Legal
Page: 49
Former record executive Drew Dixon, who previously accused Russell Simmons of rape, is now suing the Def Jam Recordings founder over allegations that he defamed her by suggesting during a December interview that she was lying about the incident.
In a lawsuit filed Thursday (Feb. 15) in Manhattan federal court, Dixon’s attorneys claim Simmons “subjected Ms. Dixon to public ridicule, contempt, and disgrace” by “calling her a liar.” During the interview, Simmons did not reference Dixon by name, but her lawyers say the message was clear.
“Mr. Simmons’s false statements were broadcast around the world and were reasonably understood by those who heard them to be specific factual claims by Mr. Simmons that he had not sexually abused Ms. Dixon and that Ms. Dixon was a liar who was seeking fame,” her attorneys wrote.
Trending on Billboard
The lawsuit claims that Simmons’ statements were designed “to cause the world to disbelieve Ms. Dixon” and to “destroy Ms. Dixon’s efforts to use her experience to help others suffering as victims of sexual abuse and harassment.”
Simmons did not immediately return a request for comment on the lawsuit’s allegations.
Dixon, a former A&R at Def Jam, was one of three women who accused Simmons of rape in a blockbuster 2017 article by the New York Times. Her allegations were also at the center of On the Record, a 2020 documentary film that featured interviews with numerous other women who have made other abuse accusations against Simmons.
Similar harassment and assault claims against Simmons by other women have also been reported by the Los Angeles Times and the Hollywood Reporter; a report by People says that a total of 19 different women have made allegations against him. Just last week, Simmons was hit with new accusations in a federal lawsuit that claims he raped a former Def Jam video producer in the 1990s.
At issue in Friday’s lawsuit are statements made by Simmons during an interview on a Dec. 6 episode of In Depth with Graham Besinger, titled “Russell Simmons breaks silence on allegations.”
On the podcast, Simmons said he was facing allegations from “six people” after he slept with “thousands” of women over the course of his life. He said that “people can have a recollection from 30 or 40 years ago, and it can be different from my recollection.”
“Could someone leave and feel hurt? Could someone leave and feel that they wish they hadn’t? Could some re-imagine a story out of thousands of people? Could someone want notoriety in a market where people thirst for fame?” Simmons asked, before later adding: “I’ve never been forceful in any of my relationships. All of what I’ve had has been consensual.”
Dixon’s name is never mentioned during the interview. But statements can still be defamatory without explicitly naming the alleged target, so long as a person is “reasonably identifiable” from what is said.
In her complaint, her lawyers say the “six people” Simmons mentioned “necessarily includes Ms. Dixon,” and thus his statements “have the effect” of accusing her of lying in her allegations: “Mr. Simmons’s false statements directly and indirectly indicate that Ms. Dixon lied about being sexually abused and harassed by Mr. Simmons.”
The case against Simmons is not the first time Dixon has taken a powerful music industry figure to court.
While she hasn’t previously filed a lawsuit against Simmons over her public abuse accusations, she did file such a case in November against Antonio “L.A.” Reid, a longtime music industry executive with stints at Epic Records, Island Def Jam and Arista Records. In that case, Dixon says Reid assaulted her twice during the mid-2000s and then blackballed her after she rebuffed further advances.
That case remains pending.
Gloria Trevi — arguably one of the most successful Mexican pop acts of all time — has weathered trials and tribulations throughout a long career, but she’s now facing a legal battle over renewed allegations of serious sexual wrongdoing.
The dispute resurfaced in December 2022, when two unnamed Jane Does filed a lawsuit alleging that Trevi and Sergio Andrade, her ex-producer and manager, had “groomed” and “exploited” them when they were between the ages of 13 and 15. The lawsuit also named backup singer María Raquenel Portillo, also known as Mary Boquitas, over her alleged involvement in the abuse.
Trevi has for many years categorically denied such claims. In a statement released after the December 2022 lawsuit was filed, she wrote: “These false accusations, which were first made against me 25 years ago, have been tried in various courts and, in all instances, I have been completely and totally acquitted. For these old, disproven claims to resurface now is tremendously painful for me and for all my family. The accusations were false when they were made and remain false today.”
The story dates back decades. Trevi, Andrade and Portillo were arrested in 2000 in Rio de Janeiro — where they had fled to avoid prosecution — for allegedly luring young girls into a cult-like pornographic ring where they were kidnapped, raped and corrupted. All three were eventually extradited to Mexico, where Trevi was acquitted in 2004 on charges of rape, kidnapping and corruption of minors.
“Many people don’t understand that I wasn’t detained for a crime. I was part of a process,” Trevi told Billboard in 2014. “I was exploited by those who I was working with. All I did was [to] be loving, faithful and loyal. God picked me up. He protected me. He took me out. I was cleared. I was released. I’ve never committed a crime.”
Trevi scored her first big hit in 1990 with the anthemic “Dr. Psiquiatra,” becoming the first Latin female rockstar with her signature untamed hair, ripped tights and leather vests. Since, Trevi has established a 40-year career of hitmaking and touring success. To date, she has four No. 1s on Billboard’s Top Latin Albums chart and has entered Hot Latin Songs a total of 12 times, including three top 10s with “Con Los Ojos Cerrados” and “Me Siento Tan Sola” from the ’90s and “Cinco Minutos” from 2008.
In August, Trevi released the bio-series Ellas Soy Yo, which chronicles her rise to stardom as an adolescent to become Mexico’s biggest pop star, her involvement in the Trevi-Andrade sex scandal, her time in prison and her return to the stage after being found not guilty. Trevi is currently on her Live Nation-produced Soundtrack Tour visiting over 30 cities across the United States, including L.A., New York, Chicago and Miami.
Facing the new civil lawsuits over the Andrade sex abuse claims, Trevi filed her own counter-lawsuit in December. She claimed that it was Andrade who was the “true predator” that had subjected Trevi and other girls to “total control and sadistic abuse,” and that her Jane Doe accusers had actually been “enlisted to perpetuate his abuse.”
Billboard reached out to Trevi’s team for additional comment on the accusations but had not heard back at press time.
To get caught up on the full story, here’s a timeline of the messy legal saga, from the filing of the cases to where things stand today.
Two Jane Does Sue Gloria Trevi
Priscilla Presley is facing a lawsuit that claims she illegally turned her back on a former business partner who had helped her “dig herself out of impending financial ruin” and played a key role in getting the recent Priscilla movie made.
The lawsuit, filed last year and obtained by Billboard, claims that Elvis Presley’s ex-wife partnered with a woman named Brigitte Kruse in 2022 to help develop and monetize her name and likeness rights — a move that came as Presley was allegedly “60 days from insolvency” and facing $700,000 in unpaid tax debt.
But Kruse claims that in August 2023, Presley and two new advisors suddenly sent her a cease-and-desist letter and “cut off all communication” with her former partner. She claims the sudden about-face came as her extensive and time-consuming efforts on Presley’s behalf were finally paying off.
Trending on Billboard
“Though [Kruse’s company] was integral to the Priscilla movie, all individuals other than Priscilla were excluded from the premiere of the Priscilla Movie at the Venice Film Festival,” reads the October lawsuit, which was first reported Wednesday (Feb. 14) by Daily Beast.
In court filings since the case was first filed, Presley’s lawyers have pushed the dismiss the lawsuit. They argue that Kruse “targeted” their client and that Priscilla split with her former partner because she had discovered that Kruse was “attempting to misappropriate Ms. Presley’s assets.”
Formally, the case against Priscilla was filed by a company called Priscilla Presley Partners, a corporate entity created by Kruse and Presley to commercially exploit Priscilla’s name, image and likeness (known as NIL). According to the lawsuit, the entity is 51% owned by Kruse and 49% owned by Presley.
The lawsuit claims that it was Presley who first approached Kruse to help run her affairs — a role Kruse accepted even though it required her to give up her existing career and “devote her attention full-time to managing Pricilla’s life.” After allegedly discovering that Presley’s “financial position was far worse than expected,” the lawsuit claims Kruse and a colleague named Kevin Fialko immediately “sprang into action to prevent Priscilla’s financial ruin and public embarrassment.”
“Because of the upcoming movie about Priscilla’s life … Kruse (and Fialko) began arranging for engagements for Priscilla to allow her to dig herself out of impending financial ruin (and the potential negative public ramifications of the same), and engaging professionals to keep creditors at bay,” the lawsuit reads.
But according to the lawsuit, the partnership came undone after the intervention of Keya Morgan, a former manager for Marvel Comics founder Stan Lee who was acquitted in 2022 on criminal charges that he stole more than $200,000 in proceeds of memorabilia sales from Lee before his 2018 death.
The lawsuit claims that Morgan “professed to be a friend of Priscilla’s” and said he wanted to assist in Kruse and Priscilla Presley Partners’ efforts to monetize her likeness, but that shortly after he became involved, the partnership was thrown into chaos.
“The next day, [an attorney] sent Kruse a letter, purportedly on behalf of Priscilla personally, alleging various misconduct, such as falsely alleging that Kruse had attempted to sell Priscilla’s home, and demanding that Kruse cease and desist immediately, any and all activity on behalf of Ms. Presley,” the lawsuit reads.
The lawsuit claims that Presley’s actions have breached the contract that she signed with Kruse when they created the entity, which was allegedly drafted by Presley’s own lawyer.
“In reliance on the agreements defendant voluntarily entered into, plaintiff has devoted substantial time and capital into increasing the value of defendant’s NIL” Priscilla Presley Partners’ lawyers say. “When defendant’s NIL and earning capacity is at its highest that it has been in decades, defendant, without notice, cut off Plaintiff’s ability to exploit that NIL for her sole benefit.”
In the months since the case against Presley was first filed, her attorneys hit back with their own version of events.
In a November motion to dismiss the case, Presley’s lawyers say Kruse “targeted” their client and “inserted herself” into her affairs, and had somehow “convinced” Priscilla to sign an agreement where she was only a minority owner of her own NIL rights. And they say the sudden split came about because of Kruse’s own improper actions, not because of any other cause.
“Eventually, Ms. Presley learned that Ms. Kruse and her associate were attempting to misappropriate Ms. Presley’s assets and were engaging in other acts of wrongdoing,” Presley’s lawyers wrote in a November response. “Thus, Ms. Presley began extricating herself from Ms. Kruse’s various entanglements. In response, Ms. Kruse … utilized her control of [Priscilla Presley Partners] to orchestrate and file this Florida lawsuit.”
In technical terms, Presley’s lawyers are seeking to toss out the case on far simpler grounds: That she has no connections to the Florida county where Priscilla Presley Partners filed the lawsuit, meaning the court lacks jurisdiction to hear it.
A hearing on Presley’s motion to dismiss is scheduled for May. Neither side immediately returned a request for comment on Wednesday. Morgan, who was not named as a defendant or accused of any wrongdoing, could not immediately be located for comment.
Fortnite owner Epic Games has reached an agreement with a celebrity choreographer to resolve his lawsuit claiming the company stole copyrighted dance moves, three months after a federal appeals court issued a first-of-its-kind ruling that allowed the case to move forward.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In court filings on Monday, Epic and choreographer Kyle Hanagami asked a Los Angeles federal judge to dismiss his lawsuit, which had been schedule to go to trial in May. The terms of any kind of agreement were not made public, and neither side immediately returned requests for comment.
The lawsuit from Hanagami, who has worked with BTS, Jennifer Lopez, Justin Bieber and Britney Spears, claimed that Epic had turned his novel dance moves into lucrative “emotes” that Fortnite players could buy in the game – one of a spate of such cases over the use of viral dance moves in video games.
Trending on Billboard
In his complaint, he claimed that Epic had copied a routine he created to a Charlie Puth song and used it without permission as the basis for a Fortnite “emote” — a pre-programmed dance move that players can purchase from Epic and employ using their digital avatars. He called it “intentional misappropriation” of his “fame and hard work.”
Dancers and choreographers have fought for years to protect pop music routines — like JaQuel Knight, who has created dances for Beyoncé and Megan Thee Stallion. But federal courts and the U.S. Copyright Office for years largely rejected those efforts, often ruling that copyright law only covers more extensive choreography, like ballets.
In August 2022, Hanagami’s case faced that same fate. A federal judge tossed the case by ruling that Epic had copied only several unprotected “poses” from Hanagami’s routine in Fortnite, and that even when combined together, they were just a “short” routine that couldn’t be covered by copyright law.
But in November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned that ruling, reviving Hanagami’s case and allowing it to move forward toward a jury trial. Calling its decision a “novel” ruling on “one of the oldest forms of human expression,” the appeals court said that dance copyrights should be analyzed more holistically — more similarly to how courts dissect copyrighted music.
“We see no reason to treat choreography differently,” the appeals court wrote. “Reducing choreography to ‘poses’ would be akin to reducing music to just ‘notes.’ Choreography is, by definition, a related series of dance movements and patterns organized into a coherent whole. The relationship between those movements and patterns, and the choreographer’s creative approach of composing and arranging them together, is what defines the work. The element of ‘poses,’ on its own, is simply not dynamic enough to capture the full range of creative expression of a choreographic work.”
That ruling sent the case back to the lower court for more proceedings, and a trial had been tentatively scheduled to begin in May.
Russell Simmons has been sued by a former Def Jam video producer over claims of rape and sexual assault that took place in the 1990s.
Billboard obtained the complaint filed to New York Federal Court on Tuesday (Feb. 12), which was filed under “Jane Doe” to protect the victim’s identity. She detailed the “devastating” experiences with the music mogul that led to her career being “derailed.”
Doe alleged that she was raped in the late ’90s by Simmons at his Manhattan apartment when she visited him at his residence to receive approval for a video.
While in his bedroom, she claimed that Simmons pinned her down with a “wrestling” move and proceeded to rape her despite her repeatedly professing her desire for him to stop his unwanted sexual advances.
Ms. Doe tried to continue her executive job at Def Jam but she suffered alleged panic attacks and developed an eating disorder and eventually moved across the country to California seeking new opportunities in 1997.
Trending on Billboard
She left three jobs throughout the two-year period following the alleged sexual assault at the hands of Simmons in part due to her crippling anxiety.
“As detailed in the complaint, our client was sexually assaulted and harassed by her boss, Russell Simmons, while pursuing her professional ambitions as an executive at Def Jam,” Doe’s attorney Kenya Davis relayed in a statement.
“She was proud of her contributions to the burgeoning musical genre of hip hop, but her hard work and her career in music was disrupted and derailed by Mr. Simmons, a rich and powerful celebrity whose wealth and influence allowed his abusive behavior to go unchallenged for decades. Now a successful writer and producer in the entertainment industry, Jane Doe’s traumatic experiences with Simmons echo those of so many other women who he has preyed upon for decades.”
Over the years, Jane Doe had encounters with Russell Simmons in various social settings and even ran into him at a yoga studio in Los Angeles circa March 2023. While they didn’t speak much in previous encounters, she asked if it was OK to practice next to him when he allegedly replied in a whisper, “Of course. What, do you think I’m gonna try and f— you?”
With the “lookback window” of New York’s Adult Survivors Act reopening, Jane Doe had the opportunity to file the federal lawsuit with the state where otherwise the statute of limitations would have expired. She’s suing Simmons for sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment.
Russell Simmons has been named the perpetrator in other sexual assault-related lawsuits in recent years. Since 2017’s allegations, multiple women have come forward recounting similar experiences with the Def Jam Records co-founder. He has maintained his innocence and claims to have passed “nine lie detector tests.”
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.