Legal
Page: 6
A teenager who stabbed three young girls to death at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in England was sentenced Thursday to more than 50 years in prison for what a judge called “the most extreme, shocking and exceptionally serious crime.”
Judge Julian Goose said 18-year-old Axel Rudakubana “wanted to try and carry out mass murder of innocent, happy young girls.”
Goose said that he couldn’t impose a sentence of life without parole, because Rudakubana was under 18 when he committed the crime.
But the judge said he must serve 52 years, minus the six months he’s been in custody, before being considered for parole, and “it is likely he will never be released.”
Rudakubana was 17 when he attacked the children in the seaside town of Southport in July, killing Alice Da Silva Aguiar, 9, Elsie Dot Stancombe, 7, and Bebe King, 6. He wounded eight other girls, ranging in age from 7 to 13, along with teacher Leanne Lucas and John Hayes, a local businessman who intervened.
The attack shocked the country and set off both street violence and soul-searching. The government has announced a public inquiry into how the system failed to stop the killer, who had been referred to the authorities multiple times over his obsession with violence.
Defendant disrupts the hearing
Rudakubana faced three counts of murder, 10 of attempted murder and additional charges of possessing a knife, the poison ricin and an al-Qaida manual. He unexpectedly changed his plea to guilty on all charges on Monday.
But he wasn’t in court to hear sentence passed on Thursday.
Hours earlier he had been led into the dock at Liverpool Crown Court in northwest England, dressed in a gray prison tracksuit. But as prosecutors began outlining the evidence, Rudakubana interrupted by shouting that he felt ill and wanted to see a paramedic.
Goose ordered the accused to be removed when he continued shouting. A person in the courtroom shouted “Coward!” as Rudakubana was taken out.
The hearing continued without him.
Horror on a summer day
Prosecutor Deanna Heer described how the attack occurred on the first day of summer vacation when 26 little girls were “gathered around the tables making bracelets and singing along to Taylor Swift songs.”
Rudakubana, armed with a large knife, intruded and began stabbing the girls and their teacher.
The court was shown video of the suspect arriving at the Hart Space venue in a taxi and entering the building. Within seconds, screams erupted and children ran outside in panic, some of them wounded. One girl made it to the doorway, but was pulled back inside by the attacker. She was stabbed 32 times but survived.
Gasps and sobs could be heard in court as the videos played.
Heer said two of the dead children “suffered particularly horrific injuries which are difficult to explain as anything other than sadistic in nature.” One of the dead girls had 122 injuries, while another suffered 85 wounds.
A teenager obsessed with violence
The prosecutor said Rudakubana had “a longstanding obsession with violence, killing, genocide.”
“His only purpose was to kill. And he targeted the youngest and most vulnerable in society,” she said, as relatives of the victims watched on in the courtroom.
Heer said that when he was taken to a police station, Rudakubana was heard to say: “It’s a good thing those children are dead, I’m so glad, I’m so happy.”
The killings triggered days of anti-immigrant violence across the country after far-right activists seized on incorrect reports that the attacker was an asylum-seeker who had recently arrived in the U.K. Some suggested the crime was a jihadi attack, and alleged that police and the government were withholding information.
Rudakubana was born in Cardiff, Wales, to Christian parents from Rwanda, and investigators haven’t been able to pin down his motivation. Police found documents about subjects including Nazi Germany, the Rwandan genocide and car bombs on his devices.
In the years before the attack, he had been reported to multiple authorities over his violent interests and actions. All of the agencies failed to spot the danger he posed.
In 2019, he phoned a children’s advice line to ask “What should I do if I want to kill somebody?” He said he had taken a knife to school because he wanted to kill someone who was bullying him. Two months later, he attacked a fellow student with a hockey stick and was convicted of assault.
The definition of terrorism
Prosecutors said Rudakubana was referred three times to the government’s anti-extremism program, Prevent, when he was 13 and 14 — once after researching school shootings in class, then for uploading pictures of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to Instagram and for researching a London terror attack.
But they concluded his crimes should not be classed as terrorism because Rudakubana had no discernable political or religious cause. Heer said “his purpose was the commission of mass murder, not for a particular end, but as an end in itself.”
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said this week the country must face up to a “new threat” from violent individuals whose mix of motivations test the traditional definition of terrorism.
“After one of the most harrowing moments in our country’s history, we owe it to these innocent young girls and all those affected to deliver the change that they deserve,” Starmer said after the sentencing.
Wrenching testimony from victims
Several relatives and survivors read emotional statements in court, describing how the attack had shattered their lives.
Lucas, 36, who ran the dance class, said that “the trauma of being both a victim and a witness has been horrendous.”
“I cannot give myself compassion or accept praise, as how can I live knowing I survived when children died?” she said.
A 14-year-old survivor, who can’t be named because of a court order, said that while she was physically recovering. “we will all have to live with the mental pain from that day forever.”
“I hope you spend the rest of your life knowing that we think you’re a coward,” she said.
The prosecutor read out a statement from the parents of Alice Da Silva Aguiar, who said their daughter’s killing had “shattered our souls.”
“We used to cook for three. Now we only cook for two. It doesn’t seem right,” they said. “Alice was our purpose for living, so what do we do now?”
This story was originally published by The Associated Press.
Civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton has criticized the potential jury pool for rapper A$AP Rocky‘s upcoming gun trial, saying that from what he has been told it lacks diversity. In an Instagram post on Wednesday (Jan. 22) Sharpton wrote, “It has been brought to my attention, by the National Action Network Los Angeles office, that out of one hundred and six (106) people called to potentially sit as jurors in A$AP Rocky’s trial in Los Angeles, there are only 4 black people.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Rocky (born Rakim Mayers), 36, is facing 24 years in prison if convicted of all charges in the trial in which he is accused of firing a weapon at former affiliate A$AP Relli (born Terrell Ephron) at a Hollywood hotel in November 2021.
Trending on Billboard
Rocky has pleaded not guilty to two felony counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm and earlier this week the Harlem native rejected a plea deal offered by prosecutors that would have had him plead guilty to one felony count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm in exchange for a six-month jail stint along with three years of probation and a seven-year suspended sentence. “I respectfully decline, thank you,” Rocky reportedly told the court in turning down the deal.
At press time spokespeople for Rocky and the Los Angeles Superior Court had not returned Billboard‘s request for comment on Sharpton’s claims.
In his note, Sharpton said that although he is not privy to the particulars of the case, he’s been in close contact with Rocky’s friends. “I do know he deserves to be judged fairly by his peers, as is his Constitutional right,” Sharpton wrote. “It is absolutely ridiculous that the jury will be not fair and representative, so as to deprive A$AP Rocky of a fair trial. When we have four (4) black people in the city of Los Angeles, out of one hundred and six (106) — and exactly zero (0) within in the first thirty (30) possible candidates for the jury — something appears to be very wrong with the system.”
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, L.A. county has a population just north of 9.6 million, which is comprised of 69.6% white citizens and 9% Black residents.
At press time Billboard could not confirm the figures in Sharpton’s post. Sharpton said he will monitor the trial and challenged the L.A. district attorney to “ensure that fair and representative justice is afforded” to the rapper.
The A$AP Mob leader was arrested in April 2022 at LAX and posted a $550,000 bond shortly after; he entered his not guilty plea to all charges in August 2022. Relli testified that the bullets grazed his knuckles as the feud reached a boiling point with his childhood friend. This week, Rocky’s lawyer appeared to preview his strategy for the trial when he revealed a defense argument that his client was holding a prop “stater pistol,” which he said can clearly be seen on security camera footage from that night.
Assuming jury selection wraps up soon, the trial could begin by week’s end.
Sean “Diddy” Combs has sued a man he says defamed him by falsely alleging he possessed videos of the embattled hip-hop mogul committing sexual assault, causing him “profound reputational and economic injury and severe prejudice” ahead of his criminal trial.
In the complaint, filed in New York federal court on Wednesday (Jan. 22), Combs accuses Courtney Burgess, along with Burgess’ attorney Ariel Mitchell, of “pretending they have proof that Mr. Combs engaged in heinous acts, knowing that no such proof exists” — thereby leading “millions of people … to believe in the made-up ‘evidence’ that Defendants have falsely described and vouched for.”
Mitchell notably represents several of Combs’ accusers.
“Defendant Burgess falsely claimed that he possessed videos of Mr. Combs involved in the sexual assault of celebrities and minors,” write Combs’ attorneys Michael Termonte, Erica Wolff and Anna Estevao of the New York firm Sher Tremonte. They add that Mitchell then “repeated those lies” to media outlets while knowing all along that Burgess’ claims “were false, or at a minimum was utterly reckless in disregarding their falsity.” The complaint accuses both Burgess and Mitchell of seeking “to capitalize on the resulting publicity for financial gain” despite knowing that “no such tapes exist.”
Also named as a defendant in the lawsuit is cable network NewsNation, which the lawsuit claims “recklessly repeated and amplifed [Burgess’] lies as if they were true” without ever reaching out to Combs’ representatives for comment or verifying that the alleged videotapes existed in the first place.
To bolster their case, Combs’ attorneys attempt to discredit Burgess by referring to him as “a fringe character” who claims to have worked in the music industry “for decades” even though “there exists no public record of any professional achievements and he left no detectable footprint on the industry prior to his recent campaign to malign Mr. Combs.” They further allege that despite Burgess’ claims that he received the alleged videos from Combs’ late ex-girlfriend Kim Porter, he in fact had “no more than a passing acquaintance” with her.
Combs’ attorneys also claim that Burgess tried to capitalize on the highly publicized allegations swirling around Combs by posting a memoir allegedly written by Porter to Amazon, which they say later pulled the book after it “was denounced by Ms. Porter’s family and others as a fake,” according to the suit.
The lawsuit equally tries to discredit Mitchell — known for filing sexual assault cases against powerful men including Trey Songz, Chris Brown and Combs himself — by claiming her cases against Songz and Brown were disproven and that in “peddling false claims to media outlets” like NewsNation about the alleged videotapes of Combs, she “insisted on valuable benefits and payments in exchange for interviews, including first class air travel, four-star hotel accommodations, hair and makeup allowances, and a ‘materials fee’ for copies of, among other things, demand letters sent on behalf of one of her clients who sued Mr. Combs.”
They add that Mitchell spread her alleged lies about Combs far and wide, including in multiple NewsNation appearances and in a documentary about Combs titled The Making of a Bad Boy that aired on NBC’s Peacock streaming service earlier this month. (NBC is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.)
“Defendants made these false and defamatory statements in bad faith, as part of a deliberate effort to damage Mr. Combs’s reputation, undermine his businesses and, by painting him as debauched and a pedophile, to poison the public’s perception of him and deprive him of a fair trial,” Combs’ attorneys conclude.
Combs is asking for “not less” than $50 million in damages.
Burgess, Mitchell and NewsNation did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment.
Combs is currently imprisoned at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn ahead of his criminal trial, which is set to kick off on May 5. He is charged with running a multi-faceted criminal enterprise in order to satisfy his need for “sexual gratification.” Among other accusations, he is alleged to have held so-called “freak off” parties, during which he and others drugged victims and coerced them into having sex. He faces a potential life prison sentence if convicted on all charges.
The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame wants a federal judge to toss out a copyright lawsuit over an image of Eddie Van Halen, arguing that it made legal fair use of the image by using it as part of a museum exhibit designed to “educate the public about the history of rock and roll music.”
The lawsuit, filed last year, claims the Rock Hall never paid to license Neil Zlozower’s image — a black-and-white photo of late-’70s Van Halen in the recording studio — before blowing it up into an eight-foot-tall display in the Cleveland museum.
But in a motion to dismiss the case filed Tuesday (Jan. 21), the Rock Hall says it didn’t need to. Attorneys for the museum say the offending exhibit was protected by “fair use”, a rule that allows copyrighted works to be reused legally in many contexts, including education and commentary.
Trending on Billboard
“RRHOF transformed plaintiff’s original band photograph by using it as a historical artifact to underscore the importance of Eddie Van Halen’s musical instruments,” the Hall’s attorneys write. “RRHOF operates a museum, and it displayed the image in service of its charitable mission to educate the public about the history of rock and roll music.”
Zlozower filed his case in October, claiming the Hall made an “exact copy of a critical portion of plaintiff’s original image” for the exhibit, which he claimed “did not include any photo credit or mentions as to the source of the image.”
The Rock Hall is just the latest company to face such a lawsuit from Zlozower, who also snapped images of Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, Michael Jackson and Bruce Springsteen over a decades-long career. Since 2016, court records show he’s filed nearly 60 copyright cases against a range of defendants over images of Elvis Costello, Guns N’ Roses, Mötley Crüe and more.
In the current dispute, the Van Halen image was used in two exhibits: “Play It Loud: Instruments of Rock & Roll” and “Legends.” Focused on musical instruments used by famed rockers, the exhibits featured sections showing Van Halen’s guitars, amplifiers and other gear. In the display, the original photo of the band was cropped to show just Eddie holding one of the guitars, which was placed amid the exhibit’s objects and informational placards.
In their motion to dismiss the case, the Rock Hall’s attorneys say the museum made a “transformative use” of Zlozower’s original image — a key question when courts decide fair use. They say the Hall used it not simply as an image of the band, but “to contextualize Eddie Van Halen’s instruments on display in the museum as historical artifacts.”
“RRHOF incorporated a portion of plaintiff’s photograph displayed next to the exhibition object, as one piece of source material to document and represent the use of the guitar,” the museum’s lawyers write. “This proximal association between source material and exhibition object helps visitors connect information and delve more deeply into the exhibition objects.”
In making that argument, the Hall’s attorneys had a handy piece of legal precedent to cite: A 2021 ruling by a federal appeals court tossed out a copyright lawsuit against New York City’s Metropolitan Museum of Art over the use of another image of Van Halen in a different exhibit on the same famous set of guitars.
In making that ruling, the appeals court said the Met had clearly made “transformative” fair use of the image by displaying it alongside the exhibit: “Whereas [the photographer]’s stated purpose in creating the photo was to show ‘what Van Halen looks like in performance,’ the Met exhibition highlights the unique design of the Frankenstein guitar and its significance in the development of rock n’ roll instruments,” the appeals court wrote at the time.
That earlier ruling is not technically binding on the case against the Rock Hall, which takes place in another region of the federal court system. But such an uncannily on-point ruling could certainly be influential on the judge overseeing the current case.
An attorney for Zlozower did not immediately return a request for comment.
Jim Jones is defending Drake‘s divisive UMG defamation lawsuit. During an appearance on the Broke N’ Frontin podcast, the subject of the Toronto rapper’s controversial subject came up, and the Dipset member had an interesting perspective. “He’s not personally suing against Kendrick Lamar, which everybody seems to think that this lawsuit is about,” Jones said. […]
Limp Bizkit has suffered a setback in its $200 million lawsuit against Universal Music Group, with a federal judge ruling that the band cannot legally void its contracts of “nearly 30 years” over accusations of underpaid royalties.
The blockbuster case, filed last year in Los Angeles federal court, claims that frontman Fred Durst and the band have “not seen a dime in royalties” over the years. Among other claims, the lawsuit argued that the band is therefore entitled to a ruling of “rescission” that terminates its deals with UMG.
But in a decision Friday (Jan. 17), Judge Percy Anderson ruled that the band had in fact been “paid millions in advances” and that UMG had fronted “substantial sums” to record and distribute Limp Bizkit’s albums – meaning the band doesn’t deserve the drastic remedy of terminating the decades-old deals.
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiffs seek rescission of contracts that have governed the parties’ relationship beginning in 1996 – nearly 30 years – because the agreements should be rescinded as fraudulently induced,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged the type of ‘substantial’ or ‘total failure’ in the performance of the contracts that could support rescission of the parties’ agreements.”
The ruling isn’t a total defeat. Judge Anderson didn’t reach many of the lawsuit’s other legal claims, including fraudulent concealment and intentional misrepresentation, and gave Limp Bizkit’s lawyers a chance to fix the rescission claim. But the judge’s wording suggested he will be skeptical of revoking a contract when “millions in royalties were advanced and paid under decades-old agreements.”
If finalized, the decision is something of a double blow for Durst’s lawsuit. It would not only reject his efforts to rescind the contracts, but would sink one of his other core allegations: that UMG has infringed Limp Bizkit’s copyrights. Such a claim — which could carry a huge damages award — can only succeed if the band’s contracts are voided and it legally regains its ownership of the copyrights, the judge wrote.
That could also mean the case is headed to another court entirely. If Limp Bizkit’s lawsuit no longer contains federal copyright claims, a federal court would no longer have jurisdiction over the case, meaning the lawsuit’s remaining accusations against UMG would need to be refiled in a state court.
In a statement to Billboard on Wednesday, attorneys for Durst and Limp Bizkit downplayed the impact of the ruling, noting that the court had “upheld a majority of our claims” and given them a second shot at the rejected claims.
“The facts speak for themselves,” said Frank Seddigh, the band’s lead attorney. “Universal will be held accountable for its actions and will not get away with its conduct at the expense of artists.”
A spokesman for UMG declined to comment.
Durst and Limp Bizkit sued in October, claiming the band had “never received any royalties from UMG,” despite its huge success over the years: “The band had still not been paid a single cent by UMG in any royalties until taking action.”
That claim was something of a stunner. How had one of the biggest bands of its era, which sold millions of records during the music industry’s MTV-fueled, turn-of-the-century glory days, still never have been paid any royalties nearly three decades later?
According to Durst, the answer was an “appalling and unsettling” scheme to conceal royalties from artists and “keep those profits for itself.” He claimed UMG had essentially kept Limp Bizkit in the red with shady bookkeeping, allowing the label to falsely claim the band remained unrecouped — meaning its royalties still had not surpassed the amount paid in upfront advances.
UMG hit back a month later, calling the allegations “fiction” and demanding they be thrown out of court. The music giant’s attorneys argued that Limp Bizkit’s own legal filings contradicted the accusation that the band had not been paid: “Plaintiffs concede thereafter receiving millions of dollars in payments.”
Following Friday’s decision, Limp Bizkit has until early next month to refile an amended version of the lawsuit.
Chris Brown has filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. Discovery, alleging the media giant defamed him with a 2024 documentary claiming that the R&B star had a long history of sexually abusing women.
Filed Tuesday (Jan. 21) in Los Angeles Superior Court, the complaint accuses Warner Bros. Discovery and Ample Entertainment, the production company behind Chris Brown: A History of Violence, of “promoting and publishing false information in their pursuit of likes, clicks, downloads and dollars and to the detriment” of the R&B star — all while “knowing that it was full of lies and deception and violating basic journalistic principles.”
“They did so after being provided proof that their information was false, and their storytelling ‘Jane Doe’ had not only been discredited over and over but was in fact a perpetrator of intimate partners violence and aggressor herself,” reads the lawsuit, which was filed by attorneys Arnold Shokouchi and Levi McCathern. “Mr. Brown has never been found guilty of any sex related crime…but this documentary states in every available fashion that he is a serial rapist and sexual abuser.”
Trending on Billboard
The Jane Doe who made sexual assault accusations against Brown in the documentary — whom he identifies in the lawsuit — is also named as a defendant in the complaint, which alleges the woman “completely disregarded the facts in an attempt for fame and fortune — all at the cost of Chris Brown and the reputation he has worked diligently in redeeming over the last decade.”
The “sensationalized, unfounded, and defamatory allegations” in the documentary “have been discredited, dismissed by the courts, or outright fabricated,” Brown’s lawyers write. The lawsuit further alleges that the Jane Doe filed a “frivolous civil lawsuit” against Brown in January 2022 in which she accused him of sexual assault and battery — but that her claims “were determined to be entirely fabricated, leading to the withdrawal of her attorneys and dismissal of the case” that same August “after a Miami Beach Police detective uncovered text messages…that exposed her dishonesty.” It adds that while an investigative report published by Rolling Stone in March 2022 “further discredited her claims,” the ID documentary nonetheless portrayed her “as credible, ignoring her established lack of veracity.”
Later in the complaint, Brown’s attorneys break down the Jane Doe’s alleged “history of violence and erratic behavior [that] should have raised red flags for any responsible journalist.” The suit includes a copy of an alleged restraining order filed against Doe by an ex-boyfriend in 2021 “after she physically assaulted him, threatened him with a knife, and engaged in online harassment.”
“These incidents, detailed in court records and leading to her arrest by the Los Angeles Police Department, were disregarded by the Defendants, who instead framed her as a reliable source to bolster their sensationalized portrayal instead of the physical aggressor in a romantic relationship,” the complaint reads.
Key to the lawsuit is the accusation that the companies behind the documentary moved forward with its release even though they allegedly knew it “contained false claims and violated journalist professional standards” — claims Brown’s lawyers now say “caused significant harm to Mr. Brown’s reputation, career, and business opportunities.”
Several individuals who appeared as talking heads in the documentary are also named as defendants in the lawsuit.
Brown is asking for $500 million in damages, “a portion of which will be donated to survivors of sexual abuse.”
Warner Bros. Discovery and Ample Entertainment did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment.
The independent label and publishing company Artist Partner Group (APG) sued Create Music Group on Tuesday (Jan. 21), accusing the company of violating copyrights by uploading and monetizing songs it didn’t actually own. APG also accused Create of interfering with its artists’ contracts.
“Create’s ‘business model’ is to steal the intellectual property and contractual rights of innocent rightsholders,” APG’s attorney writes.
APG’s complaint argues that Create has engaged in several forms of copyright infringement, including by “unlawfully uploading” APG artists’ songs to streaming services” and “collecting royalties for them” as well as releasing a song called “Montagem Diamante Rosa” “which flagrantly copies” another composition that is owned by APG.
The suit also argues that Create approaches acts who have signed with APG and offers them YouTube monetization deals despite the fact that this service is already part of APG’s agreements with its artists. (Recording or publishing agreements typically give an artist’s partner the right to collect royalties across all the different platforms.) “Create and its subsidiaries wrongfully induced these artists to sign these bogus ‘contracts’ by falsely asserting that [APG was] purportedly doing a bad job exploiting their works and leaving money on the table (thereby damaging Plaintiffs’ reputation),” according to the complaint. “Create and its subsidiaries further falsely induced these artists by telling them that these ‘contracts’ do not violate [APG]’s rights.”
Trending on Billboard
In a statement, Jeff Movit, head of litigation for Chaudhry Law, said “our complaint demonstrates that APG will aggressively protect its contracts and copyrights.”
A representative for Create was not immediately available for comment.
Create was founded in 2015 and built its profile in the music industry through its YouTube royalties collection business. It has also branched out into other areas: Create owns other companies including Label Engine, a distributor; Flighthouse, a TikTok-focused digital media studio; and a majority stake in The Nations, a collection of popular YouTube channels.
While APG’s complaint is multifaceted, part of it focuses on Create’s business practices on YouTube: “Create and its subsidiaries have falsely filed claims with YouTube in which Defendants baselessly assert that they own rights in sound recordings and musical compositions that third parties have posted.”
This is not the first time that Create’s tactics on the popular video platform have drawn criticism. More than 10 executives told Billboard in 2022 that they knew of instances where Create claimed YouTube royalties it had no right to, sharing email threads and screenshots to back up their claims.
In an interview at the time, Create co-founder Jonathan Strauss denied these allegations. “We’ve never been sued by a lawyer or manager for this activity,” he added. “You would have to think if there was any truly egregious activity they would do that.”
Lawsuits are expensive and time-consuming. In October 2023, however, the music management company DigiGlo — whose clients include the rapper Chief Keef — sued Create, alleging that it “lost out on years of payments for its content monetization” for more than 400 works on YouTube because of Create’s refusal to honor contracts. DigiGlo estimated that it had lost “hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue.”
Create filed a terse answer to DigiGlo’s complaint two months later, denying “each and every allegation.” The suit is ongoing. (Create also faced a lawsuit from Cinq Music Group in 2022 that revolved around the use of a Shiloh Dynasty sample, though a judge dismissed Cinq’s claims last year.)
Meanwhile, Create has been raising money. In June, the company announced that it had received a $165 million investment from the private equity firm Flexpoint Ford. “Flexpoint’s investment will support our ambitious acquisition strategy,” Strauss said in a statement at the time, and “allow us to expand our market presence and create the scale to continue to provide unparalleled services to our clients and partners.”
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: Drake sues Universal Music Group for defamation over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us”; the Supreme Court upholds a ban on TikTok but President Donald Trump says he’ll delay it; Nelly demands punishment for a “frivolous” lawsuit over Country Grammar; and more.
THE BIG STORY: Drake v. UMG
Two months after Drake shocked the music industry with court filings suggesting he might file a lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us, the superstar rapper did exactly that — seemingly unswayed by public ridicule that he had hired lawyers during a rap beef.
Trending on Billboard
In a case filed in Manhattan federal court, Drake accused Universal Music Group of defaming him by promoting Lamar’s song — a brutal diss track that savaged Drake as a “certified pedophile” and became a chart-topping hit in its own right. The star claimed that his own label had “waged a campaign against him,” boosting a “false and malicious narrative” even though it knew it was false.
“UMG intentionally sought to turn Drake into a pariah, a target for harassment, or worse,” the star’s lawyers wrote. “UMG did so not because it believes any of these false claims to be true, but instead because it would profit from damaging Drake’s reputation.”
Can Drake really sue over a diss track? While the term “slander” gets thrown around a lot these days, actual legal defamation is pretty hard to prove in America. Drake would need to show that Lamar’s statements were provably false — a tricky task in a lyrical context where listeners have come to expect bombastic boasting and obvious exaggerations.
“The public … has to believe that the speaker is being serious, and not just hurling insults in a diss fight,” Dori Hanswirth, a longtime media law attorney, told me last year. “If the statements are not taken literally, then they are rhetorical hyperbole and not considered to be defamatory. The context of this song-by-song grudge match tends to support the idea that this is rhetorical, and a creative way to beef with a rival.”
That’s essentially the same argument that UMG made when it responded to Drake’s “illogical” lawsuit: That all parties involved in rap beefs, from the artist to the labels to the fans, have always known that it’s all part of a game — until now.
“Throughout his career, Drake has intentionally and successfully used UMG to distribute his music and poetry to engage in conventionally outrageous back-and-forth ‘rap battles’ to express his feelings about other artists,” UMG wrote in its response. “He now seeks to weaponize the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music.”
For more, go read our entire story on the lawsuit, featuring a detailed breakdown of the allegations and a link to Drake’s full complaint.
THE OTHER BIG STORY: TikTok Ban
The TikTok rollercoaster continues. After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law effectively banning TikTok over national security concerns, newly-inaugurated President Donald Trump quickly claimed to have delayed the ban — a move that restored the app for users but left plenty uncertain.
In a unanimous ruling Friday, the high court said the law — set to go into effect on Sunday (Jan. 19) — was fair game because the U.S. government has valid fears about China’s control over TikTok, a service with 170 million American users that has become a key promotional tool for the music industry.
As a result of that ruling, TikTok briefly went dark for users on Saturday and vanished from Google’s and Apple’s app stores. Service was restored on Sunday after Trump announced that he was planning an executive order to delay the ban.
In an order issued Monday (Jan. 20), Trump (who once led the charge against TikTok but later reversed course) instructed his attorney general not to enforce the ban for 75 days to give his administration time to “determine the appropriate course forward.” Trump had previously said he would “negotiate a resolution,” potentially for an American company to buy TikTok — the explicit goal of the ban.
Trump’s move was a win for TikTok and its many U.S. fans, but it raises difficult legal questions.
Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, the president cannot outright ignore laws passed by Congress. In practice, enforcement priorities can sometimes be a bit discretionary — like with federal drug laws in states that legalized cannabis — but does that leeway extend to flatly refusing to enforce a national security law? The TikTok law does contain a provision allowing for a 90-day delay if a sale is imminent, but it’s unclear if Trump’s order triggered that option, or if he was even legally eligible to do so.
For now, that uncertainty has left things in limbo. Trump’s assurances clearly allayed fears, but the app remains unavailable for download on the app stores — likely because the law threatens huge financial penalties against service providers like Google and Apple that violate the ban.
What happens next? A lawsuit challenging Trump’s executive order? An act of Congress to repeal the ban? A sale of TikTok to an American firm? Stay tuned…
Other top stories…
NELLY NOT PLAYING – Nelly (Cornell Haynes) asked a judge to issue legal sanctions in a copyright lawsuit filed by his former St. Lunatics bandmate Ali over Nelly’s 2000 debut album Country Grammar. The case claims that Nelly has failed to pay his former St. Lunatics bandmate Ali for his work on the album, but the star’s lawyers argued in the new filings that those decades-old allegations are so “frivolous” that Ali and his lawyers must face penalties for filing them: “Plaintiff’s claims should never have been brought in the first place,” Nelly’s attorneys wrote.
“THOROUGHLY ENJOYED HERSELF” – Attorneys for Sean “Diddy” Combs argued in new legal filings that key evidence disclosed by prosecutors — videos of the alleged “freak off” parties at the center of case — show only consensual sex and “fundamentally undermine” the charges against him. Far from the “sensationalistic media reports,” Diddy’s attorneys wrote, the videos at issue “unambiguously” show that the alleged victim “not only consented but thoroughly enjoyed herself.”
GYM MELEE LAWSUIT – Tekashi 6ix9ine (Daniel Hernandez) filed a lawsuit against LA Fitness, claiming the gym chain is legally responsible for a 2023 “violent assault” in which he was attacked in the sauna at one of the company’s South Florida locations — and owes him at least $1 million in damages for his trouble. The lawsuit claimed the assailants were members of the Latin Kings criminal gang and that LA Fitness should have had measures in place to prevent the entry of “affiliates of violent gangs” and people with “aggressive and dangerous propensities.”
A British teen pleaded guilty Monday (Jan. 20) to murdering three girls and attempting to kill 10 other people in what a prosecutor said was a “meticulously planned” stabbing rampage at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in England last summer.
Axel Rudakubana, 18, entered the surprise plea as jury selection had been expected to begin at the start of his trial in Liverpool Crown Court.
The July 29 stabbings sent shock waves across the U.K. and led to a week of widespread rioting across parts of England and Northern Ireland after the suspect was falsely identified as an asylum-seeker who had recently arrived in Britain by boat. He was born in Wales.
Trending on Billboard
The attack occurred on the first day of summer vacation when the little girls at the Hart Space, a sanctuary hidden behind a row of houses, were in a class to learn yoga and dance to the songs of Taylor Swift. What was supposed to be a day of joy turned to terror and heartbreak when Rudakubana, armed with a knife, intruded and began stabbing the girls and their teacher in the seaside town of Southport in northwest England.
“This was an unspeakable attack — one which left an enduring mark on our community and the nation for its savagery and senselessness,” Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor Ursula Doyle said. “A day which should have been one of carefree innocence; of children enjoying a dance workshop and making friendship bracelets, became a scene of the darkest horror as Axel Rudakubana carried out his meticulously planned rampage.”
Prosecutors haven’t said what they believe led Rudakubana — who was days shy of his 18th birthday — to commit the atrocities, but Doyle said that it was clear he had a “a sickening and sustained interest in death and violence.”
Rudakubana had consistently refused to speak in court and did so once again when asked to identify himself at the start of the proceedings. But he broke his silence when he was read the 16-count indictment and asked to enter a plea, replying “guilty” to each charge.
He pleaded guilty to three counts of murder, 10 counts of attempted murder and additional charges related to possessing the poison ricin and for having an al-Qaida manual.
Rudakubana faces life imprisonment when sentenced Thursday, Justice Julian Goose said.
Defense lawyer Stanley Reiz said that he would present information to the judge about Rudakubana’s mental health that may be relevant to his sentence.
The surviving victims and family members of those killed were absent in court, because they had expected to arrive Tuesday for opening statements.
Goose asked the prosecutor to apologize on his behalf that they weren’t present to hear Rudakubana plead guilty.
He pleaded guilty to murdering Alice Da Silva Aguiar, 9, Elsie Dot Stancombe, 7, and Bebe King, 6.
Eight other girls, ranging in age from 7 to 13, were wounded, along with instructor Leanne Lucas and John Hayes, who worked in a business next door and intervened. Fifteen other girls, as young as 5, were at the class but uninjured. Under a court order, none of the surviving girls can be named.
Hayes, who was stabbed and seriously wounded, said he still had flashbacks to the attack and was “hugely upset at the time that I wasn’t able to do more.”
“But I did what I could in the circumstances,” he told Sky News. “I’m grateful to be here, and by all accounts I’ll make a full recovery, at least physically. … I’m going to be OK and others won’t be, and that’s really where I I think the focus of attention should be.”
Police said the stabbings weren’t classified as acts of terrorism because the motive wasn’t known.
Several months after his arrest at the scene of the crime, Rudakubana was charged with additional counts for production of a biological toxin, ricin and possession of information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing to commit an act of terrorism for having the manual in a document on his computer.
Police said they found the evidence during a search of his family’s home in a neighboring village.
The day after the killings — and shortly after a peaceful vigil for the victims — a violent group attacked a mosque near the crime scene and pelted police officers with bricks and bottles and set fire to police vehicles.
Rioting then spread to dozens of other towns over the next week when groups made up mostly of men mobilized by far-right activists on social media clashed with police during violent protests and attacked hotels housing migrants.
More than 1,200 people were arrested for the disorder and hundreds have been jailed for up to nine years in prison.