Legal
Page: 65
Maren Morris has filed for divorce from husband Ryan Hurd after five years of marriage, according to documents obtained by Billboard.
In an Oct. 2 complaint in Tennessee state court, lawyers for the singer-songwriter, 33, said that she and Hurd, 36, were “unable to live together successfully as husband and wife,” and were “experiencing irreconcilable differences in their marriage.”
The filing said that the couple had signed a prenuptial agreement, which will govern how their assets are divided. The pair, who share a 3-year old son, will submit a “permanent parenting plan” to be approved by a judge, according to the court documents; Morris also asked for child support.
Billboard has reached out to Morris and Hurd for comment.
The two began dating in 2015 and wed on March 24, 2018, in Nashville. They welcomed son Hayes, on March 23, 2020.
Prior to their split, Morris and Hurd had collaborated on songs including their 2021 duet “Chasing After You,” which reached No. 23 on the Billboard Hot 100. The pair — who met in Nashville’s songwriting circles — also co-wrote “Circles Around This Town” and “The Furthest Thing” from Morris’ 2022 album Humble Quest, and “All My Favorite People,” a track featuring Brothers Osborne from her 2019 album GIRL, as well as “Pass It On” from Hurd’s 2021 album Pelago.
Hurd spoke out in support of Morris when she and Jason Aldean’s wife, Brittany Aldean, verbally sparred last year after “The Bones” singer called Brittany out over her statements regarding gender-affirming care.
“Scoring quick points by picking on trans kids isn’t something that is brave at all,” Hurd stated on social media at the time. “And I’m proud of Maren for sticking up for them. … Shut up and sing only applies to those who you disagree with.”
Hurd also supported Morris in September when she revealed her intentions to leave the country music industry behind and issued the two-song project, The Bridge. He said on social media at the time: “She deserves to be celebrated, not just tolerated.”
Mobb Deep is facing a lawsuit over a recent collaboration with streetwear brand Supreme. Filed by a New York City hardcore punk band Sick of It All, the suit claims that Mobb Deep members Havoc and the late Prodigy stole their dragon-shaped logo.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a lawsuit filed Friday, the band accused both Supreme and Mobb Deep of infringing its trademarks with a line of T-shirts launched this summer. The case claims that Mobb Deep’s emblem, featured on the shirts, is “virtually identical” to a logo that Sick of It All has used since 1987.
“This case arises out of defendants’ improper and illegal use of a nearly identical logo mark to plaintiff’s inherently distinctive, incontestable, and famous logo,” wrote lawyers for Bush Baby Zamagate Inc., the company that owns Sick of It All’s intellectual property. “Defendants’ adoption and use of their knockoff logo … is not just reckless and inexplicable — it is willful infringement and unfair competition.”
As defendants, the lawsuit named Chapter 4 Corp., the owner of Supreme; Kejuan Muchita Inc., a corporate entity owned by Havoc; and the estate of Prodigy (Albert Jackson Johnson), who died in 2017.
Back in June, when Supreme launched the Mobb Deep shirts, the website Hypebeast tried to explain the origins of the duo’s logo. The “tribal tattoo-style dragon,” the site claimed, had been “borrowed” from Sick of It All — “who, like Mobb Deep, is from Queens, New York.”
Turns out, Sick of It All doesn’t see the story quite the same way.
In Friday’s lawsuit, their lawyers say that, over the course of three decades, they have repeatedly demanded that Mobb Deep stop using the dragon design, first in 1997 and again in 2003. The new complaint included a copy of a cease-and-desist that the band sent in 2003, after a version of the dragon logo was used in an insert included in Mobb Deep’s Free Agents: The Murda Mixtape.
“This is not the first time that plaintiff has objected to Mobb Deep’s use of a logo substantially identical to plaintiff’s mark,” the new complaint reads. “Immediately prior to the institution of this lawsuit, plaintiff demanded that defendants cease use of their infringing logo and provide an accounting to plaintiff of sales of the infringing goods. Defendants refused to comply with those demands.”
In 2011, Mobb Deep spoke about the logo in an interview with clothing brand Mishka NYC. In it, Prodigy explained he basically picked the image off of a tattoo parlor wall when he was a teenager and got it inked to his hand.
“Basically, when I was 14 or 15, there was this tattoo parlor in Elmart off Hemstead turnpike and I had walked in there to get my first tattoo,” he said. “There was this dragon on the wall and I didn’t know what it was, I just thought it looked ill, I was mad young and I had always wanted something on my hand. I prolly seen it on some of those L.A. gang movies like Colors. I thought’d be cool, it’d look like some tough shit. So I told the dude put that on my hand. When me and Hav started Mobb Deep, we turned it into the lil clique thing.”
Prodigy went on to say, “We wanted to turn it into the logo for Mobb Deep, but, then we got a cease and desist letter in the mail…. That was just some random sh–! We didn’t even know, we was just young kids.”
Representatives for Supreme and Mobb Deep did not immediately return requests for comment.
Read the entire complaint here:
A bipartisan group of U.S. senators released draft legislation Thursday (Oct. 12) aimed at protecting musical artists and others from artificial intelligence-generated deepfakes and other replicas of their likeness, like this year’s infamous “Fake Drake” song.
The draft bill – labelled the “Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act, or NO FAKES Act — would create a federal right for artists, actors and others to sue those who create “digital replicas” of their image, voice, or visual likeness without permission.
In announcing the bill, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) specifically cited the April release of “Heart On My Sleeve,” an unauthorized song that featured AI-generated fake vocals from Drake and The Weeknd.
“Generative AI has opened doors to exciting new artistic possibilities, but it also presents unique challenges that make it easier than ever to use someone’s voice, image, or likeness without their consent,” Coons said in a statement. “Creators around the nation are calling on Congress to lay out clear policies regulating the use and impact of generative AI.”
The draft bill quickly drew applause from music industry groups. The RIAA said it would push for a final version that “effectively protects against this illegal and immoral misappropriation of fundamental rights that protect human achievement.”
“Our industry has long embraced technology and innovation, including AI, but many of the recent generative AI models infringe on rights — essentially instruments of theft rather than constructive tools aiding human creativity,” the group wrote in the statement.
The American Association of Independent Music offered similar praise: “Independent record labels and the artists they work with are excited about the promise of AI to transform how music is made and how consumers enjoy art, but there must be guardrails to ensure that artists can make a living and that labels can recoup their investments.” The group said it would push to make sure that the final bill’s provisions were “accessible to small labels and working-class musicians, not just the megastars.”
A person’s name and likeness — including their distinctive voice — are already protected in most states by the so-called right of publicity, which allows control how your individual identity is commercially exploited by others. But those rights are currently governed by a patchwork of state statutes and common law systems.
The NO FAKES Act would create a nationwide property right in your image, voice, or visual likeness, allowing an individual to sue anyone the produced a “newly-created, computer-generated, electronic representation” of it. Unlike many state-law systems, that right would not expire at death and could be controlled by a person’s heirs for 70 years after their passing.
A tricky balancing act for any publicity rights legislation is the First Amendment and its protections for free speech. In Thursday’s announcementthe NO FAKES Act’s authors said the bill would include specific carveouts for replicas used in news coverage, parody, historical works or criticism.
“Congress must strike the right balance to defend individual rights, abide by the First Amendment, and foster AI innovation and creativity,” Coons said.
The draft was co-authored by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).
Cher is addressing the allegations that she hired men to kidnap her adult son Elijah Blue Allman.
Speaking to People about the claims made last year by his estranged wife, Marieangela King, in divorce documents, which alleged that the pop icon had sent four men to kidnap Allman from a New York City hotel room, Cher simply said, “That rumor is not true.”
The star declined to comment further on the event described by King, but she did tell the magazine that the family matter was related to her son’s substance abuse issues, which he has previously spoken about. “I’m not suffering from any problem that millions of people in the United States aren’t,” Cher said.
“I’m a mother,” she continued. “This is my job — one way or another, to try to help my children. You do anything for your children. Whenever you can help them, you just do it because that’s what being a mother is. But it’s joy, even with heartache — mostly, when you think of your children, you just smile and you love them, and you try to be there for them.”
Though the kidnapping plot accusations were first made in court documents filed in December, the allegations recently surfaced amid ongoing divorce proceedings between King and Allman, whose father is late rock star Greg Allman. King alleged in her filing that Cher, concerned for Elijah’s well-being, hired four men to get her 47-year-old son out of the hotel where he was staying with King as the two worked to reconcile their marriage.
This holiday season will hopefully be more cheerful than last year for Cher and her family, especially as the Burlesque star gears up to release her festive upcoming album, Christmas. Her first ever Christmas album, the project will feature Stevie Wonder, Michael Bublé, Cyndi Lauper and Tyga.
“They’re not ‘Christmas Christmas’ songs, OK, they’re just great songs,” she recently told Billboard of the LP. “And I never say that because I almost never like what I do. But I mean people love it and I’m happy. I’m so particular, but I love the songs and everyone who hears them loves them.”
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: Two new misconduct lawsuits, one against publishing exec Kenny MacPherson and another against R&B star Jason Derulo; a ruling for Cardi B that a gossip blogger can’t use bankruptcy to escape a huge defamation judgment; a new Supreme Court case that’s “vitally important to the music industry”; and more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Music #MeToo
The music industry was rocked last week by two new sexual misconduct lawsuits: one against a powerful publishing executive and another against a chart-topping R&B star.
In a complaint filed Wednesday, a woman named Sara Lewis leveled accusations of sexual assault and harassment against Kenny MacPherson, the CEO of Hipgnosis Songs Fund’s publishing unit. Lewis claimed she “endured an onslaught of unwanted sexual advances” from MacPherson while she worked as an A&R at Chrysalis Music during the mid-2000s when he served as the company’s president.
Through an attorney, MacPherson “vehemently” denied the allegations, stressing that the “unverified” claims stemmed from nearly two decades in the past. But Hipgnosis quickly placed him on leave of absence pending an internal investigation: “Hipgnosis Songs Fund has a policy of zero-tolerance to harassment or abuse,” a company spokesperson said.
A day later, a woman named Emaza Gibson accused singer Jason Derulo of repeatedly sexually harassing her, then dropping her from a deal with his Atlantic Records imprint Future History after she rebuffed his advances. He strongly denied the claims, calling them “completely false and hurtful.”
Nearly six years on from the start of the #MeToo movement, the music industry is experiencing a new wave of such accusations. Two women filed lawsuits late last year against Atlantic Records over sexual assault allegations against late co-founder Ahmet Ertegun; country star Jimmie Allen was hit with two sexual assault lawsuits in May; and Backstreet Boys member Nick Carter has been sued by three different women who claim he sexually assaulted them as minors in the 2000s.
Go read the entire story on the Derulo accusations here and the entire story on the MacPherson allegations here, featuring full breakdowns of the cases and access to the actual court documents.
Other top stories this week…
BETTER HAVE MY MONEY – Two years after Cardi B won a nearly $4 million defamation verdict against a YouTube host named Tasha K over her salacious lies about drug use, STDs and prostitution, a federal judge ruled that the gossip blogger could not use Chapter 11 bankruptcy to avoid paying most of the judgment.
TRANSATLANTIC CUSTODY SETTLEMENT – Lawyers for Joe Jonas and Sophie Turner, currently locked in a very public divorce, said the former couple was close to an “amicable resolution” to end Turner’s unusual federal lawsuit, which cited international treaties on child abduction to demand the return of the couple’s two young daughters to her native England.
ELECTRIC ZOO SUITS MOUNT – A month after this year’s chaotic iteration of the Electric Zoo festival in New York, a group of ticket buyers filed a class action over what they called an “absolute fiasco.” The lawsuit is at least the fourth such lawsuit filed against Brooklyn promoter Avant Gardner, the organizer of the popular dance music event.
FILE THE SUIT, PAY THE PRICE? – Sam Smith and Normani demanded to be reimbursed for money they spent defeating a failed copyright lawsuit that accused them of ripping off their 2019 hit, “Dancing With a Stranger,” from an earlier song. The final legal bill? A whopping $732,202.
MUSIC BIZ HEADS TO SCOTUS – The U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari filed by Warner Music Group, agreeing to tackle a case over copyright damages that labels and publishers have called “vitally important to the music industry.” The case is complicated, so go read our deep-dive explainer here.
LADY GAGA DOGNAPPING CASE – A Los Angeles judge once again ruled that Lady Gaga was not obligated to pay a $500,000 reward for the return of her stolen French bulldogs to the very same woman who was criminally charged over the incident. Echoing an earlier ruling, the judge said the woman had “unclean hands” that prevented her from profiting from her actions.
‘MY HUMPS’ v. ‘MY POOPS’ – Abruptly ending what could have been a major battle over copyright fair use, BMG Rights Management reached a settlement to end a copyright lawsuit against toymaker MGA Entertainment over “My Poops” — a scatological parody song set to the tune of The Black Eyed Peas’ “My Humps.”
TUPAC MURDER CASE UPDATE – Duane “Keffe D” Davis, the man who prosecutors say masterminded the 1996 shooting death of Tupac Shakur in Las Vegas, made his first court appearance. Davis, who had been a long-known suspect in the case and publicly admitted his role in the killing in a tell-all memoir, was indicted late last month on one count of murder with a deadly weapon.
Another group of Electric Zoo ticket buyers have filed a class action over what they call the “absolute fiasco” at this year’s festival, marking at least the fourth such lawsuit filed against promoter Avant Gardner, the organizer of the popular dance music event.
In a complaint filed Thursday in New York state court, lawyers for four attendees accused the Brooklyn-based company of false advertising, breach of contract and other wrongdoing over the event, which saw its Friday shows canceled at the last minute and Sunday plagued by problems.
“Normally this event is a transcendental audio-visual festival that creates everlasting thrilling memories for tens of thousands of EDM fans,” their lawyers wrote. “And while it did create everlasting memories in 2023, the memories created were not the ones which ticket holders were looking forward to.”
The “oversold, grossly understaffed” festival was “nothing short of an absolute fiasco,” attorneys for the concertgoers wrote, resulting in “long lines, massive overcrowding, and a literal stampede of people when it was discovered that the organizers oversold tickets.” The case was filed on behalf of Billy Ting, Duoc Vo, Garry Huang, Jeffrey Wang and Joshua Chin, but said it aims to represent as many as 75,000 ticketbuyers who had similar experiences.
Electric Zoo, held annually on New York City’s Randall’s Island, is one of the country’s top electronic dance festivals, but this year’s iteration – the second by Avant Gardner since the company acquired the festival in 2022 — was marred by issues.
First came an abrupt cancellation of Friday evening, meaning no performances by top names like The Chainsmokers and Kx5. That was followed by a delayed start and long lines on Saturday, and then a chaotic Sunday in which thousands of ticketholders were denied entry after the site reached capacity. Some fans jumped fences or ran through security checkpoints as a group.
Avant Gardner, which promised refunds for Friday and for anyone turned away on Sunday, blamed the problems on “global supply chain disruptions.” But sources later told Billboard that the Friday shutdown largely had stemmed from the promoter’s failure to pay vendors from last year’s festival, leading to a shortage of experienced concert professionals willing to work at this year’s event. Those shortages led to issues that caused city officials to withhold permitting approval until they were fixed. Citing internal sources, the New York Post also attributed the problems to staffing issues, as well as to a planning process that allegedly started months later than usual for a festival of its size and complexity.
Additionally, Sunday’s problems were caused by overselling the event by 7,000 people, according to an NYPD estimate reported by local news outlets. Shortly after the festival, Mayor Eric Adams suggested the city might launch an investigation into Avant Gardner over the debacle: “It’s unfortunate that the organizers wanted to turn our city into a zoo.”
Thursday’s lawsuit is at least the fourth such class action filed over the messy event. The first, filed on Sept. 13 in federal court, said Avant Gardner had caused “a nightmare endured by thousands of electronic music fans.” Another, filed just three days later in the same court, said the organizers had “lied to their guests at every opportunity.” In a third lawsuit, a Connecticut man said the festival’s “lack of planning and overselling of tickets” had caused dangerous overcrowding that caused him to “fear for his life.”
The specifics are varied, but all four lawsuits allege roughly similar forms of wrongdoing: That the Electric Zoo organizers misled ticket buyers, that they broke promises to concertgoers, and that they were negligent in failing to prevent the problems. Each case is seeking to represent hundreds or thousands of fans, and some or all of the cases could eventually be combined into a single, consolidated action.
A representative for Avant Gardner did not immediately return a request for comment.
The Electric Zoo class actions are only the latest legal issues for Avant Gardner, which operates an 80,000 square foot, multi-venue facility in Brooklyn’s East Williamsburg neighborhood. The company and owner Jürgen “Billy” Bildstein have clashed for years with the State Liquor Authority over allegations of drug use and other safety issues, including a 2020 agreement in which the company agreed to a $100,000 fine and to retain an independent safety monitor.
In August, that state-appointed monitor, T&M Security LLC, sued the company, claiming Avant Gardner had terminated the arrangement prematurely and then refused to pay its fees. A month earlier, another case claimed that security guards had assaulted patrons while searching them for drugs during a pride event.
Two years after Cardi B won a nearly $4 million defamation verdict against a YouTube host named Tasha K over her salacious lies about drug use, STDs and prostitution, a federal judge has ruled that the gossip blogger cannot avoid paying most of the judgment through Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Tasha, who filed for bankruptcy in a May petition that said she had less than $60,000 in assets, will not be able to “discharge” $3.4 million owed to Cardi via the Chapter 11 process, Judge Scott M. Grossman ruled Thursday (Oct. 5) — meaning she’ll continue to be on the hook even after she exits bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy law allows insolvent people to escape certain debts, but it doesn’t shield them from paying money they owe because of “willful and malicious injury” they caused to others. After Tasha filed for bankruptcy, Cardi’s lawyers said that exception clearly applied to the huge judgment — a debt they said Tasha had incurred by “spreading false and defamatory statements” that were intended to cause harm.
After Cardi’s attorneys made those arguments, Tasha’s lawyers didn’t really fight back, essentially agreeing that $3.4 million of the $3.9 million judgment wasn’t going to be erased by the bankruptcy. And on Friday, Judge Grossman made it official: “The award of damages [and] interest thereon pursuant … are excepted from discharge.”
The ruling leaves only $500,000 of Cardi’s judgment in doubt. That money is technically owed solely by Tasha’s company Kebe Studios LLC. Whether or not Tasha herself is required to pay it will be the subject of future proceedings before the bankruptcy court.
Tasha’s bankruptcy attorney did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday.
Cardi (real name Belcalis Marlenis Almanzar) sued Tasha (Latasha Kebe) in 2019 over what the rapper’s lawyers called a “malicious campaign” on social media and YouTube aimed at hurting Cardi’s reputation. The star’s attorneys said they had repeatedly tried — and failed — to get her to pull her videos down.
One Tasha video cited in the lawsuit includes a statement that Cardi had done sex acts “with beer bottles on f—ing stripper stages.” Other videos said the superstar had contracted herpes; that she had been a prostitute; that she had cheated on her husband; and that she had done hard drugs.
Following a trial in January, jurors sided decisively with Cardi B, holding Tasha liable for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They ordered her and her company to pay more than $2.5 million in damages and another $1.3 million in legal fees incurred by Cardi. Tasha appealed the verdict last summer, but a federal appeals court easily rejected that request in March.
Cardi B has repeatedly vowed to recover the money. Shortly after she won the jury verdict, she tweeted “imma come for everything” along with the acronym BBHMM — “bitch better have my money.” And her lawyers spent months legally pursuing the money, including garnishing her YouTube monetization account.
But in May, Tasha said there was barely any money for Cardi to take. In her bankruptcy petition, she listed just $58,595 in total assets to her name, the vast majority of which came from a truck that’s tied as collateral to an unpaid auto loan. She listed only $11,750 in other properties, including two Louis Vuitton purses and just $95 in actual cash in her bank account. She counted the trademark to her “UnWineWithTashaK” YouTube channel as an asset, but says the value of the brand is “unknown.”
Lawyers for Cardi quickly filed a so-called adversary proceeding — a lawsuit-like process that takes place within a larger bankruptcy case — to ensure that Tasha couldn’t dodge the damages she owes. It was that case that led to Friday’s decision.
Jason Derulo has spoken out about the lawsuit filed Thursday (Oct. 5) by a woman who claims the superstar sexually harassed her after signing her to his record label.
“I wouldn’t normally comment but these claims are completely false and hurtful,” said Derulo in a video and written statement posted to Instagram Thursday night. “I stand against all forms of harassment and I remain supportive of anybody following their dreams. I’ve always strived to live my life in a positively impactful way, and that’s why I sit here before you deeply offended, by these defamatory claims. God bless.”
In the complaint, the woman, Emaza Gibson, said that she signed with Derulo’s record label, Future History, after Derulo allegedly reached out about working with her in August 2021. But she claimed the relationship quickly soured, with Derulo continually pressuring her to have sex with him despite her persistent refusals to do so. Among other accusations, Gibson said the singer told her that if she wanted success in the music industry, she “would be required to partake in ‘goat skin and fish scales,’ which is a Haitian reference referring to conducting sex rituals, sacrificing a goat, goat blood and doing cocaine.’”
After allegedly rebuffing all of Derulo’s advances, Gibson claimed that the star became increasingly dismissive of and aggressive toward her. She further accused Derulo’s manager, Frank Harris, and human resources executives at Future History’s label partner, Atlantic Records, of defending Derulo or ignoring her complaints. In September 2022, she said she was informed that her “employment” with Future History and Atlantic had been terminated.
Since her alleged experiences with Derulo, Gibson claimed she’s required medical intervention for “breakdowns, weight loss, insomnia, mood swings, hopelessness, loss of motivation…[and] feelings of betrayal and deception” and was subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Gibson is suing for sexual harassment, failure to prevent and/or remedy harassment, retaliation, intimidation and violence, breach of contract and more. Harris, Atlantic and RCA Records are also named as defendants. It’s unclear why RCA Records is listed, as the label has never done business with Derulo or Future History.
On Friday, Gibson’s attorney, Ron Zambrano, responded to Derulo’s statement by putting out his own. “If Derulo truly remained supportive of anyone following their dreams, he would acknowledge the pain and suffering he caused Emaza and aim to be a better person,” the statement reads. “He should be offended by these allegations, as should everyone, including his fans. Emaza is certainly offended by his dismissive attitude. The entire music industry is due for a #MeToo movement. This sort of conduct is pervasive but it takes brave people like Emaza to come out of the shadows and share their stories to finally bring an end to this shameful behavior.”
Kenny MacPherson, a long-time music publishing executive, has been placed on a leave of absence from his job at Hipgnosis Songs Fund, the company tells Billboard, following the filing of a lawsuit that claims he sexually assaulted a staffer in 2005 while he ran another company.
In a complaint filed Wednesday in Los Angeles court, Sara Lewis alleges that she “endured an onslaught of unwanted sexual advances” from MacPherson while she worked as an A&R at Chrysalis Music during the mid-2000s, when he served as the company’s president.
Lewis claims the harassment eventually escalated into “a traumatic sexual assault” during a 2005 business trip, and that she was then “blacklisted” when she reported the abuse.
“The entertainment industry is rife with tales of the abuse of aspiring entrepreneurial women at the hands of older, powerful executives,” Lewis’ lawyers write. “Women have been historically punished for standing up for themselves, refuting sexual advances, or speaking out against their perpetrators. Sara is unwilling to perpetuate that stigma. This lawsuit is about reclaiming agency for survivors of sexual violence and bringing to justice those high powered perpetrators who have historically avoided culpability.”
In a statement to Billboard on Thursday (Oct. 5), Hipgnosis — which was not named in the lawsuit nor accused of any wrongdoing — said it had placed MacPherson from his role as the CEO of the company’s publishing unit pending an investigation.
“Hipgnosis Songs Fund has a policy of zero-tolerance to harassment or abuse,” a spokesperson for the company said. “While the company is not a defendant to these historic allegations which relate to a period 15 years before Hipgnosis was founded, Kenny MacPherson was placed on leave of absence from Hipgnosis Songs Group as soon as it became aware of the allegations. Our rigorous procedures for dealing with such matters have commenced.”
MacPherson did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday.
In addition to MacPherson, the lawsuit also named as a defendant BMG Rights Management, which acquired Chrysalis in 2010. Lewis claims that BMG, as the legal successor to her employer, is “directly liable” for the company’s failure to stop abuse by its president. In a statement to Billboard on Thursday, BMG stressed that it did not acquire Chrysalis until “years after the alleged events had taken place.”
“BMG stands solidly against all forms of discrimination, harassment, and abuse and we are shocked and dismayed by the allegations made by Sara Lewis,” the company said.
In her complaint — which contains graphic details of alleged harassment and assault — Lewis claims she was hired by Chrysalis in 2002 to “what she thought was her dream job,” eventually moving into a role as an A&R by 2003. But she says the dream “became a literal nightmare” as she was subjected to “relentless” harassment and “grooming” by MacPherson, who then served as the president of Chrysalis.
“Each of the repeated advances were unwanted and unwelcome,” her lawyers write. “But Sara had nowhere to turn. As president of Chrysalis, MacPherson knew all and controlled all. As a professional and aspiring executive, Sara put her head down, endured the harassment, and continued to pursue her dream career in the music industry.”
Lewis claims the harassment escalated into outright assault during a 2005 trip to Chicago to visit a newly-signed artist. After “plying her with alcohol” during a concert, she says he then “insisted that he and Sara have another drink in Sara’s hotel room” and eventually “professed his love” to her. When she says she “reiterated that she did not share these feelings,” he then “forced himself” on her.
“MacPherson attempted to penetrate Sara, but was unable to maintain an erection,” her lawyers wrote in Wednesday’s complaint. “MacPherson then forcibly performed oral sex on Sara as she laid motionless, repeatedly crying and saying ‘no,’ and pleading for MacPherson to stop. Eventually, apparently frustrated with Sara’s lack of participation and his own inability to perform, MacPherson relented and stopped his sexual assault.”
Lewis says she eventually “mustered the courage to report MacPherson’s abuse,” but her efforts were met only with silence and retaliation. Her direct supervisor did nothing, she says, and MacPherson began to shut her out of important portions of her job. When she tried to look for other jobs, she says she learned she had been “blacklisted” by MacPherson and Chrysalis. Eventually, she says she was “forced to leave the music industry entirely.”
“MacPherson and Chrysalis created an environment wherein Sara was without recourse,” her lawyers wrote. “She either acquiesced to MacPherson’s relentless and unwanted sexual advances, or faced a career-ending fate. Sara will no longer remain silent and now brings this action to seek redress for the years of sexual harassment and abuse she suffered at the hands of MacPherson, which was enabled and covered up by Chrysalis.”
In technical terms, Lewis is accusing BMG and/or MacPherson of 12 different counts of civil wrongdoing, including sexual battery, gender violence, and a slew of violations of California labor and employment laws covering sexual harassment and wrongful termination.
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.
Read the full legal documents here:
After successfully defeating a lawsuit that claimed they ripped off their 2019 hit “Dancing With a Stranger” from an earlier song, Sam Smith and Normani are now demanding that their accuser reimburse their legal bills – a whopping total of $732,202.
In a ruling last month, a federal judge rejected allegations that Smith and Normani had copied a little-known 2015 song of the same name when they released “Dancing,” one of Smith’s top-charting hits that peaked at No. 7 on the Hot 100 chart.
Now, Smith and Normani say they shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill for a “frivolous and unreasonable” lawsuit.
“Defective copyright infringement claims, like Plaintiff’s claims here, burden the court, cause potentially damaging negative publicity for recording artists … and others, and force needless attorney’s fees on them,” wrote attorney Peter Anderson, who reps the two stars in a Sept 22 court filing. “Awarding attorney’s fees here will deter plaintiff and others from filing and blindly prosecuting such claims without anything close to the required factual and legal basis.”
The case against Smith and Normani was filed last year by songwriters Jordan Vincent, Christopher Miranda and Rosco Banlaoi, who claimed that “Dancing” was “strikingly similar” to their 2015 same-named track. In their complaint, they said it was “beyond any real doubt” that the song had been copied.
But last month, U.S. District Judge Wesley L. Hsu said it was, in fact, very much in doubt. Granting Smith and Normani’s motion for an immediate ruling ending the lawsuit, the judge said the songs simply were not similar – and he criticized the plaintiffs for manipulating them to make them appear more alike.
“Permitting copyright plaintiffs to prevail … by rotating chords, recalibrating the tempo, and altering the pitch of a defendant’s song so that it sounds more similar to the plaintiffs’ would lead courts to deem substantially similar two vastly dissimilar musical compositions,” Judge Hsu wrote at the time.
Unlike most forms of litigation, winners in copyright lawsuits are often able to legally recover the money they spent on lawyers fighting the case. Judges grant such requests in cases where a lawsuit shouldn’t have been filed, and they can serve as a powerful deterrent against future questionable lawsuits.
In their filing asking Hsu to order Vincent, Miranda and Banlaoi to reimburse them, Smith and Normani said the songwriters’ case had been exactly the kind of pointless lawsuit that needs to be deterred.
“Plaintiff sought to monopolize unprotectable elements that are common property to all,” Anderson wrote. “Claims like Plaintiff’s here threaten to cheat the public domain and curtail the creation of new works.”
As for the total, the pair of stars said they had incurred a whopping $732,202 bill for the services of Anderson and other lawyers from the top firm Davis Wright Tremaine who defended them. That figure was “below the median hourly rates” of similar elite copyright lawyers, they said, and they were “perfectly justified” in racking up big bills on a case that was demanding all of the profits from a a multi-platinum hit song.