose not to license the musical composition from plaintiffs and instead chose to intentionally infringe upon the copyright.”
But in Monday’s decision, Judge Torres said there was no need for Ricch to secure such a license because his song did not infringe Perry’s tune. She said that the central alleged similarity — a so-called “ascending minor scale played by violin” that Perry claimed was repeated 24 times in Ricch’s song — was “expressed differently” in the two works. Other important elements of Perry’s work, like a so-called tremolando, are “notably absent” from “The Box,” she added.
“The musical composition … differs from ‘The Box in each of the components where plaintiff claims similarity,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that defendants copied any protectable portion of the musical composition.”
With her ruling, Judge Torres dismissed Perry’s case permanently, ending the lawsuit entirely. Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment on Tuesday.
An advantage of being an aspiring artist in 2023, rather than 1983 or even 2003, is having near-instant access to millions of pre-made instrumentals — a club-wrecking drill track or soothing South African amapiano beat is just a few clicks away. For many acts today, the first step in the songwriting process is scouring sites like BeatStars, Soundee or YouTube for the right piece of music. “I just go on YouTube and look up ‘indie-pop-type beat’ or ‘R&B Daniel Caesar-type beat,’ ” Island Records artist Diego Gonzalez told Billboard last year. “I scroll through those until I find one I really like. Then I download it and start humming melodies.”
This approach has led to breakout singles and major-label deals for Muni Long, ThxSoMch, dv4d, Tai Verdes, Wisp and more. The affordability of the online beat economy, where an instrumental might cost as little as $2.99, makes it extremely convenient for young artists. But the casual nature of the business arrangements can come back to haunt them.
Acts typically license the instrumentals they want for cheap rather than buying them outright (which can cost significantly more). What they may not understand, however, is the agreements they accept to access these beats typically grant them limited rights by capping the number of streams a song can earn and allowing other acts to license the same piece of music. If a song built on a leased instrumental becomes a hit, the artist then has to circle back and try to buy out that beat. They have essentially built a highly desirable house on real estate they don’t own.
That’s when negotiations can become fraught and even lead to litigation, according to entertainment attorneys. “When we come on board and a song is starting to go, the first question is always: ‘Do you have paperwork with whoever did this track?’” says Todd Rubenstein, founder of Todd Rubenstein Law. “Licenses don’t give you exclusive rights, so there’s an opportunity for people to come back and leverage you when a record explodes.”
A producer may also be reluctant to assign exclusive rights to an instrumental they’ve already licensed hundreds of times. “If a song is going viral and a record company wants to enter into an agreement, the value of the track is impacted by the fact that you don’t have original materials and the beat exists elsewhere,” explains Leon Morabia, a partner at Mark Music & Media Law.
“These things happen all the time,” says David Fritz, co-founder of law firm Boyarski Fritz. “A baby act is doing well, and then they get a producer saying, ‘You’re over the streaming threshold on this track and we didn’t work out a deal; you have to take the song down’ ” — just at the point where artists and their teams need to slam the pedal to the metal by pouring money into marketing.
Not surprisingly, many producers like these nonexclusive agreements. “The leasing system allows the producer to be at the [negotiating] table if that beat turns into something bigger,” BeatStars president of music and publishing Greg Mateo says.
The music industry is “skewed toward artists and labels having the power,” adds Tiffany Almy, an entertainment attorney. “Producers are part of this, too,” she continues, “and [the licensing economy] gives them a voice, a platform and, potentially, a way to have more opportunities going forward.”
Fritz says the risks involved with beat-licensing deals are one of the reasons he co-founded Creative Intell, a subscription-based educational platform that dissects music contracts, among other business topics, across 18 different courses. Steven Ship, who co-founded the company with Fritz, says they hope to “revolutionize the way dealmaking is conducted in the business.” The first step toward that goal, he adds, is education “so people can understand what they’re signing and how to protect themselves.”
Creative Intell relies on animated modules to take users through beat-licensing agreements paragraph by paragraph, focusing in particular on BeatStars. (Fritz says his company is in negotiations with several music distributors, including Vydia, UnitedMasters and ONErpm, to make Creative Intell available to their clients.) The courses warn artists to look out for streaming limits and clauses that let the beat-makers end a lease at their sole discretion. Creative Intell also offers users an alternative licensing agreement that Fritz and Ship say is more artist-friendly.
The platform advises acts to be especially wary of “beat trolls” — people with mercenary motives who target viral songs built on licensed beats and try to acquire the underlying instrumental. If the trolls succeed in this effort, they own a piece of the artist’s most important track and acquire substantial power to influence — and extract money from — any subsequent label negotiations, Rubenstein says.
If a song explodes “and you don’t have perfect title to all your work, then you’re going to be a target for people, guaranteed,” adds Nicolas Tevez, founder of Tevez Law.
Mateo says he’s aware that the licensing system can create issues and has personally helped some artist lawyers get contentious deals done. BeatStars also has started to provide some major labels, including Atlantic Records and Island Records, with an assortment of instrumentals where terms of use have been agreed upon ahead of time. That way, if an act likes a beat and it turns into a hit, there aren’t any additional complications. “The last thing we want is for a placement to die,” Mateo says.
Despite the potential pitfalls of beat marketplaces, they remain popular with artists and serve as a lifeline for some beat-makers.
Even if producers secure prominent placement on a major-label album — a dream scenario — their future is hardly secure; they might not see any money for more than a year. But in online beat marketplaces, producers can earn a good living through a steady stream of leasing transactions. “A bunch of my clients are crushing it on BeatStars, making $100,000 a year,” says Adam Freedman, an entertainment attorney.
Still, for unsigned artists, learning the ins and outs of the licensing agreements remains paramount. While Ship from Creative Intell and Mateo from BeatStars have conflicting ideas about the best way to draft a beat license, both agree that there needs to be more education about how these deals work.
“Read through the terms and conditions,” says Jason Berger, a partner at Lewis Brisbois. “There’s nothing worse than you not understanding how something is going to play out based on an agreement you’ve already entered.”
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: Snoop Dogg sues Post and Walmart for allegedly sabotaging his brand of breakfast cereal, Taylor Swift threatens to sue a college student for tracking her private jet; Kanye West is accused of illegal sampling by Ozzy Osbourne and the estate of Donna Summer; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Snoop Says Post & Walmart Were Cereal Killers
If you had “Snoop Dogg,” “cereal” and “lawsuit” on your 2024 bingo card, congrats.
Broadus Foods, a company owned by Snoop and Master P, filed a lawsuit last week accusing food giant Post of sabotaging the rollout of the company’s Snoop Cereal brand. As you might expect, the complaint had some rhetorical flair — leveling charges of “underhanded dealing” and “diabolical actions.”
The case claims that Post signed a deal to produce and distribute the brand, but then secretly “ensured that Snoop Cereal would not be available to consumers.” The rappers claim the move was payback after Snoop (Calvin Broadus) and Master P (Percy Miller) refused to sell their company to Post.
“Essentially, because Snoop Dogg and Master refused to sell Snoop Cereal in totality, Post entered a false arrangement where they could choke Broadus Foods out of the market, thereby preventing Snoop Cereal from being sold or produced by any competitor,” lawyers for Snoop’s company wrote.
The case – filed by prominent civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump — also named Walmart as a defendant, claiming that the retail giant played a key role in “the most egregious example” of Post’s alleged wrongdoing.
For more information, go read our full story on the lawsuit, including access to the actual docs filed in the case.
CALLING ALL MUSIC LAWYERS! For the first time, Billboard is expanding its peer-voted Power Players’ Choice Award to cover music’s top lawyers, and we’re asking industry members from all sectors to honor the attorney they believe had the most impact across the business in the past year. Voting is now open to all Billboard Pro members, both existing and new, with one vote per member per round.
Other top stories…
TAYLOR SWIFT PLANE TRACKER – Days before her big Super Bowl appearance, news broke that Taylor’s lawyers had threatened to sue a Florida college student named Jack Sweeney who runs social media accounts that track celebrity private jets, including Swift’s. In their cease-and-desist letter, her lawyers called Sweeney’s posts “stalking and harassing behavior” and warned that they “have no choice but to pursue any and all legal remedies” if he did not stop posting the locations of Swift’s private jet. What might those remedies actually be? It wasn’t specified.
SWIFT STALKER WON’T STAND TRIAL – Whether or not it’s illegal to track her plane, Taylor’s lawyers have good reason to be concerned about stalkers. On Friday, a man criminally charged for lurking outside the star’s Manhattan apartment was declared mentally unfit for trial, meaning his case will be dismissed and he will be transferred to a mental health facility until doctors clear him to be released.
KANYE SAMPLES SNAFU – Both rocker Ozzy Osbourne and the estate of legendary singer Donna Summer publicly accused Kanye West of using their songs without permission on his new album, even after they had specifically rejected his requests for licenses. Calling West an “antisemite,” Ozzy took to social media to blast the rapper: “I want no association with this man!” The Summer estate, meanwhile, claimed the embattled rapper had committed “copyright infringement” by seemingly interpolating her song. In an interview with Billboard’s Robert Levine, Ozzy’s wife and manager Sharon Osbourne explained the backstory: “We get so many requests for these songs, and when we saw that request, we just said no way.”
PANDORA SUED BY MLC – The Mechanical Licensing Collective – the group created by Congress in 2018 to collect royalties – filed a lawsuit against Pandora, alleging that the internet radio platform has been failing to adequately pay and report its monthly royalties. The case could dive into tricky questions about whether or not Pandora’s free ad-supported service is an “interactive” platform like Spotify, or more similar to a “noninteractive” radio broadcast – a key distinction under the law.
TIKTOK DISCRIMINATION CASE – With the social media giant currently at the center of a high-profile showdown with Universal Music Group, the company was hit with a gender discrimination lawsuit from a top female executive named Katie Ellen Puris, who says she was fired because TikTok’s upper leadership required “docility and meekness” from women.
CABO WABO IN COURT – Sammy Hagar‘s company demanded that a federal judge shut down an allegedly unauthorized Hollywood location of his Cabo Wabo Cantina, claiming that a former franchisee had effectively gone rogue and was damaging the rock star’s reputation.
KANYE CLASS ACTION – Adidas AG asked a federal judge to dismiss a class action that claims the company violated securities laws by failing to sufficiently warn investors about Ye’s offensive behavior and the risk it posed to the company’s share price. “This lawsuit is a misguided attempt to transform the dramatic and unfortunate end of the commercial partnership between Adidas and Ye… into a claim for securities fraud,” the company’s lawyers wrote.
Kanye West is no longer facing a copyright lawsuit that claimed he illegally posted a 2021 viral video clip of a public speech about his then-wife Kim Kardashian, after his accuser dropped the case.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The embattled Donda rapper (now legally named Ye) has been repeatedly sued over the past two years, and he might soon be hit with new lawsuits over allegations of illegal sampling from Ozzy Osbourne and Donna Summer. But at least one such lawsuit is now in the rearview mirror.
In court papers filed last week, videographer Elijah Graham agreed to voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit he filed against West last year. The case claimed the rapper had stolen Graham’s clip — which captured West speaking candidly about Kardashian and his kids while serving a Thanksgiving meal to homeless people on Skid Row in Los Angeles – and posted it to Instagram without permission.
“We’ve made mistakes. I’ve made mistakes. I’ve publicly done things that were not acceptable as a husband, but right now today, for whatever reason — I didn’t know I was going to be in front of this mic — but I’m here to change the narrative,” West says in the video, which went viral after he posted it.
In a complaint filed in October in Los Angeles federal court, Graham’s lawyers claimed that West’s post amounted to willful copyright infringement. But since filing the case, they have done little to move the case forward; in an order last month, the judge overseeing the lawsuit threatened to dismiss the case entirely because it was not being “prosecuted diligently.”
An attorney for Graham did not return a request for comment on why he was dropping the case. A rep for West did not immediately return a request for comment.
Graham’s case might be over, but Ye is still in legal hot water. He’s currently facing two separate lawsuits filed by employees at his Donda Academy over allegations of unsafe conditions and wrongful termination; he’s also defending against another copyright case that claims his “Life of the Party” illegally sampled a song by the pioneering rap group Boogie Down Productions.
And more copyright cases could be on the way. Last week, both Ozzy Osbourne and the estate of Donna Summer publicly accused West of using their songs without permission on his new album ‘Vultures 1’, even after they had specifically rejected his requests for licenses. In an interview with Billboard, Osbourne’s wife and manager Sharon said they had “been in touch with his team” about legal issues, while Summer’s estate directly alleged “copyright infringement.”
The Mechanical Licensing Collective (The MLC) has sued Pandora for allegedly failing to adequately pay and report its monthly royalties, including in its accounting for its ad-supported tier “Pandora Free” (also known as “radio” or “free Pandora”).
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a lawsuit filed Monday (Feb. 12) in Nashville federal court, The MLC seeks to recover the royalties that Pandora allegedly owes them and all associated late fees. The MLC is particularly concerned with “unusually low royalties per stream” reported and paid out by Pandora, starting in 2021 which they say is due to the exclusion of substantial “Service Provider Revenue and TCC for Pandora Free.” (Total Content Cost or “TCC” refers to the amount paid by streaming services to record labels for the right to stream sound recordings. The TCC and Service Provider Revenue are essential to calculating the royalties due for this blanket license).
The MLC — which is tasked with administering the blanket mechanical license for musical works, created by the Music Modernization Act — also takes issue with Pandora’s lack of retroactive royalty accounting for 2021 and 2022.
In August 2023, the royalty rate for the license administered by The MLC for the years 2018-2022 was finally determined after a five year battle in which some streaming services fought to pay lower rates for music than the Copyright Royalty Board judges initially decided on. While awaiting the final rate determination, streamers, including Pandora, paid out the previous, lower royalty rate to the music business. Once the final determination was made, it set the rates higher than what the streaming services were paying previously. As a consequence, streamers were tasked to go back and retroactively pay the proper 2018-2022 rate for music.
The MLC says it “repeatedly” reminded Pandora to report its retroactive adjustments due for 2021 and 2022, and it set a deadline for Feb. 9, 2024, which it says Pandora did not reach. (The MLC did not open its doors until 2021, and thus the retroactive adjustments for 2018-2020 are not within its purview).
Pandora has made “repeated and significant underpayments of the royalties due,” says the MLC in its lawsuit.
The news comes just weeks after the MLC and its counterpart the Digital Licensee Coordinator (DLC) entered their first-ever re-designation process, a routine five year check-up to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the two organizations. The MLC has also made headlines recently for issuing its first-ever audit of streaming services. The organization is also being audited itself by Bridgeport Music, which represents George Clinton and Funkadelic.
Lately, the music business has been fighting back against what it feels are unfair or unpaid licensing rates. Universal Music Group recently pulled its catalog from TikTok, citing the app’s inability to pay “fair value” for music. Last summer, SoundExchange, which collects and distributes performance royalties for the digital transmission of sound recordings, sued SiriusXM, which owns Pandora, for an alleged $150 million in unpaid royalties, and the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) sued Twitter for $250 million for “refusing to pay songwriters and music publishers.”
Representatives for Pandora and The MLC did not respond to Billboard’s request for comment at press time.
A man accused of stalking Taylor Swift outside her Manhattan apartment has been declared mentally unfit for trial, prosecutors say, meaning his criminal charges will be dismissed and he will be transferred to a mental health facility.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office said Friday it had confirmed the results of a psychiatric examination that found David Crowe “unfit to stand trial” on misdemeanor charges of stalking, harassment and contempt. Crowe was arrested three times last month outside Swift’s TriBeCa building.
“The criminal case is now dismissed by function of law,” a spokeswoman for the Manhattan District Attorney’s office said in the statement. “He will now be committed to the custody of the Office of Mental Health to receive necessary treatment.”
In a statement, Crowe’s public defender, Katherine LeGeros Bajuk, said: “We are pleased that all parties now agree to the obvious truth that Mr. Crowe is too ill to proceed, and that he requires treatment, not jail. We look forward to ensuring Mr. Crowe is provided with the psychiatric treatment and supportive social services he needs to achieve a successful and stable re-entry into society.”
Though he will not face charges, Crowe will not simply be released. He will committed to a mental health treatment facility, where he will be confined for an undefined time period until deemed fit to be released by doctors. Prosecutors can argue against any potential future release, and often seek civil court protection orders barring defendants like Crowe from contacting victims like Swift after they’re released.
In charging documents, prosecutors alleged that Crowe had been spotted roughly 30 times near Swift’s apartment building since late November, and that on multiple occasions he had stated that he was there to speak to the superstar.
The Seattle native was first arrested on January 20, after police responded to a 911 call regarding a “disorderly person” near Swift’s apartment. Crowe had allegedly “attempted to open a door to a building at the location” and was taken into custody on a previous arrest warrant. After he was released, Crowe was arrested again just two days later in the same area, after witnesses reported an “emotionally disturbed male acting erratically” and police spotted him “harassing multiple complainants.”
Crowe was released from custody again on Jan. 24 after he was arraigned on stalking and harassment charges. Though the judge imposed a strict protection order, Crowe then apparently bee-lined back to the vicinity of Swift’s apartment, where he was arrested for a third time and charged with criminal contempt.
After Crowe’s third arrest, prosecutors warned the judge that he had willfully disobeyed her previous ruling and made clear that he would not abide by future restrictions. Following that hearing, the judge ordered Crowe to remain in custody while he awaited further proceedings.
If he had gone to trial on the original stalking charges — all misdemeanors — Crowe could have faced up to 18 months in prison if convicted. If also convicted on the later charges — two counts of second-degree criminal contempt for breaching his protection order, also misdemeanors — he could have faced an additional two years in prison.
Chuy Montana, an emerging star in the booming corridos scene, was found dead in Mexico on Wednesday (Feb. 7).
His body was discovered along the highway connecting Rosarito to Tijuana. According to The San Diego Tribune, Fernando Sánchez, Mexico’s Secretary of Security and Citizen Protection, told local outlets that Cárdenas’s body bore multiple gunshots and was found handcuffed; law enforcement believes that he had been kidnapped prior to death.
Billboard has reached out to Tijuana police.
The Tijuana native, whose real name is Jesús Cárdenas, was part of the music roster at Street Mob Records, a label spearheaded by Jesús Ortiz Paz (JOP), the lead vocalist of Fuerza Regida.
“On behalf of Street Mob Records, we deeply regret the passing of our colleague and brother Chuy Montana,” wrote the label in an Instagram post Thursday. “We stand in solidarity with his family during this time of grief. We kindly request understanding and respect from the media at this difficult moment.”
The label and its artists have contributed significantly to the corridos tumbados and belikeada movement, subgenres of regional Mexican music that have gained notoriety in recent years. Montana’s career was marked by a significant online presence, boasting 816,000 monthly listens on Spotify. He often performed with his guitar for audiences in traffic lines at the Tijuana-San Ysidro border crossing point, where he was discovered by JOP.
[embedded content]
According to Punto Norte, a newspaper in Mexico, investigators believe that Montana may have attempted to escape his captors, leading to a chase and eventual fatal shooting. Responding officers found shell casings at the scene, according to the publication; Montana had gunshot wounds to his head and arms.
Montana’s music, particularly his 2023 single “Porte de Scarface,” had enjoyed success, amassing more than 22 million plays on Spotify. His collaboration with Fuerza Regida, “Polvos de Chanel,” also highlighted his rising status in the music industry.
The artist’s death has also raised concerns over the safety of artists in genres associated with contentious themes.
In October 2023, Fuerza Regida was threatened with death by means of a narco banner left in Tijuana. Following the appearance of the threat, the San Bernardino group canceled its concert at the Estadio Caliente in Tijuana, as did Peso Pluma weeks earlier, after having received the same death threat on a tarpaulin signed with the initials CJNG, alluding to the Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación.
[embedded content]
Tijuana has taken steps to address the glorification of violence in music by banning narcocorridos in public performances, a measure reasserted by Mayor Montserrat Caballero in light of recent events.
The death of Chuy Montana adds to the ongoing trend of violence against artists in the corridos and narcocorridos genres that dates back to Chalino Sánchez’s murder in 1992. Other stars who have fallen victim to violence in the genres include Valentín Elizalde, Ariel Camacho, Zayda Peña, Sergio Gómez, Javier Reyes “El Príncipe del Corrido,” and more.
Snoop Dogg and Master P are suing Walmart and Post Consumer Brands over allegations that the two huge companies sabotaged the rappers’ cereal brand with “underhanded dealing” and “diabolical actions.”
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (Feb. 6), the rappers’ company, Broadus Foods, claimed that after they struck a partnership deal with Post, the company secretly “ensured that Snoop Cereal would not be available to consumers” or would “incur exorbitant costs that would eliminate any profit.”
Broadus Foods, represented by prominent attorney Benjamin Crump, claims the move was payback after Snoop (Calvin Broadus) and Master P (Percy Miller) refused to sell their company to Post.
“Essentially, because Snoop Dogg and Master refused to sell Snoop Cereal in totality, Post entered [a] false arrangement where they could choke Broadus Foods out of the market, thereby preventing Snoop Cereal from being sold or produced by any competitor,” Crump wrote in Tuesday’s complaint.
The lawsuit also named Walmart as a defendant, saying the retail giant played a key role in “the most egregious example” of Post’s alleged wrongdoing: “Post essentially worked with Walmart to ensure that none of the boxes of Snoop Cereal would ever appear on the store shelves.”
According to Snoop and Master P, the duo launched Broadus Foods and Snoop Cereal in 2022 in an effort to “add diversity to the food industry” and create a “legacy” that they could leave behind for their families. When they approached Post about a production and distribution partnership, they say the “breakfast juggernaut” attempted to buy the company outright, but that they refused.
Spurned from acquiring the upstart company, they claim Post agreed to a partnership whereby it would not only produce the products but also “treat Snoop Cereal as one of its own brands” and distribute it to major retailers, including Walmart, Target, Kroger and Amazon. But behind the scenes, they claim that Post was working to sabotage the new company.
“Unbeknownst to Broadus Foods, Post was not on board with their goals and dreams and had no intention of treating Snoop Cereal equally as its own brands,” Crump writes. “Instead, Post intended to only give appearances that they were following the Agreement.”
The worst case of such alleged mistreatment, according to the lawsuit, was the situation at Walmart. Snoop and Master P claim that Snoop Cereal initially sold well at the massive chain, but that Walmart’s system soon began to falsely show that the product was out of stock.
“However, upon further investigation by store employees, each of these stores had several boxes of Snoop Cereal in their stockrooms that were coded to not be put out on the store shelves,” the company’s lawyers write. “Unlike the other Post branded boxes of cereal around them, these Snoop Cereal boxes had been in the stockrooms for months without ever being made available to customers.”
In technical terms, the lawsuit claims that Post breached its agreements with and fiduciary duty to Broadus Foods, as well as defrauded the smaller company and made negligent misrepresentations. The case claims that Walmart committed so-called tortious interference by going along with Post’s scheme and that it aided and abetted Post in breaching its fiduciary duty. And the lawsuit claims that both companies committed civil conspiracy by working together.
Reps for both Post and Walmart did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday evening.
Taylor Swift’s lawyers are threatening to sue a Florida college student who runs social media accounts that track celebrity private jets, calling it “stalking and harassing behavior.”
According to a report Tuesday (Feb. 6) by the Washington Post, Jack Sweeney received a cease-and-desist letter from Swift’s attorneys in December, warning they would have “have no choice but to pursue any and all legal remedies” if he did not stop posting the locations of Swift’s private jet.
Sweeney runs social media accounts that track flights by celebrities and other public figures, ranging from Kim Kardashian to Bill Gates to Donald Trump. In 2022, he was banned from X (formerly Twitter) after he posted such info for billionaire Elon Musk, the site’s owner. He cites publicly-available government flight data, alongside estimates of carbon emissions from each flight.
In the legal letter, Swift’s lawyers (led by Katie Wright Morrone of the firm Venable LLP) warned Sweeney that his posts posed an “imminent threat” to Swift’s “safety and wellbeing.” The letter said Sweeney’s posts were “in violation of several state laws,” but did not specify which ones.
“While this may be a game to you, or an avenue that you hope will earn you wealth or fame, it is a life-or-death matter for our Client,” Morrone wrote, according to the Post. “Ms. Swift has dealt with stalkers and other individuals who wish her harm.”
The letter also referenced the earlier dispute with Musk, including Sweeney’s offer to delete the account for $50,000: “We are aware of your public disputes with other high-profile individuals and your tactics in those interactions, including offering to stop your harmful behavior only in exchange for items of value.”
News of the dispute with Sweeney comes just weeks after a man named David Crowe was arrested outside Swift’s Manhattan home and charged with stalking; prosecutors say Crowe was spotted more than 30 times outside her apartment and had repeatedly attempted to enter the building. In 2022, another man was arrested after he crashed his car into her building and attempted to get inside.
In a statement Tuesday on the letter to Sweeney, Swift’s spokeswoman, Tree Paine, stressed the risk of stalkers: “We cannot comment on any ongoing police investigation but can confirm the timing of stalkers suggests a connection. His posts tell you exactly when and where she would be.”
According to the Post’s report, many of Sweeney’s posts are derived from government data compiled by the Federal Aviation Administration. Though celebrities can request to hide their planes from those databases — and Swift appears to have done so — volunteer hobbyists can still track such aircraft via the signals they broadcast, and they often upload such info to independent public websites.
In the Post report, Sweeney said that he was merely posting public information that’s “already out there.” His attorney went further, calling the claims from Swift’s attorneys “hyperbolic and unfounded” and saying the posts posed “no threat” to the superstar.
Sammy Hagar‘s company is demanding that a federal judge shut down an allegedly unauthorized Hollywood location of his Cabo Wabo Cantina, claiming that a former franchisee has gone rogue and is damaging the rock star’s reputation.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Attorneys for Hagar’s company (Red Head Inc.) sued last month, claiming that franchisee Robert Azinian had opened a new Cabo Wabo on Hollywood Blvd across from the TCL Chinese Theatre even though his licensing deal had been terminated. Now, in a new filing Monday, they asked for an immediate injunction blocking Azinian from continuing to use the name or any other company branding on his new eatery.
“Every day that the Cabo Wabo Cantina at the new Hollywood location continues to operate under the ‘Cabo Wabo’ brand, it soils the name, reputation, and goodwill that Red Head has developed,” the company’s lawyers write. “Defendants were instructed to discontinue any and all use of the marks, but they have ignored that request.”
Hagar and his Van Halen bandmates opened Cabo Wabo Cantina in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico in 1990; after buying out his partners, he later launched a line of tequila under the same name. Hagar sold the liquor brand to Gruppo Campari for $101 million, but his Red Head Inc. continues to operate the restaurant in Cabo and later franchised locations in Las Vegas and Los Angeles.
Last month, Red Head sued Azinian in California federal court, claiming he had essentially gone rogue after years of successfully running the Los Angeles location. The lawsuit claimed that Azinian had closed his original spot on Hollywood Blvd and “surreptitiously” relocated across the street, all without seeking the required approvals. They warned the new Cabo Wabo was already causing confusion with customers, citing Instagram comments like one in which a user wondered “is Sammy Hagar still affiliated?”
In Monday’s filing, Red Head echoed those arguments in asking for a preliminary injunction, which will block Azinian from continuing to use any Cabo Wabo branding while the case plays out. Without such an order, Hagar’s company warned that the unauthorized eatery could cause severe damage to Cabo Wabo’s reputation.
“Defendants’ continue to use the Cabo Wabo marks in connection with their operation of the restaurant — but Red Head has no oversight, control, or even visibility as to the quality of any one aspect of Defendants’ business, such as the quality of décor, the quality of staff, the quality of materials, or the quality of food,” the lawyers write. “Red Head currently has no control over any of it.”
Neither side immediately returned requests for comment on Tuesday.