Legal
Page: 52
A Seoul court has barred K-pop giant HYBE from dismissing Min Hee-jin as CEO of its ADOR subsidiary label following HYBE’s internal audit and subsequent police report against the executive last month. The decision will keep Min in her role as CEO, by extension allowing her to stay in control of the label’s sole artist, girl group NewJeans.
As Bloomberg cites from local Korean coverage, “The Seoul Central District Court said HYBE’s evidence and rationale were not sufficient to back the company’s case for Min’s dismissal.” Despite HYBE’s 80% stake in ADOR (where Min has an 18% stake, with the last 2% retained by other executives), the company cannot vote to dismiss Min, which it was expected to do at a company shareholder meeting scheduled for Friday (May 31).
Trending on Billboard
“We urge HYBE to respect the court’s decision,” Min’s attorney said in a statement, per Bloomberg. “If Hybe takes any action to remove Min from her position as CEO, it will be in direct violation of the shareholders’ agreement.” The legal reps shared their hope that Min’s leadership team at ADOR would also stay intact.
In its own statement, HYBE acknowledged the court’s decision and said it would not utilize its voting rights but vowed to “follow up within the framework of the law.” The company noted that the court admitted Min had sought ways to weaken HYBE’s control over ADOR — efforts that could have led to Min independently running ADOR, taking NewJeans out of the HYBE system or pressuring HYBE to sell its shares in the subsidiary label. The company say sit still plans to pursue its breach of trust case after finding “substantial evidence to prove that Min deliberately led the plan to take over management control of the subsidiary.”
In the meantime, the 2023 Billboard Women in Music honoree will be able to continue directing NewJeans following ADOR’s release of two new singles from the group: “How Sweet” and “Bubble Gum.” The group’s debut Japanese single, “Supernatural” — which reportedly reinterprets a ’00s Pharrell single — is set to drop in June.
Despite the court ruling, the ongoing K-pop power struggle is hardly resolved, and in fact has only widened since HYBE’s initial audit in April.
Following HYBE’s request for her to exit her role as ADOR CEO, Min held an emotional two-hour press conference in which she detailed her concerns and struggles with other teams in the HYBE LABELS system. AsThe New York Times‘ Seoul reporter Jin Yu Young noted in her report, Min’s “pushback against HYBE and its founder, Bang Si-Hyuk, has resonated widely in South Korea, where corporate life can be punishingly hierarchal.”
Last week, HYBE label BELIFT LAB announced it had submitted a letter of complaint for obstruction of business and defamation against Min stemming from Min’s claims that BELIFT girl group ILLIT had copied NewJeans music, style and creative concept. The conflict has also involved the parents of NewJeans members, who have voiced worries about Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin and Hyein’s reputation and treatment in a letter.
The court order follows last Friday’s release of new material from NewJeans and fellow HYBE artist RM, both of whom will likely make substantial bows on the Billboard charts next week.
Megan Thee Stallion is firing back at a lawsuit that claims the superstar forced a cameraman to watch her have sex with a woman inside a moving vehicle, calling them “false and fabricated” allegations filed by a “con artist.”
In a scathing first response to the April accusations, attorneys for Megan (Megan Pete) said that Emilio Garcia’s lawsuit “consists almost entirely of falsehoods, misrepresentations of fact, and outlandish claims that have no basis in fact or law and no merit.”
“Plaintiff is a con artist who is manipulating the judicial system to act as his publicist and bullhorn in a desperate attempt to boost his failed singing career while trying to tear down the successful career of Megan Thee Stallion,” wrote the star’s attorney, Alex Spiro.
Trending on Billboard
In his lawsuit last month, photographer Emilio Garcia accused the superstar and Roc Nation of subjecting him to a hostile work environment due to the alleged car-sex incident, which he says took place while on tour in Spain in 2022. Garcia claims the incident left him “embarrassed, mortified and offended,” and that Megan and Roc Nation later retaliated against him by reducing his work and eventually terminating him.
But in Thursday’s response, Spiro painted a very different picture — of a former contractor who was terminated after he repeatedly “falsified his invoices and overcharged Ms. Pete for services he never completed.”
“Angry at the loss of this high-profile gig and his exile from the inner circles of stardom, plaintiff filed a factually and legally frivolous Complaint,” Megan’s attorneys wrote. “Plaintiff took a run of the mill wage and labor dispute and trumped up his frivolous claims with sensationalist false allegations of sex, debauchery, and workplace harassment for the sole purpose of creating a media firestorm to tarnish the career and reputation of Ms. Pete.”
Beyond rebutting the lawsuit’s allegations, Megan’s attorneys also argued Thursday that the case was filed in entirely the wrong place. In a motion seeking to have the case moved to federal court, they argue the case has “absolutely no connection to California state court” — citing the fact that Garcia lives in Texas and Megan lives in Florida.
“Plaintiff was more concerned with staging his lawsuit in an improper forum than accurately pleading the facts underlying his claims,” Megan’s lawyers wrote.
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment on Thursday.
Madonna is facing another class action lawsuit over delayed concerts on her Celebration Tour, this time from a ticket buyer who also claims she forced fans to watch “pornography” during the show.
Like several previous cases, the new lawsuit claims that the Queen of Pop violated false advertising laws by taking the stage more than an hour later than expected, leaving fans to wait in an “uncomfortably hot” arena and get home later than expected.
But the new case, filed in Los Angeles on Wednesday (May 29) by a fan named Justen Lipeles, also includes a bold new accusation: that Madonna should have warned fans that the show would include “topless women” who were “engaging in simulated sexual acts.”
Trending on Billboard
“Forcing consumers to wait hours in hot, uncomfortable arenas and subjecting them to pornography without warning is demonstrative of Madonna’s flippant disrespect for her fans,” lawyers for the aggrieved fan wrote. “Plaintiff felt like he was watching a pornographic film being made.”
Madonna and promotor Live Nation are already facing similar cases in New York and Washington, D.C., over claims that late starts to her Celebration concerts broke the law. Both were filed as class actions, seeking to represent potentially thousands of other fans who also faced the alleged delays.
The New York case, focused on December shows at the Barclay Center, made headlines because it claimed the fans “had to get up early to go to work” the next day — a claim Madonna’s lawyers have since argued is not the kind of “cognizable injury” that can form the basis for a lawsuit. The D.C. case, targeting tour dates at the District’s Capital One Arena, added claims that the arena was “uncomfortably hot” and that she had lip-synched portions of the show.
In his new lawsuit, Lipeles echoed all of those claims about Madonna’s March 7 performance at the Kia Forum. He claims he paid more than $500 per ticket for a show that was supposed to start at 8:30 p.m. but that Madonna didn’t take the stage until after 10 p.m., leaving fans to wait in an arena that was overheated due to “Madonna’s requirement that venues not turn on air conditioning.”
“Plaintiff and members of the class were profusely sweating and became physically ill as a result of the heat,” his lawyers write. “When fans complained about the heat, Madonna unreasonably told them to take their clothes off.”
When the show finally did start, Lipeles claims, “it was apparent to plaintiff that Madonna was lip synching” during “most of the performance.” And he says he was given no warning that “there would be nudity and pornography on stage during Madonna’s concerts.”
In technical terms, the lawsuit accuses Madonna of breaching her contract with ticket buyers, negligent misrepresentation, false advertising and several other forms of legal wrongdoing under California law.
Spotify is facing a class action lawsuit over its recent decision to kill its short-lived “Car Thing” device, filed by angry consumers who say the streaming company’s move left them “with nothing more than a paperweight that cost between $50 and $100.”
The case came just days after Spotify announced that the Car Thing – a device launched in 2021 for playing music in a car but discontinued just a year later – would be rendered fully non-usable in December. Spotify has offered no refunds or trade-in options.
In a complaint filed Tuesday in Manhattan federal court, attorneys for the jilted customers accused Spotify violating state and federal laws by essentially of duping their clients into buying a “useless product.”
Trending on Billboard
“Had plaintiffs and other members of the class known that Spotify manufactured the Car Thing with the ability to brick the product at any point after its introduction to the marketplace and in Spotify’s total discretion, they would not have bought a Car Thing, or would have paid substantially less for them,” the lawsuit reads.
The lawsuit was filed by three Car Thing buyers — Hamza Mazumder, Anthony Bracarello and Luke Martin – but aims to represent thousands of other consumers who experienced “the forced obsolescence of their purchase.”
Spotify announced the Car Thing in April 2021, saying it would provide users with a “seamless and personalized in-car listening experience.” The product – a touch screen with a physical dial that still requires access to a smartphone — rolled out February 2022 at a price point of $89.99. But just months later, Spotify said it would cease production, telling investors that they “frankly haven’t seen the volume at the higher prices that would make the current product financially viable.”
Last week, Spotify alerted users last week that it would stop supporting the devices. Then this week, the company confirmed that the move, set to take effect Dec. 9, would render the devices fully inoperable. The company told users it was “not offering any trade-in options” and urged them to consider “safely disposing of your device following local electronic waste guidelines.”
“The goal of our Car Thing exploration in the U.S. was to learn more about how people listen in the car,” Spotify said in a statement. “In July 2022, we announced we’d stop further production and now it’s time to say goodbye to the devices entirely. Users will have until December 9, 2024 until all Car Thing devices will be deactivated.”
In the new lawsuit, Spotify’s customers say they couldn’t have expected that the company would shut down the devices just a few years after they were purchased. The decision to do so “unilaterally and without recourse” has left buyers nothing more than a paperweight that cost between $50 and $100.”
“Plaintiffs and class members would not have purchased a Car Thing if they knew that Spotify would stop supporting the product within just a few months or years of purchase,” attorneys for the users write.
In technical terms, the lawsuit includes allegations that Spotify violated state consumer protection and false advertising laws in New York, Florida and Pennsylvania, as well as the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and various other forms of civil wrongdoing.
A spokeswoman for Spotify did not immediately return a request for comment on the lawsuit’s allegations.
Read the entire complaint here:
A federal judge ruled Wednesday (May 29) that a sprawling copyright lawsuit can move forward with accusations that nearly 2,000 reggaeton songs — including hits by Bad Bunny, Karol G and dozens of others — all infringed a single 1989 song that allegedly spawned the so-called “dem bow” rhythm.
The huge infringement case, filed by Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the heirs of Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson, claims that their 1989 song, “Fish Market,” was the source of dem bow — the boom-ch-boom-chick, boom-ch-boom-chick percussion featured in nearly every reggaeton song.
Demanding that the case be dismissed, Bad Bunny’s lawyers argued last year that Steely & Clevie’s massive case “seeks to monopolize practically the entire reggaetón musical genre for themselves” by claiming copyright control over “unprotectable” musical elements.
Trending on Billboard
But in the lawsuit’s first key decision, Judge André Birotte Jr. denied that motion on Wednesday, ruling that it was too early in the case to make those kinds of complex rulings and that Steely & Clevie had made a strong enough argument to move forward: “It is premature at this stage to find that the musical elements alleged are insufficiently original or indeed unprotectable.”
Notably, the judge also hinted that he might not be particularly receptive to such arguments when it’s time to rule on them. At one point, he warned that he “rejects” the idea that the massive success of a particular song could be used as a “double-edged sword” that would also void its copyrights.
“The court recognizes the practice of musical borrowing, and in doing so, cannot merely conclude that because the reggaeton genre (or artists) have purportedly borrowed significantly from attributes of plaintiffs’ work that those attributes are now in effect commonplace elements,” Judge Birotte wrote.
First filed in 2021 against just a handful of defendants, Steely & Clevie’s lawsuit has steadily grown to cover more and more artists and songs. In the latest iteration, the duo’s lawyers name more than 150 artists, also including Pitbull, Drake, Daddy Yankee, Luis Fonsi and Justin Bieber, plus units of all three major music companies.
Steely & Clevie’s lawyers claim that over 1,800 reggaetón songs featuring iterations of the dem bow rhythm were, at root, illegally copied from “Fish Market” — and that their clients deserve monetary compensation for them. Potentially damages are difficult to calculate, but could easily reach into the billions if the case is successful.
In Wednesday’s decision, Judge Birotte also rejected other arguments from the defendants beyond the core question of whether dem bow could be protected by copyright law.
For instance, in a June filing, attorneys for Daddy Yankee and the major labels argued that the case was so massive that it had become procedurally unfair. They called it a “shotgun pleading,” filled with so many vague accusations that it was “impossible for defendants to determine what each is alleged to have done.”
But in Wednesday’s decision, Judge Birotte said he was “unconvinced” by that argument — and that Steely & Clevie’s 228-page complaint had sufficiently laid out the case to satisfy procedural requirements.
Following Wednesday’s ruling, the case will proceed toward discovery, where both sides will exchange evidence, take depositions and seek expert testimony on complex questions relating to musicology. If the judge does not decide the case after discovery, the two sides will head to trial.
Neither side in the case immediately returned requests for comment.
Several of the people who have accused disgraced former music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs of sexual abuse have spoken out for the first time in a new Rolling Stone story in which they detail the alleged actions of the Bad Boy Records boss.
One of the women suing Combs for sexual assault, Joi Dickerson-Neal, told the magazine that she didn’t come forward for a payday, but rather to make sure “the world sees that this man who rose to the level of an ‘icon’ is actually sick and has left so many victims in [the wake of his] unpunished disgusting behavior for years.”
“One date with Sean Combs led to the trauma and pain of sexual assault and an ocean’s depth of shame,” she alleged to the publication, as well as “debilitating self-doubt and a lifetime of inner turmoil” after learning that Combs allegedly distributed an explicit video of her, as outlined in her lawsuit.
Combs is currently facing lawsuits from multiple people, all of whom accuse the disgraced music mogul of sexual abuse, with five of the women accusing Combs or rape or violent sexual assault in incidents that date back to 1990. After CNN recently obtained and surfaced a 2016 video of Combs assaulting then-girlfriend Cassie Ventura — who sued him for rape and assault in November, and settled soon after — the musician apologized and took responsibility for his actions in the video, but he has otherwise strongly denied all the other allegations.
Combs’ attorney told the magazine that he cannot comment on settled litigation and will not comment on pending legal action. Billboard has also reached out to his PR and legal teams for comment on the allegations in the Rolling Stone story.
Dickerson-Neal, who appeared opposite Combs in a 1990 music video, filed a sexual assault suit against Diddy in November. She told the magazine that she “reluctantly” agreed to a dinner date with Combs in January 1991 while attending college and working at a restaurant to pay her bills. After allegedly being warned to stay away from Combs because of his “infamous reputation,” Dickerson-Neal said she asked that they dine at the restaurant where she worked because she was afraid to be alone with him.
She alleges in her lawsuit that Combs “intentionally drugged” her, then allegedly sexually assaulted her. Dickerson-Neal also claims Diddy filmed the alleged attack and showed the video to others “like a trophy.” Combs’ lawyers deny the allegations and have moved to dismiss her lawsuit.
Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones, a music producer who has also sued Combs, accusing him of “groping and touching” his anus and repeatedly forcing Jones to “solicit sex workers and perform sex acts to the pleasure of Mr. Combs,” also spoke to RS. Jones told the publication, “He is a monster, nothing has changed … this guy got no soul. He has no duty to anyone, not even his kids.”
Model Crystal McKinney described taking part in a fashion show for Diddy’s Sean John clothing brand in February 2003, and in her lawsuit, claims that Combs pressured her to take a hit from a “laced” joint after saying she was acting “too uptight.” The suit claims Combs allegedly forced her to perform oral sex on him, an incident that she said sent her into a “tailspin of anxiety and depression” that resulted in a suicide attempt.
“I had a whole future [in modeling] mapped out that was stolen from me. Being sexually assaulted and having no recourse is so painful,” McKinney told RS. “I felt like I was dying every day because I did not yet have the strength to come forward. … I hope that by speaking out, I can help other survivors come forward and seek justice.”
A woman who filed a Jane Doe lawsuit against Diddy in December over claims that he and two other men drugged and raped her in 2003 when she was 17 years old — a suit Combs’ lawyer filed to dismiss, calling it a “decades-old tale” aimed at extracting “an undeserved financial recovery” — also spoke out. She told RS that she hopes her legal action will hold “not just Combs, but also all of those who acted with him, stood silent, and actively covered up his behavior” to account.
Stories about sexual assault allegations can be traumatizing for survivors of sexual assault. If you or anyone you know needs support, you can reach out to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN). The organization provides free, confidential support to sexual assault victims. Call RAINN’s National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE) or visit the anti-sexual violence organization’s website for more information.
StubHub must pay more than $16 million in legal damages after a jury decided that the ticketing giant intentionally torpedoed a smaller company’s lucrative concierge partnership with American Express.
Following a month-long trial, a Los Angeles jury on Friday (May 24) sided with Spotlight Ticket Management — a tech startup that had sued over allegations that StubHub failed to pay Spotlight millions in commissions and then used false statements to “poison” the company’s relationship with Amex.
Leading up to the trial, StubHub had argued it paid Spotlight everything that was owed and that the smaller firm had killed its Amex deal itself by being an “unreasonable partner” to the financial giant: “The true cause of Spotlight’s demise was Spotlight itself.”
Trending on Billboard
But in Friday’s verdict, the jurors found for Spotlight on both issues. They ordered StubHub to pay $3 million over the commissions; $5.3 million over money lost from the terminated Amex partnership; and another $8.1 million that they said Spotlight would have earned from Amex in the future.
StubHub did not immediately return a request for comment. Amex was not named as a defendant in the case or accused of any wrongdoing. In a statement, Spotlight called the verdict “a victory for Spotlight, for affiliate partners more broadly, and for ticket purchasers across the country.”
Launched in 2007, Spotlight offers ticketing management software to help companies provide event access to their employees or customers. One of its major clients was Amex, which used Spotlight as part of its concierge system to buy concert and sports tickets for premium cardholders.
In its lawsuit, Spotlight claimed that it had successfully partnered with StubHub for years, sending as much as $85 million in ticket sales to the company’s platform and receiving a 7% commission on those sales.
But starting in 2016, Spotlight claimed that StubHub began underpaying those commissions. And when the smaller company raised the dispute, it claimed that StubHub retaliated by tanking its relationship with Amex with false and disparaging claims.
“StubHub gave Amex an ‘ultimatum’ that it could not work with Spotlight for these reasons and Amex would lose access to StubHub’s entire ticket inventory, crushing the availability of secondary market tickets to the Amex Concierge program overnight, unless Amex got rid of Spotlight,” the company’s attorneys wrote in a pre-trial briefing.
StubHub sharply disagreed. In its own filings, the company argued that it had paid Spotlight all the commissions that it was actually owed under its affiliate program. And it said that the smaller company had “destroyed its own relationship with Amex” through “erratic behavior.”
“Spotlight has taken a modest dispute about payment of affiliate commissions and morphed it into a conspiratorial web to support its claim for hundreds of millions of dollars,” StubHub’s attorneys wrote. “Amex witnesses have testified that they decided not to renew based on Spotlight’s unreasonable demands and that StubHub had nothing to do with Amex’s decision.”
But following a three-week trial, jurors believed Spotlight’s version of events, finding StubHub liable for breach of contract over the unpaid commissions as well as intentional interference with contract and intentional interference with prospective economic relations over the Amex partnership.
StubHub can appeal the verdict, first by asking the judge to order a new trial and then by taking the case to a California appeals court.
Cher has won her lawsuit against Sonny Bono’s widow over royalties to “I Got You Babe” and other hits after a federal judge ruled that Mary Bono must continue paying the superstar her cut under the couple’s decades-old divorce settlement.
More than 20 years after Sonny’s death, Mary argued that she no longer needed to pay royalties to Cher thanks to copyright law’s so-called termination right — a provision of federal law that allows songwriters and their heirs to win back control of their intellectual property rights decades after they gave them away.
But in a decision issued Wednesday (May 29), Judge John A. Kronstadt ruled that the federal termination rules do not trump Sonny and Cher’s 1978 divorce settlement, which gave the singer a permanent 50% cut of the publishing revenue from songs written before the couple split up.
Trending on Billboard
The ruling means that Cher will continue to receive publishing royalties for her catalog of songs created with Sonny, including “The Beat Goes On” and “Baby Don’t Go.” According to Wednesday’s ruling, more than $400,000 in royalties owed to Cher have piled up since the dispute began.
Neither side’s attorneys immediately returned requests for comment.
Sonny and Cher started performing together in 1964 and married in 1967, rising to fame with major hits like “I Got You Babe,” “The Beat Goes On” and “Baby Don’t Go.” But the pair split up in 1974, finalizing their divorce with a settlement in 1978. Under that deal, Sonny retained ownership of their music rights, but Cher was granted a half-share of all publishing royalties in perpetuity.
That agreement stayed in effect for years, including after Bono died in a 1998 skiing accident. But in 2016, Mary and other heirs invoked the termination right, seeking to take back control of Sonny’s copyrights from his publishers. And in 2021, they informed Cher that they would soon stop paying royalties under the earlier agreement.
Cher quickly sued, seeking a ruling that she was still owed her 50% cut regardless of who owns the copyrights since a federal copyright provision had no bearing on a state-law asset settlement. Mary fired back a few months later, claiming that termination rights could not be waived by contract and that Cher’s arguments would “subvert” the purpose of the law.
In Wednesday’s ruling, Judge Kronstadt sided with Cher’s arguments. He ruled that the divorce settlement with Sonny gave Cher a “contractual right to receive financial compensation,” rather than the kind of control over his copyrights that could be voided using the termination right: “A right to receive royalties is distinct from a grant of copyright,” the judge wrote.
Ryan Castro won a multimillion-dollar lawsuit in an arbitration process against King Records, owned by fellow Colombian artist Kevin Roldán, for breach of contract. According to a resolution by a Colombian judge, the arbitration tribunal ruled that King Records must pay Castro an amount exceeding $2 million. In addition to this, the ruling grants the […]
Sean Kingston signed papers in California on Tuesday (May 28) waiving his right to fight extradition to Florida, where he and his mother are charged with committing more than $1 million worth of fraud. According to the Associated Press, the “Beautiful Girls” singer/rapper, 34, did not make a public court appearance, but representatives from the San Bernardino courts and sheriff’s office confirmed to AP that Kingston signed papers in which he agreed to skip extradition.
In singing the papers, Kingston agreed to be turned over to authorities in Florida, though as of Tuesday afternoon he reportedly remained in a Southern California jail while sheriff’s officials coordinate his transfer to Florida. Kingston was arrested last Thursday on the Army training base in Fort Irwin, Calif. in the Mojave Desert, where he was booked to perform. His mother, 61-year-old Janice Turner, was also arrested on Thursday during a SWAT raid at Kingston’s rented mansion in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Trending on Billboard
According to warrants from the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, both son (born Kisean Paul Anderson) and mother have been charged with 10 counts, including conducting an organized scheme to defraud, grand theft, identity theft, issuing faulty checks, probation violation and related crimes alleging that the pair stole money, jewelry, a Cadillac Escalade and furniture; Kingston was already on two years’ probation for trafficking stolen property.
On Tuesday, Kingston’s attorney, Robert Rosenblatt, told NBC News that the singer was in the process of returning to Florida after his gig on the base. “We want him back asap so we can show this is merely a civil case and not criminal. We look forward to challenging this case in court,” said Rosenblatt.
The charges and arrests stem from a lawsuit reportedly filed by attorney Dennis Card, whose suit alleges that Kingston has allegedly displayed a pattern of not paying for items. “My client has a $150,000 television sound system that’s in there, there’s also about $1 million worth of watches that are in there, there’s a $80,000 custom bed that was ordered. This is an organized systematic fraud,” Card told NBC Miami. He added, that Kingston has “basically a script. He says that he works with Justin Bieber, and that he obviously puts on a big show here, this is a rental house, he doesn’t own it, and he lures people using his celebrity into having them release things without him paying for it and then he simply never pays.”
According to the AP, warrants in the case say that from October to March, Kingston and his mother allegedly stole nearly $500,000 in jewelry, more than $200,00 from Bank of America, $160,000 from an Escalade dealer, more than $100,000 from First Republic Bank and $86,000 from the maker of customized beds.