Legal
Page: 78
A federal judge has serious doubts about a copyright lawsuit claiming Dua Lipa stole her smash hit song “Levitating” from a little-known reggae track, saying she’s seen no evidence that Lipa ever even heard the song she’s accused of copying.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The band Artikal Sound System sued the star last year, claiming her 2020 song – which spent 77 weeks on the Billboard Hot 100 chart – borrowed its core hook from their 2017 tune “Live Your Life.”
But in a ruling on Monday, U.S. District Judge Sunshine S. Sykes said there was no sign that anyone involved in creating “Levitating” had had “access” to the earlier song – a key requirement in any copyright lawsuit.
Artikal Sound System offered a complex theory: that one of Lipa’s co-writer had previously worked with a woman who was allegedly taught guitar by the brother-in-law of one band member. But in her ruling, Judge Sykes was clearly unimpressed.
“These attenuated links, which bear little connection to either of the two musical compositions at issue here, also do not suggest a reasonable likelihood that defendants actually encountered plaintiffs’ song,” the judge wrote.
The band also claimed that the song was so widely-available that the “Levitating” writers must have heard it, citing the fact that it had been played at concerts, that they had sold “several hundred” physical CDs, and that it was available on some streaming platforms.
But Judge Sykes said those arguments were “too generic or too insubstantial” to sustain a lawsuit.
“Plaintiffs’ failure to specify how frequently they performed “Live Your Life” publicly during the specified period, where these performances took place, and the size of the venues and/or audiences precludes the Court from finding that Plaintiffs’ live performances of the song plausibly contributed to its saturation of markets in which Defendants would have encountered it,” the judge wrote.
In technical terms, Monday’s ruling dismissed the lawsuit against Lipa. But the case isn’t over: the judge ruled that Artikal Sound System could try to fix the mistakes she had identified and refiled a so-called amended complaint.
Attorneys for both sides did not return requests for comment on Tuesday.
“Levitating,” released on 2020 on Lipa’s second studio album Future Nostalgia, was a massive hit, eventually peaking at No. 2 on the Hot 100 and securing the honor of being the longest-running top 10 song ever by a female artist on the chart.
Artikal Sound System is a reggae band based out of South Florida, founded in 2012 as a duo before later adding additional musicians and vocalist Logan Rex. The band released “Live Your Life” on its 2017 EP Smoke and Mirrors.
In their March lawsuit, the band said the songs sounded so similar that it was “highly unlikely that ‘Levitating’ was created independently.” The lawsuit also named Warner Records, as well as others who helped create the hit track.
But in November, Lipa’s lawyers made counter-arguments that were largely adopted in Monday’s ruling, claiming that the band’s efforts to show that Lipa or the other writers ever heard “Live Your Life” were “tortured” and “nothing more than a speculative.”
“Plaintiffs are essentially seeking to plead access,” the star’s legal team wrote, “by alleging that someone who knows someone who knows someone might have met one of the ‘Levitating’ writers.”
Following Monday’s decision, Artikal Sound System has until June 16 to refile their case.
The band OK Go has reached a confidential settlement to end a bizarre legal battle with Post Foods over a new line of on-the-go cereal packages called “OK Go!”
Just months after OK Go — a power pop band best known for its viral music videos — vowed to fight back against a “big corporation” that “chose to steal the name of our band to market disposable plastic cups of sugar to children,” attorneys for both sides asked a Minnesota federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit permanently, with each side paying their own legal bills.
The filing said that the two sides had “settled this action on terms agreeable to all parties,” but did not include specific terms of the agreement in public court records, like whether the band would be paid or if Post would change the brand name. Neither side immediately returned requests for comment on Friday (June 2).
The settlement will resolve an unusual legal dispute that pitted a pop band against a multinational food company, asking the question: Will consumers who see a portable snack package of Fruity Pebbles on a supermarket shelf think that a band with a similar name had endorsed it?
The fight started in September when an attorney for the band sent a cease-and-desist letter warning Post that OK Go was “surprised and alarmed” to see Post’s new product line. He claimed the name infringed the trademark rights to the band’s name since it would “suggest to consumers that OK Go is endorsing Post’s products,” or falsely imply that the cereal company had received permission to use it.
“Our client regards this matter with the utmost seriousness and has authorized us to take all steps necessary in any venue to protect its rights,” OK Go’s attorney wrote in the September letter. “If we do not hear from you within 10 days of the date of this letter, we will assume that Post does not wish to resolve this matter amicably.”
A week later, an attorney representing Post responded, saying that the company must “respectfully disagree” with the band’s accusations. The attorney argued that rock music and breakfast cereal were “clearly unrelated” products and that the phrase “OK Go” was merely a common term that had previously been used by many other companies on their products.
In January, Post took the battle to court, asking a federal judge for what’s known as a “declaratory judgment” — meaning a pre-emptive ruling that the company did nothing wrong. Post argued that the trademark rights of a rock band like OK Go don’t extend to an unrelated product like cereal and that the new cups are clearly marked with Post’s own brand names to avoid any confusion.
“Without resolution by this court, Post will be unfairly forced to continue investing in its new OK GO! brand while under the constant threat of unfounded future litigation by defendants,” the cereal company wrote in its lawsuit.
In a statement to Billboard at the time, the members of OK Go said they’d been surprised to learn of Post’s lawsuit.
“A big corporation chose to steal the name of our band to market disposable plastic cups of sugar to children. That was an unwelcome surprise, to say the least,” the band wrote. “But then they sue US about it? Presumably, the idea is that they can just bully us out of our own name, since they have so much more money to spend on lawyers? I guess that’s often how it works, but hopefully, we’ll be the exception.”
According to Post’s lawsuit, the company had offered to pay the band as part of a “good faith effort” to resolve the dispute without resorting to litigation, despite its belief that the accusations lacked legal merit. The company claimed OK Go rejected that offer and made no counter-proposal, leaving Post with no choice but to file a lawsuit.
A month after Ed Sheeran won a high-profile jury verdict that his “Thinking Out Loud” did not infringe Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On,” his copyright accusers have formally launched their appeal.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The heirs of Ed Townsend — who co-wrote the iconic song with Gaye – filed a so-called notice of appeal Thursday in Manhattan federal court, the first step toward asking a federal appeals court (the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) to overturn the outcome and revive their lawsuit against Sheeran.
The upcoming appellate battle will mark the next chapter in nearly seven years of litigation over “Thinking Out Loud” — a commercial and critical success that hit No. 2 on the Hot 100 before eventually winning the Grammy Award for song of the year.
In their suit, Kathryn Townsend Griffin and other Townsend heirs claimed that Sheeran had “knowingly and intentionally infringed” the earlier tune, stealing the “heart” from one of the most “instantly recognizable songs in R&B history.”
The two songs at issue in the case do sound similar, as even Sheeran has seemingly acknowledged: The star was captured on video at a 2014 concert toggling back and forth between them, drawing huge applause from the audience. But his lawyers say that’s simply because the two tracks share commonplace musical building blocks – elements that are free for all to use and cannot be “monopolized” under copyright law.
After years of delay, the case finally went to trial in April. Lawyers for the Townsends urged the jurors to “give credit where credit is due,” playing that concert video of Sheeran and calling it a “smoking gun.” But Sheeran’s lawyers, supported by testimony from the star himself that included a brief guitar performance, argued the star had done nothing wrong by using “the scaffolding on which all songwriting is built.”
On May 4, jurors sided with Sheeran, finding that he and his co-writer had independently created “Thinking Out Loud” without copying it from “Let’s Get It On” and clearing him of millions in potential legal damages.
A verdict against the singer would have reverberated throughout the music industry, much like an infamous 2015 verdict against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over their megahit “Blurred Lines,” which made musicians and companies more cautious about similar-sounding songs. Instead, his case represents the latest lawsuit in which such claims were rejected, following a 2020 ruling on Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway To Heaven” and a 2022 ruling on Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse.”
Thursday’s motion – procedural first step in any appeal in federal court – does not include detailed arguments; those will be filed later at the Second Circuit. But they will likely include challenges to what evidence the judge allowed to be used in the case and how he conducted the trial in April. Such appeals typically face an uphill climb, particularly when a case was decided by a jury rather than by a judge.
Briefs will be filed at the Second Circuit in the coming months. It could take the court well over a year to issue a final ruling.
Federal prosecutors are formally moving to seize R. Kelly’s money held by Sony Music and Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG), saying it will be used to pay victims and fulfill outstanding fines.
Two years after they won a jury verdict convicting the disgraced singer of sex trafficking and racketeering, prosecutors in Brooklyn have asked a federal judge for so-called writs of garnishment against the label and publisher — court orders that would compel the two companies to hand over funds tied to Kelly.
Sony Music and UMPG are believed to be “in possession of property” belonging to Kelly that could be used to pay down the $504,289 that he currently owes in victim restitutions and criminal fines, the feds argued.
It’s unclear how much of Kelly’s funds each company currently holds. A court ruling in March disclosed that Kelly’s royalty account with Sony held $1,544,333 as of 2020.
Neither Sony Music nor UMPG immediately returned requests for comment on the filings.
After he was sentenced last summer to 30 years in prison on the sex trafficking and racketeering charges, Kelly was ordered to pay more than $480,000 in fines and restitution. After he was sentenced again in February on separate child pornography convictions in Illinois, another $42,000 was tacked on.
Thursday’s filings are the latest efforts by the government to collect on those judgments. Last fall, prosecutors confiscated nearly $30,000 in Kelly’s prison commissary account. But the feds have competition for that money.
R. Kelly victim Heather Williams, who won a $4 million civil judgment against the singer, is also seeking to tap into the Sony Music account — as is Midwest Commercial Funding, a property management company that won a separate $3.5 million ruling against Kelly over unpaid rent at a Chicago studio.
In March, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Williams had priority to the funds over Midwest Commercial Funding because she was the first to properly demand the money from Sony. But that ruling left unclear whether she’ll enjoy similar priority over a slew of additional monetary penalties that Kelly owes to victims as a result of his federal criminal convictions.
Federal prosecutors in both Illinois and New York declined to comment on that decision at the time.
In a statement Thursday (June 1), Kelly’s lead attorney, Jennifer Bonjean, told Billboard that she and her client believe that the restitution order against him is incorrect and will be overturned on appeal. But she said they have “no opinion” on prosecutors seeking to garnish funds held by Sony Music and UMPG.
A New York state appeals court has sided with Jay-Z in his long-legal battle against a fragrance company called Parlux over a cologne endorsement deal that went bad.
In a ruling issued Thursday, a panel of appeals judges upheld a 2021 jury verdict that cleared the superstar of wrongdoing and potentially $67 million in damages. It also affirmed a judge’s ruling last year that it was actually Jay-Z, and not Parlux, that was owed money — nearly $7 million in unpaid royalties.
“There were multiple rational bases for upholding the jury verdict, and plaintiffs have not set forth a sufficient basis … to overturn it,” a five-judge panel ruled unanimously.
Barring further appeals, the decision could finally mean the end for more than six years of litigation over “Gold Jay-Z,” a cologne brand that the superstar, whose real name is Shawn Carter, launched in 2013 through a partnership with Parlux.
In its 2016 lawsuit, the company accused the rapper and his S. Carter Enterprises of failing to properly promote the brand, breaching his contract and dooming the product to failure. Jay-Z quickly countersued, claiming he had fulfilled his obligations despite numerous missteps from Parlux – and that the company still owed him money.
After a three week trial in late 2021, featuring heated testimony from the star himself, jurors largely sided with Jay-Z and found that Parlux was entitled to nothing. Then in August, New York Supreme Court Justice Andrew Borrok ruled Parlux owes Jay-Z $6.78 million in unpaid royalties, including interest.
Seeking the overturn the verdict on appeal, attorneys for Parlux argued that the trial judge had improperly instructed the jury about requirements in the contract about Jay-Z’s personal appearances and the need for Parlux to provide a “product development plan.”
But in Thursday’s ruling, the appellate panel was unmoved: “The court correctly instructed the jury on the burdens of proof, and any error in characterizing the notice requirement for personal appearances and the PDP as ‘conditions precedent’ was harmless when considering the overall instructions.”
Parlux can still challenge the outcome once more, taking the case to the Court of Appeals, New York’s top appellate court. An attorney for the company did not immediately return a request for comment.
Sean “Diddy” Combs is suing alcohol giant Diageo for allegedly breaching their partnership deal for a brand of tequila, leveling accusations of racism at the company and claiming it has treated his product line “worse than others because he is Black.”
In a complaint filed Wednesday (May 31) in New York court, attorneys for the star’s Combs Wines and Spirits claimed that Diageo had “typecast” his DeLeon Tequila as a “Black brand” that could only be sold to “urban” consumers, harming its sales and potential for growth.
“Cloaking itself in the language of diversity and equality is good for Diageo’s business, but it is a lie,” Combs’ lawyers wrote. “While Diageo may conspicuously include images of its Black partners in advertising materials and press releases, its words only provide the illusion of inclusion.”
Combs claims the “unequal treatment” DeLeon has received from Diageo has left his brand lagging behind competing Diageo brands like Casamigos and Don Julio — and that the company then used those lower sales figures to offer even less support for the brand.
“Combs Wines seeks to finally put an end to Diageo’s longstanding misconduct,” the star’s lawyers wrote. “Diageo must be ordered by a court to give Combs Wines the same treatment it gives its other, successful tequila brands. It is time that Diageo’s actions match its words.”
In a statement to Billboard, a Diageo spokesperson said the company was “disappointed our efforts to resolve this business dispute amicably have been ignored, and that Mr. Combs has chosen to damage a productive and valued partnership.”
“This is a business dispute, and we are saddened that Mr. Combs has chosen to recast this matter as anything other than that,” the company said. “Our steadfast commitment to diversity within our company and the communities we serve is something we take very seriously. We categorically deny the allegations that have been made and will vigorously defend ourselves in the appropriate forum.“
In technical legal terms, the lawsuit claims that Diageo has violated a specific provision of the operating agreement that governs the Combs-Diageo joint venture that owns DeLeon. It’s not entirely clear what that provision requires — much of the legal complaint is heavily redacted — but the lawsuit claims it was included in the deal to ensure equal treatment.
“Because he knows that contracts matter more than press releases, Mr. Combs insisted that Diageo agree to certain terms to ensure his brands were not ignored or relegated to second-class status,” Combs’ lawyers wrote.
Among other alleged breaches, Combs claims Diageo violated that provision by placing DeLeon in “far fewer outlets than its other tequila brands” and failing to produce enough of it to keep store shelves stocked.
But Combs’ lawyers repeatedly stressed that their case was not simply a run-of-the-mill breach of contract lawsuit: “Similar to the realities experienced by many people of color in the United States, Diageo’s treatment of its business relationship with Mr. Combs was tainted by racial prejudices.”
At one point, Combs claims he was directly told that “things would be different if he were a white, not Black, celebrity.”
“Diageo, in other words, openly admitted that it viewed Mr. Combs merely as a Black man thatmight prove useful in marketing to Black consumers,” Combs said. “Nothing more.”
Read the entire complaint against Diageo here:
After a whirlwind week of litigation, Adidas has abruptly dropped a federal court case aimed at freezing $75 million held by Kanye West’s Yeezy brand, saying it will instead pursue the money solely through private arbitration.
In a legal filing Tuesday evening, attorneys for Adidas and Yeezy said they had reached an agreement that would see the sneaker giant voluntarily dismiss the case. It came just hours after a federal judge refused to grant Adidas an emergency order re-freezing the $75 million held by Yeezy.
But the dismissal is hardly the end of the dispute. Adidas and Yeezy will continue battle it out in a private arbitration case, in which Adidas will likely argue that that West’s “offensive conduct” caused the breakdown of their long-standing partnership.
Adidas, which operated a lucrative sneaker collaboration with West for nearly a decade, was one of many companies to terminate its relationship with the embattled rapper (sometimes known as Ye) last fall in the wake of his antisemitic statements and other erratic behavior.
It’s been a messy breakup for Adidas. The split contributed to a loss of $655 million in sales for the last three months of 2022, helping drive the company to a quarterly net loss of $540 million. Last month, CEO Bjorn Gulden said the company would begin selling its $1.3 billion worth of unsold Yeezys, but would “donate money to the organizations that help us and were harmed by what Ye said.”
Days after Adidas announced the split with West, newly-unsealed court records show that it demanded Yeezy return $75 million that had allegedly been deposited in its accounts. When Yeezy refused, Adidas secretly filed its case in federal court, seeking a so-called “attachment” order immediately freezing those funds. While the real issues will be decided via arbitration, Adidas wanted the court to use its power to ensure that the money did not disappear while those private proceedings play out.
Court records show that Judge Valerie E. Caproni quickly granted the asset freeze in November, doing so not only in secret, but also on an “ex parte” basis — meaning without giving West or Yeezy a chance to make counter-arguments. Adidas argued, and the judge agreed, that there was a serious risk that Yeezy would have moved the money if given advanced notice.
But last week, after Yeezy’s attorneys challenged the freeze order, the judge finally lifted it — ruling that Adidas had run afoul of procedural requirements for such asset attachments and had thus “deprived” Yeezy of a fair chance to fight back.
In the wake of that order, lawyers for Adidas scrambled to have it reimposed. They argued that Yeezy currently holds $75 million “to which it has no legal right,” and warned that a court order was needed to maintain the status quo.
“Yeezy is likely to comingle the funds with an unknown balance of funds in its possession at other financial institutions, such that it would be more difficult if not impracticable to audit those accounts and determine which monies are owned by Adidas,” lawyers for Adidas wrote. “In addition, Ye faces a clear risk of insolvency, giving rise to a risk of irreparable harm.”
But this time, Judge Caproni was unswayed. While she said that Adidas would likely win its arbitration case against Yeezy, the judge ruled that the sneaker company had not met the difficult legal requirements for a new temporary restraining order: “Adidas’s motion for a TRO is denied.”
While the ruling only denied the emergency motion, Adidas could have still won a more conventional order in the coming days reimposing an asset freeze on Yeezy. But hours after Judge Caproni’s ruling, Adidas moved to drop its federal case.
Looking ahead, it’s unclear how long the pending arbitration case will take to play out, or what exact issues are being disputed. But in court documents, Adidas has said that West’s “racist, antisemitic, and other offensive public statements and conduct” caused “considerable damage to its brand.”
“Adidas has multiple causes of action against Yeezy, resulting from Ye’s highly public and offensive conduct described above, which violated the terms of the Agreement and justified adidas’s termination of that contract,” the company wrote. Those broader causes of action, as well as the dispute over [issues], will be resolved through arbitration.”
Reps for both sides did not immediately return a request for comment.
A Manhattan federal judge has denied a request by Adidas for an emergency order re-freezing $75 million held by Kanye West’s Yeezy brand, rejecting the sneaker company’s concerns that the disputed money might disappear.
Days after Judge Valerie E. Caproni lifted a months-long freeze on Yeezy’s accounts, she refused on Tuesday (May 30) to impose a temporary restraining order that would have immediately locked up the money again. Adidas argued that it faced “irreparable harm” without such an order as Yeezy was nearing insolvency, but the judge was unswayed.
“It is hereby ordered that … Adidas’s motion for a TRO is denied,” Judge Caproni wrote in her order, which was obtained by Billboard.
While still a loss for Adidas, Tuesday’s ruling only denied the emergency motion; Adidas can still win a more conventional order in the coming days reimposing an asset freeze on Yeezy. Both sides are due to file briefs on that request by Thursday.
Neither side immediately returned requests for comment.
Adidas, which operated a lucrative sneaker partnership with West for nearly a decade, was one of many companies to terminate its relationship with the embattled rapper (sometimes known as Ye) last fall in the wake of his antisemitic statements and other erratic behavior.
Shortly after the split, Adidas secretly filed a case in federal court to freeze $75 million in Yeezy assets. Adidas believes West’s company is contractually required to return the funds and has filed a private arbitration case to recover them. The company sought the court order to ensure that the money was not moved while those proceedings play out.
Newly-unsealed court records show that Judge Caproni quickly granted the asset freeze in November. But last week, after Yeezy’s attorneys challenged the order, she lifted it — ruling that Adidas had run afoul of procedural requirements and “deprived” Yeezy of a fair chance to fight back.
Just hours after that decision was issued, lawyers for Adidas filed their emergency request to re-freeze the assets. They argued that Yeezy currently holds $75 million “to which it has no legal right,” and warned that a court order was needed to maintain the status quo.
“Yeezy is likely to comingle the funds with an unknown balance of funds in its possession at other financial institutions, such that it would be more difficult if not impracticable to audit those accounts and determine which monies are owned by Adidas,” lawyers for Adidas wrote. “In addition, Ye faces a clear risk of insolvency, giving rise to a risk of irreparable harm.”
Tuesday’s ruling rejecting that motion came after a live hearing in Judge Caproni’s courtroom. According to a report by Bloomberg, the judge said during the hearing that while Adidas would likely win its arbitration case against Yeezy, it had not met the difficult legal requirements for a temporary restraining order. Among other things, the judge reportedly said that Adidas had offered only “tabloid speculation” about Yeezy’s risk of insolvency.
The newly-revealed litigation with Yeezy is just one piece of a messy breakup for Adidas. The split contributed to a loss of $655 million in sales for the last three months of 2022, helping drive the company to a quarterly net loss of 513 million euros ($540 million). Last month, CEO Bjorn Gulden said the company would begin selling $1.3 billion worth of unsold Yeezys, but would “donate money to the organizations that help us and were harmed by what Ye said.”
DaniLeigh has been arrested for DUI and hit and run, according to an arrest affidavit obtained by Billboard from the Miami Beach Police Department in Florida. TMZ was the first to report the news of her arrest. According to the police report, the singer was arrested in the early morning hours of Tuesday (May 30). […]
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: A messy legal battle between Adidas and Kanye West spills into the open; a YouTuber who defamed Cardi B declares bankruptcy to avoid a $4 million judgment; prosecutors call for a harsh sentence against Tory Lanez over the Megan Thee Stallion shooting; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Adidas v. Kanye
Thanks to newly-unsealed court records, the messy legal fallout from Kanye West’s high-profile split with Adidas is now coming into view.
Federal court records obtained by Billboard last week show that Adidas launched private arbitration proceedings last fall, shortly after the company terminated its long-standing partnership with West and his Yeezy brand in the wake of the rapper’s antisemitic statements. As part of that case, the company secretly sought – and won – an “attachment” order from a federal judge, freezing $75 million in Adidas money that’s allegedly sitting in Yeezy bank accounts.
Secretly? Yes, this case is a treasure trove for legal procedure nerds. The case was not only filed under seal and kept that way for months, but also on a so-called ex parte basis — meaning the judge issued the freeze without giving West or Yeezy a chance to make counter-arguments, saying there was a risk the rapper would have moved the money if given advanced notice.
But now, the case is spilling into the open. In a ruling earlier this month that unsealed the record, the judge cited the fact that Kanye himself had once mentioned the litigation on social media. And in a ruling Friday, that same judge overturned the ex parte freeze entirely, saying Adidas had failed to meet procedural requirements and had “deprived” Yeezy of a fair chance to fight back.
In the wake of that order, lawyers for Adidas are currently scrambling, seeking to have a new freeze imposed on the company. We’ll update you when we know more, so stay tuned.
Other top stories…
MORE KANYE PROBLEMS – Adidas isn’t the only former business partner in litigation with West. The Gap filed a case earlier in the week, alleging the rapper made unapproved changes to a Los Angeles retail location that resulted in an expensive lawsuit from the building’s owner.
B*TCH BETTER HAVE MY MONEY? – Eighteen months after Cardi B won a $4 million defamation verdict over salacious claims made by a YouTube host named Tasha K, the gossip blogger filed for bankruptcy, saying she has less than $60,000 in total assets to pay out.
FETTY WAP GETS SIX YEARS – The “Trap Queen” star was ordered to spend six years in federal prison, after pleading guilty last year to federal drug charges. His attorneys had asked for only a five-year sentence; prosecutors wanted as many as nine, citing music that they said had helped “glamorize the drug trade.”
GENIUS v. GOOGLE AT SCOTUS – The Department of Justice urged the U.S. Supreme Court to avoid a case alleging Google stole millions of song lyrics from the music database Genius, calling it a “poor vehicle” for a high court showdown.
TORY LANEZ SENTENCE LOOMS – Los Angeles prosecutors asked a judge to impose a harsh sentence against rapper Tory Lanez after he was convicted last year of shooting Megan Thee Stallion, arguing he behaved with “indifference for human life” at a moment when Megan was “particularly vulnerable.”
GOOGLE FACES $32M PATENT VERDICT – A federal jury ordered the tech giant to pay Sonos the huge sum for infringing one of its smart speaker patents, awarding the smaller company $2.30 for each of the more than 14 million Google devices that were sold incorporating the patented technology.
MIGOS ALLEGED KILLER INDICTED – A Texas grand jury formally issued a murder indictment against Patrick Xavier Clark, the man who was arrested and charged last year in the slaying of Migos rapper TakeOff.