Legal
Page: 81
Lizzo is facing another explosive lawsuit filed by a former employee.
On Thursday (Sept. 21), Asha Daniels — a clothing designer who worked on Lizzo’s Special Tour earlier this year — filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging sexual and racial harassment, disability discrimination, assault, illegal retaliatory termination and more. In addition to Lizzo, the lawsuit names wardrobe manager Amanda Nomura, tour manager Carlina Gugliotta and Lizzo’s Big Grrrl Big Touring company as defendants.
In the lawsuit, Daniels claims that after being hired to join the superstar’s world tour in February 2023 to alter and repair the wardrobe she’d previously designed for Lizzo’s dancers, she was “almost immediately…introduced to [a] culture of racism and bullying” and that she “suffered constant anxiety and panic attacks” as a result. In one allegation, she claims that Lizzo’s dancers were forced to change in “small, tight changing areas…with little to no privacy” and that the stage crew, “primarily white males, would lewdly gawk, sneer, and giggle” while watching them dress. She alleges that after expressing concern to Nomura about the lack of privacy, the wardrobe manager “laughed” and “advised” her not to tell anyone else about the issue or try to fix it.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The complaint contextualizes these incidents as part of “a set up to humiliate, degrade, alienate, and, in some cases, fire, the Black female performers.” Notably, three of these dancers — Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez — made similar allegations after filing suit against Lizzo and Big Grrrl Big Touring in August. Their attorney, Ron Zambrano of West Coast Employment Lawyers, is also representing Daniels in her case.
While Lizzo isn’t directly implicated in any of the incidents outlined in Daniels’ complaint, the “About Damn Time” singer is effectively accused of turning a blind eye to the toxic behavior of her employees, including Daniels’ direct boss Nomura, who bears the brunt of the allegations.
“Throughout the entirety of her employment,” the lawsuit alleges, Daniels — a Black woman — witnessed Nomura making “racist and fatphobic comments,” including by mocking Lizzo and her background dancers, “doing an offensive stereotypical impression of a Black woman” and referring to Black women on the tour as “‘dumb,’ ‘useless’ and ‘fat.’” After allegedly confronting Nomura over her behavior, Daniels claims Nomura “ignored” her and proceeded to directly target her with harassment.
In one particularly inflammatory allegation, Daniels claims that Nomura rolled “a heavy rack of clothing” over Daniels’ foot. When Daniels allegedly told Nomura she needed to sit down “as her foot was in serious pain,” she says Nomura “shoved” her into the clothing rack “while asserting Plaintiff should not make excuses about her foot.” Claiming that the shove from Nomura caused her to “roll her ankle,” Daniels says that when she showed up for work the following day wearing Crocs to “minimize the pain,” Nomura demanded that she change into tennis shoes even after Daniels told her they were painful to walk in.
The suit accuses Nomura of a litany of other offenses, including making threatening statements against Daniels and the rest of the crew “on several occasions,” shoving a crew member after the crew member threatened to quit and saying that she would “kill a bitch if it came down to it” if anyone threatened her job. She also claims that Nomura discouraged her from interacting directly with Lizzo or Lizzo’s boyfriend — and that if she ever did, she should avoid dressing “attractively” to avoid the singer becoming “jealous.”
More broadly, Daniels claims she experienced frequent sexual harassment by the Big Grrrl Big Touring team. Among other offenses, she alleges that a backstage manager “sent a photo graphically depicting male genitalia” on a group chat that included her and more than 30 other tour employees. In another accusation that distinctly echoes the lawsuit filed by Lizzo’s former dancers, Daniels says she witnessed Nomura, crew members and Lizzo’s management “openly discussing hiring sex workers for lewd sex acts, attending sex shows, and buying hard drugs” and that she felt pressured to join those activities.
Daniels further claims that after informing Gugliotta of the behavior she’d witnessed — and after being “informed” that her complaints were relayed to Lizzo — she was fired by Lizzo’s team roughly a month after she began work on the tour. On the day she was fired but before she was informed of her termination, she also alleges she was “denied medical care” after suffering “an allergic reaction” and “pressured” to continue working after informing Nomura and Lizzo’s management about it.
In the aftermath of her experiences, Daniels claims she “continues to suffer ongoing anxiety and PTSD,” “migraines,” “brain fog, and “fatigue” from the experience.
Gugliotta and a representative for Lizzo did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s request for comment. A contact for Nomura could not immediately be located.
Daniels is asking for damages including unpaid wages, loss of earnings and deferred compensation; general damages “including but not limited to” emotional distress; other special damages including for medical expenses; punitive damages; and more.
Two days after the August lawsuit was filed, Lizzo refuted the allegations on social media, stating the dancers’ claims were as “unbelievable as they sound and too outrageous to not be addressed.”
“These sensationalized stories are coming from former employees who have already publicly admitted that they were told their behavior on tour was inappropriate and unprofessional,” she added. Later that day, the dancers appeared on CNN This Morning to rehash their allegations and called Lizzo’s statement “disheartening” and “incredibly frustrating.”
Two weeks later, Lizzo’s Big Grrrls dance team released a statement in support of the singer, saying they “had the time of our lives” on the tour and continuing, “The commitment to character and culture taking precedence over every movement and moment has been one of the Greatest lessons and Blessings that we could possibly could ask for.”
Following the initial lawsuit, lawyers for the dancers stated that six more people had approached them with similar stories about Lizzo, though Daniels’ lawsuit is the first to emerge in the nearly two months since.
Lizzo is due to be honored with the Black Music Action Coalition’s Quincy Jones Humanitarian Award at the organization’s 2023 gala on Thursday.
The divorce proceedings between Jonas Brothers member Joe Jonas and estranged wife Sophie Turner took a dramatic turn on Thursday (Sept. 21) when the former Game of Thrones actress filed a lawsuit in Manhattan demanding the return of the couple’s two minor daughters to her native England.
The Messenger was first to report the news that Turner’s suit — which Billboard has reviewed — requested the “immediate return of children wrongfully removed or wrongfully retained.” The legal filing claims the “wrongful retention” began on Wednesday (Sept. 20). The suit also notes that Turner, 27, and Jonas, 34, agreed last Christmas that despite having a “peripatetic lifestyle” due to their careers in entertainment, their “forever home” would be in England and that they would start looking for schools for eldest daughter, Willa, 3. The Turner filing lists more than a dozen rental properties the couple lived in between September 2022 and April 2023, including several in New York and London, as well as ones in Italy, Lake Tahoe and Las Vegas.
Both children have dual citizenship in the U.K. and U.S., and Turner’s suit claims that the couple found a “beautiful country property” in Henley on Thames in England during a nearly eight-month search for a U.K. residence, and “both agreed they would purchase the home for their permanent residence” with plans to move into their new house in December in time for the Christmas holidays.
The lawsuit claims the couple entered a contract to sell their Miami home on April 16 after relocating to England a week earlier, around the time when Turner began filming the mini-series Joan and Jonas launched the Five Albums. One Night. The World Tour trek with brothers Nick and Kevin. It also states that Jonas and Turner agreed “with hesitation” that Willa and their second daughter, born in June 2022 (whose name has not been revealed yet), would travel on tour with the singer (and the family’s nanny) because he had more free time during the day than the actress, but that the arrangement was only “temporary.”
“The children would then at least be able to spend some time during the day with one of their parents until the Mother finished her filming commitments,” the document claims.
Jonas filed a petition for the dissolution of the marriage on Sept. 5, stating that that “the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken,” following what Turner described in her lawsuit as an argument on the singer’s birthday on Aug. 15. The day after Jonas’ filing, the couple released a joint statement on their respective social media accounts confirming the split.
“After four wonderful years of marriage we have mutually decided to amicably end our marriage,” their statement read. “There are many speculative narratives as to why but, truly this is a united decision and we sincerely hope that everyone can respect our wishes for privacy for us and our children.”
Turner’s suit also claims she found out about the divorce “through the media” on Sept. 5, and she has yet to respond to his filing. Two weeks later, the couple reportedly met up to discuss the separation plans, at which point Turner allegedly “reiterated” her desire to have the children move to England.
Jonas’ Florida divorce filing stated that the children had been living with him in Miami and other U.S. locations, but that “it is in the best interests of the minor children that the parties have shared parental responsibility.”
However, Turner claims in her filing that “the Father has possession of the children’s passports… he refuses to return the passports to the Mother and refuses to send the children home to England with the Mother.” According to her suit, she filed her action after Jonas’ attorney said the singer would not return the passports or consent to the move on Sept. 19. “The Father has prevented the children’s return to England, which is a breach of the Mother’s rights of custody under English law, England being the children’s habitual residence,” reads the Turner filing.
In a statement to Billboard, a representative for Jonas denied the actress’ claim that she learned about his divorce filing via the media, and said that the former couple had met Sunday in New York, where they agreed to “work together towards an amicable co-parenting setup.”
“Joe is seeking shared parenting with the kids so that they are raised by both their mother and father, and is of course also OK with the kids being raised both in the U.S. and the U.K.,” the statement continued. “This is an unfortunate legal disagreement about a marriage that is sadly ending.”
“His wish is that Sophie reconsider her … legal position and move forward in a more constructive and private manner. His only concern is the well-being of the children.”
Reps for Turner have not returned Billboard‘s request for comment.
Turner and Jonas began dating in 2016 and married in a low-key ceremony in Las Vegas in May 2019, followed by a lavish wedding at the Chateau de Tourreau in the south of France in June of that year.
Even if you don’t know the name or the backstory, you probably know the sound: Boom-ch-boom-chick, boom-ch-boom-chick, boom-ch-boom-chick. Listen to pretty much any reggaetón song, and you’ll hear that infectious percussion — dubbed the dembow rhythm — playing underneath. That single key element, a historian of the genre once wrote, “underpins the vast majority of reggaetón tracks as an almost required sonic signpost.”
There was nothing controversial about that fact until 2021, when lawyers for the Jamaican duo Steely & Clevie — Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the estate of the late Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson — filed a copyright lawsuit over the origins of dembow. In it, they argued that the rhythm was ultimately derived from a single song, called “Fish Market,” that the pair wrote in 1989.
[embedded content]
When it was first filed, the lawsuit targeted only two tracks and a few artists. But the implication was clear: if their argument was valid, hundreds of artists across reggaetón — a genre that has risen from an underground fusion of rap, dancehall and reggae in the clubs of San Juan, Puerto, Rico, to the very apex of the music industry in the past decade — would also have infringed Steely & Clevie’s intellectual property.
Now, two years later, those stakes are no longer theoretical. The duo’s lawyers are suing more than 150 different artists, including Bad Bunny, Karol G, Pitbull, Drake, Daddy Yankee, Luis Fonsi and Justin Bieber, plus units of all three major music companies. They claim that over 1,800 reggaetón songs featuring iterations of the dembow rhythm were, at root, illegally copied from “Fish Market” — and that their clients deserve monetary compensation for them.
If that sounds both unusual and potentially disruptive to you, music law experts would agree.
“This case is jaw-dropping — the plaintiffs are suing over a hundred artists for over a thousand songs, 30 years after the release of their song,” says Jennifer Jenkins, a professor at Duke University School of Law who has written a history of musical borrowing and regulation. “If they win, this would confer a monopoly over an entire genre, something unprecedented in music copyright litigation.”
Musical pioneers
Legal claims aside, nobody really disputes that the genealogy of dembow leads back to Steely & Clevie, a legendary duo who are widely credited with playing an influential role in the evolution of Jamaican music. When Steely died in 2009, The New York Times said he had perhaps “participated in more sessions than anyone else in the history of reggae.”
According to most experts, the story goes like this: Aspects of Steely & Clevie’s “Fish Market” were incorporated into a 1990 song called “Dem Bow” by the artist Shabba Ranks, which itself was then re-used by producer Dennis “The Menace” Thompson in another 1990 song called “Dub Mix II.” It was this track that was then heavily sampled and interpolated in the early days of reggaetón, providing an essential rhythmic element to the nascent genre. According to an article by Wayne Marshall, a historian of Caribbean music and a professor at Berklee College of Music, that portion from “Dub Mix II” has since “provided the basis for hundreds if not thousands of other tracks.”
Over the decades that followed, reggaetón blossomed into a global sensation. With roots in the Panamanian “reggae en espanol” movement and then evolving with Puerto Rican trailblazers like Ivy Queen and DJ Nelson, reggaetón exploded onto the world stage with Daddy Yankee’s 2004 breakout single, “Gasolina,” which spent 20 weeks on the Hot 100. The genre then rose to new heights in 2017 with Luis Fonsi’s mega-hit “Despacito,” which topped the Hot 100 for a record-tying 16 weeks. And last year, Bad Bunny’s Un Verano Sin Ti became the first Latin album to finish as the No. 1 Billboard 200 album of the year after ruling the chart for 13 nonconsecutive weeks. According to Billboard Boxscore, he also grossed a record-setting $435 million across two tours — El Último Tour del Mundo and World’s Hottest Tour — cementing his place as one of pop’s biggest stars.
All of it, according to Steely & Clevie’s lawsuit, on the backs of their intellectual property.
A growing case
The duo first headed to federal court April 2021, accusing Panamanian reggaetón artist and producer El Chombo of infringing “Fish Market” with his “Dame tu Cosita,” a 2018 hit that reached No. 36 on the Hot 100. The suit also named Karol G and Pitbull, who later released a remix of the track.
In their complaint, the lawyers for Steely & Clevie said the “primary rhythm and drum sections” of “Dame tu Cosita” were pulled directly from the earlier song: “At no point did defendants seek or obtain authorization from plaintiffs to use ‘Fish Market’ in connection with the infringing works.”
When the case was first filed, few people took notice. But the lawsuit quickly grew. In October 2021, Steely & Clevie added 10 more songs to the case, including Fonsi’s “Despacito.” In May 2022, they alleged that an additional 44 songs had infringed “Fish Market,” including Daddy Yankee’s “Gasolina.” By September 2022, the lawsuit had ballooned: More than 150 total defendant-artists, including Bad Bunny, accused of releasing a staggering 1,800 infringing songs.
The newer versions of the lawsuit also claimed broader intellectual property rights. In the original, Steely & Clevie claimed only to own a copyright to “Fish Market” itself; as the case evolved, they claimed they also owned rights to “Dem Bow” and “Dub Mix II,” the later songs that utilized “Fish Market.”
In the most recent version of the complaint, filed in April, it takes a full 25 pages to list out all of the defendants, which also include units of Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment. Other notable defendants include Anitta, Becky G, Maluma, Tainy, Rauw Alejandro, and Enrique Iglesias, as well as companies BMG Rights Management, Hipgnosis and Kobalt.
Over a whopping 228 pages, the document lays out how each song, like “Despacito,” allegedly infringed what it calls “groundbreaking” drum and bass patterns in the earlier songs.
“The rhythm section of ‘Despacito’ and the ‘Despacito Remix’ copies original elements of the ‘Fish Market’ rhythm section,” Steely & Clevie’s lawyers wrote. “The musical backbones of ‘Despacito’ and the ‘Despacito Remix’ are substantially similar, if not virtually identical, to ‘Fish Market.’”
“Monopolistic”? Or “sensationalist”?
A trial on all those allegations is still years away, even in the fastest scenario. But this past summer, the attorneys representing the artists and labels have been trying to make sure it never gets there.
In a motion filed in June, Bad Bunny’s lawyer Kenneth D. Freundlich demanded that the case be dismissed immediately, calling it a “transparent” attempt by Steely & Clevie to “stake monopolistic control over the reggaetón genre.”
“Plaintiffs’ [lawsuit] impermissibly seeks to monopolize practically the entire reggaetón musical genre for themselves by claiming copyright ownership of certain legally irrelevant and/or unprotectable, purported musical composition elements,” Freundlich wrote for his superstar client.
When the lawsuit’s allegations are “defrocked” of their “façade,” Bad Bunny’s lawyer wrote, all that is left is a simple rhythm itself — and “courts have been consistent in finding rhythm to be unprotectable.”
The majority of the other defendants named in Steely & Clevie’s lawsuit (including Anitta, Pitbull, Karol G, Ricky Martin, Daddy Yankee, Fonsi, Bieber, units of all three majors and more than 70 other defendants) are represented by a single team of lawyers from the law firm Pryor Cashman. That’s the same firm, and some of the same lawyers, that won Ed Sheeran’s big copyright trial in May.
In their motion, the Pryor lawyers echoed Bad Bunny’s genre-monopoly arguments, but they also claimed that the size of the case had turned it into a procedural disaster — a confusing mess in which nobody knows exactly what they’re accused of doing wrong. They said Steely & Clevie had failed to satisfy “the fundamental elements of a copyright infringement claim.”
“The [complaint] is a ‘shotgun pleading’ filled with conclusory allegations that lump defendants together, making it impossible for defendants to determine what each is alleged to have done, what works are at issue and what in those works is allegedly infringing,” the attorneys wrote.
In their own response filings, Steely & Clevie remained undeterred. In an August filing, they argued that the gripes about the size and complexity of the case were unfounded — and that the scale of the lawsuit actually underscored the central point of their allegations.
“While the copyists are legion here, they certainly did copy, and the sheer amount of copying proves the creative and original nature of plaintiffs’ work,” wrote the duo’s lawyers from the Los Angeles-based law firm Doniger/Burroughs. “Defendants want to exploit plaintiffs’ creativity to build careers and reap financial success while denying plaintiffs their just credit and compensation.”
And in a separate response to Bad Bunny’s filing, Steely & Clevie’s attorneys blasted the accusation that they were aiming to own an entire genre of music.
“In the end, Bad Bunny’s motion boils down to a sensationalist, unsupported suggestion that this case somehow ties up the reggaetón genre. Not so,” the duo’s lawyers wrote. “To be sure, the unauthorized copying of the Fish Market pattern now is widespread — copying that necessitated this case. But Bad Bunny cites no authority for the proposition that widespread copying of an original work somehow renders that work unprotectable.”
A hearing before a federal judge, where those arguments will be tested in open court, is set for Friday. Attorneys for both sides declined to comment.
“A pretty wild claim”
With just about every artist in one of the industry’s hottest genres now facing the possibility of copyright liability over a core part of their music, Steely & Clevie’s case could pose something of an existential problem for reggaetón. Artists who want to make songs in the future featuring a similar rhythm would need to ask (and pay for) permission to do so for decades to come — that is, if the case is ultimately successful.
Some copyright experts are skeptical. “This is a case that zeros in on a particular beat that characterizes an entire genre, and they’re basically saying, you can trace it all back to our song, and a piece of everything that flows from that belongs to us,” says Peter DiCola, a professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law who has written extensively about music sampling. “I think that’s a pretty wild claim.”
Part of what makes the “Fish Market” case unusual is the long delay. Steely & Clevie waited 30 years to sue, as an entire world of music built up around a rhythm that they now claim to own — no doubt leading some reggaetón artists to think, perhaps reasonably, that dembow was fair game.
But even if that delay seems vaguely unfair, it’s probably not a great defense. In a 2014 case over the movie Raging Bull, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there are essentially no time limits to bringing a copyright suit. That decision directly sparked a battle over Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” decades after it was released, as well as many other lawsuits over years-old allegations of infringement.
Instead, the harder questions posed by Steely & Clevie’s case concern the dividing line between historical acknowledgment and exclusive legal ownership. Music historians don’t doubt that Steely & Clevie played a key role in reggaetón’s evolution, but does that entitle them, decades later, to control a crucial part of an entire genre? Put another way, the real question — and it’s potentially a multi-billion-dollar question — is whether they can claim a copyright on the dembow rhythm.
In the abstract, sure. Rhythms are just collections of sounds arranged creatively, like the melodies and lyrics that are clearly covered by copyrights. But in reality, U.S. courts have been hesitant to extend protection to musical elements like rhythms, chord progressions and song structures. Earlier cases have declared them either simply too unoriginal for copyright coverage, or ruled they are “scènes à faire” — a copyright law term for stock elements of a given genre that anyone is entitled to use.
Recent legal battles over music have been dismissed with rulings that the accuser could not claim a monopoly on basic “building blocks” of songs. Led Zeppelin won a case involving “Stairway to Heaven” in 2020, followed by a similar decision in 2022 on Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse.” In May, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that accused Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” of infringing Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On” saying the case — over a chord progression and harmonic rhythm – was seeking an “impermissible monopoly over a basic musical building block.”
Legal experts wonder if the claims about dembow may face similar limitations.
“All credit to them for being really talented musicians,” DiCola says. “But this thing that they’ve created, this common element that runs through as kind of the DNA of these reggaetón tracks — is that really something anyone can own? To me, it seems very much like a basic building block.”
Trigger warning: This article contains descriptions of sexual violence.
The fallout from allegations of sexual assault against comedian Russell Brand continued to pile up on Monday (Sept. 18), when YouTube said that it had suspended the monetization of Brand’s account “following serious allegations against the creator,” according to the Associated Press. The move means that Brand, 48, will no longer make money from the site — where his feed has 6.6 million subscribers — in the wake of a four women accusing the stand-up-turned-social-influencer of rape, sexual assault and abuse.
In addition to losing out on money from the ads that run alongside his YouTube videos, the AP reported that one-time employer the BBC had removed some of Brand’s material from its streaming archive as a number of organizations distanced themselves from the polarizing performer, who has denied the allegations and has not been charged with any criminal offenses to date.
Brand was a host/presenter for BBC from 2006-2008 and some of the incidents he’s accused of happened during that time period, leading the BBC to say it is “urgently looking into the issues raised” by a bombshell investigative documentary published jointly last week by The Sunday Times, The Times of London and Channel 4’s Dispatches program.
In a statement, Brand denied the allegations from the unnamed women and said that all of his relationships have been consensual. “Amidst this litany of astonishing, rather baroque attacks are some very serious allegations that I absolutely refute,” he said in the statement. “These allegations pertain to the time when I was working in the mainstream, when I was in the newspapers all the time, when I was in the movies and, as I have written about extensively in my books, I was very, very promiscuous.”
The investigation included claims from one woman who alleged she’d been raped by Brand in Los Angeles in 2012, while three others accused Brand of sexual assault ,including one who said the alleged assault occurred during a relationship with him when she was 16. One of the women also said he had been physically and emotionally abusive; the allegations date from 2006-2013, with the London Metropolitan Police saying that since the allegations were publicly aired they’ve received a report of another alleged sexual assault from 2003.
Brand also suggested in his statement that the reports were part of a coordinated attack designed to discredit him because of his divisive views, which he has aired on YT in such clips as “What REALLY Started the Hawaii Fires?” and “Covid Tsar Admits Lockdowns Were NEVER About Science.” Brand has been criticized for expressing skepticism about COVID-19 vaccines and interviewing contentious podcasters, including Joe Rogan and fired Fox News commenter Tucker Carlson as part of his recent shift from routines aimed at dissecting religion, social inequity and political hypocrisy toward bits seemingly aimed at a conservative American audience.
Though Brand performed in London on Saturday, the final three dates of his current “Bipolarisation” tour has been postponed according to the promoter, even as Brand has been dropped by his talent agency and publisher, Bluebird, over the past week. NBC News also reported that Brand’s literary talent agency, Tavistock Wood, had dropped him following the Times report, which claimed that one of Brand’s accusers had made allegations to the agency in 2020 and received a “very aggressive” response from Brand’s legal team.
“Russell Brand categorically and vehemently denied the allegation made in 2020, but we now believe we were horribly misled by him,” the agency said in a statement. “TW has terminated all professional ties to Brand.” NBC also reported that the U.K. women’s charity for women in recovery, Trevi Women, had cut ties with Brand after the doc aired.
“We have ended our association with Russell Brand and the Stay Free Foundation,” the charity said in a statement, referring to Brand’s charity that supports people recovering from addiction.
One Brand’s former co-stars, Kristen Bell, appeared to have issued a warning about the comedian in a 2010 interview with the Scottish Daily Record, in which she said, “He didn’t try to mess with me on the set or get in my pants. He knew I would lop his nuts off.” Bell appeared with Brand in the 2008 comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall, in which she breaks up with boyfriend Peter (Jason Segel) and begins a relationship with narcissistic, sex-addicted rocker Aldous Snow (Brand) during a trip to Hawaii.
In another interview with the Daily Mail that same year, Bell — who did not respond to the new reports of Brand’s alleged actions — said, “I made it really clear from the beginning that I would sock him in the balls if he tried anything. So he was intimidated. Noting that she “loved” working with Brand, Bell added that she was possibly “the only woman in the world who would shout that from the rooftops.”
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.
Travis Scott was questioned for several hours on Monday (Sept. 18) in a civil deposition he gave in connection with hundreds of lawsuits that were filed against him and others over the deaths and injuries at the 2021 Astroworld festival. Scott was questioned in Houston during a deposition that lasted around eight hours, two people with knowledge about the litigation said.
Lawyers and others connected to the civil lawsuits are under a gag order, preventing them from saying little beyond what happens during court hearings.
“Travis Scott’s deposition is typical legal procedure. What is not typical is how the media continues to focus on him despite being cleared of any wrongdoing by extensive government investigations, including by the Houston Police Department,” Ted Anastasiou, a spokesperson for Scott, said in a statement. “Travis is fully cooperating with the legal process while still remaining committed to his tour in support of his record-breaking album, Utopia, and his charitable efforts to support at-risk communities.”
Following an investigation by Houston Police, no charges were filed against Scott after a grand jury in June declined to indict him and five other people on any criminal counts related to the deadly concert. Police Chief Troy Finner declined to say what the overall conclusion of his agency’s investigation was.
In July, the police department made public its nearly 1,300-page investigative report in which festival workers highlighted problems and warned of possible deadly consequences.
According to a summary in the investigative report of a police interview conducted two days after the concert, Scott told investigators that although he did see one person near the stage getting medical attention, overall the crowd seemed to be enjoying the show and he did not see any signs of serious problems.
This was the first time Scott was questioned by attorneys for those who have filed lawsuits since a crowd surge at his Nov. 5, 2021, concert in Houston killed 10 festivalgoers. Those killed, who ranged in age from 9 to 27, died from compression asphyxia, which an expert likened to being crushed by a car.
Similar crushes have happened all over the world, from a soccer stadium in England to the hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia to Halloween festivities in the South Korean capital. Most people who who die in crowd surges suffocate.
Scott’s deposition comes as a judge earlier this year scheduled the first trial from the lawsuits for May 6, 2024. That first trial would take place nearly 2.5 years since the deadly concert. Documents filed in court in April listed more than 1,500 active cases, many of which were filed against Scott and Live Nation, the concert promoter.
Of these, 992 were cases with physical injuries and 313 were cases of “emotional distress, pain, suffering and mental anguish.” Orthopedic surgeries have been completed in 17 of these cases, with other surgeries recommended in another 21.
Some of the lawsuits have since been settled, including those filed by the families of three of the people killed during the concert.
Scott’s deposition on Monday took place on the same day that hip-hop artist Drake, who performed several songs with Scott during the Astroworld concert, was performing in Houston. Drake was also sued in connection with the deadly concert.
Tory Lanez will remain in prison pending appeal after a Los Angeles court judge denied his motion for bond on Thursday (Sept. 14). The ruling, reported by Meghann Cuniff who was in person at the hearing, was handed down by Judge David Herriford, who last month sentenced Lanez to 10 years in prison for shooting […]
In the latest of many lawsuits against Kanye West, a singer who moonlights in security and construction has sued the rapper over back payments and dangerous conditions stemming from a late-2021 attempt to turn the hip-hop star’s Malibu home into an “open-concept, industrial-brutalist, art-style dwelling that’s also a bomb shelter-bunker,” according to the complaint.
In a Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit filed Wednesday (Sept. 13), Tony Saxon alleges he injured his back while working on the project and had to spend days at the property with no food or bedding. Accusing West, who legally changed his name to Ye, of disability discrimination, labor-code violations and unlawful wage withholding, Saxon claims the rapper promised him $20,000 a week, but after a month on the job, he received just $20,000 total, plus $120,000 for reimbursement of construction costs.
According to the lawsuit, which is requesting unspecified “monetary relief,” Saxon complained to Ye that he was “ill due to his severe injury on his back and that he needs to rest.” However, “Defendant disregarded Plaintiff’s concerns and instead responded by asking to discuss the next phase of the project.”
In an interview from his attorney’s Los Angeles office, Saxon says he requested a meeting with Ye and the project leader, then wound up in a room with them as well as “50 random people.” Ye mentioned his desire to install generators inside the building, which Saxon suggested would be unsafe, and the rapper became angry. “He told me I was a Clinton, a Kardashian, an enemy, and I was not going to be his friend anymore,” Saxon says. “So that’s how that ended.”
Saxon, 32, who describes himself as a recording artist, DJ and soul singer, says his music-business connections led him to a fashion photographer who put him in touch with the head of Ye’s construction project. In September 2021, Ye had reportedly purchased a Malibu house built by renowned Japanese architect Tadao Ando for more than $57 million. Soon after that, Saxon worked on the house for three straight days without knowing the owner’s identity. Ye then showed up and requested to “rip out the finest marble and all these crazy fixtures that wired the house.”
Says Saxon: “It was just absurd.”
Ron Zambrano, Saxon’s attorney, also represents a gym teacher at Ye’s Donda Academy who filed suit in July over unsafe conditions. Among other things, the school did not contain windows, because, according to the teacher’s lawsuit, Ye “did not like glass.”
“What we’re seeing are the symptoms of Kanye’s inability to respect people’s time and pay for them,” Zambrano says. “He goes into people’s lives: ‘I have an idea, I have lots of money, you have to drop everything in the world and I promise to pay you.’ Then he gets bored and goes somewhere else and normal people get left in the lurch.” Zambrano adds that if you “do the math,” potential damages could add up to “seven figures.”
Attorneys for Ye did not respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment.
The Harlem Festival of Culture was supposed to be a celebration of music and coming together, inspired by the Academy Award-winning documentary Summer of Soul directed by Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson — but a recent lawsuit filed in New York paints a picture of an event plagued by in-fighting and mistrust between the event’s three founding members.
On Thursday (Sept. 8), two of the members of the Harlem Festival of Culture LLC — editor and activist Musa Jackson (who appeared in Summer of Soul) and culture and lifestyle entrepreneur Nikoa Evans filed suit against partner and co-founder Yvonne McNair, accusing her of mounting “a hostile takeover” of the festival, scheduled to take place July 28, 29 and 30 on Randall’s Island in New York.
McNair plans to fight the lawsuit, telling Billboard, “I have worked tirelessly over the past several years to bring the Harlem Festival of Culture to life. I am relying upon my legal team to guide this process and I will be in touch with factual updates in the future.”
The festival was to be hosted by MC Lyte and feature performances by Adam Blackstone, Eric Bellinger, Jozzy, MAJOR., Ma$e, Remy Ma, Ro James, Tink and Wyclef Jean — with a special concert series leading up to the festival to be held at Harlem’s famed Apollo Theater. The event was canceled hours before it was set to open on July 28 due to President Joe Biden’s heat advisory for the weekend, which was the first-ever national hazard alert for heat issued by the White House.
The lawsuit paints a picture of a festival in constant turmoil beginning in February of this year as McNair began courting sponsors for the event, booking talent and contracting production companies to produce it. Jackson and Evans accuse McNair of diverting festival funds to accounts McNair controlled while McNair accuses Jackson and Evans of misappropriating funds and claims that a charitable donation of $125,000 had gone unaccounted for.
Jackson and Evans eventually informed McNair that their combined votes gave them majority control, demanding McNair get their approval for any sponsorship or booking agreements she negotiated. On April 19, Jackson and Evans ordered McNair to postpone the launch of ticket sales for the Harlem Festival of Culture. With the event suspended, McNair allegedly attempted to rename the event “Uptown Fest” and move forward with the festival. Eventually, the NYC Parks Department, AMC and Ticketmaster staged an intervention and demanded the three partners resolve their disagreement, leading to a settlement on May 22.
The truce didn’t last long, and within a few days, disagreements over vendors, sponsors and how much artists were being paid to perform at the festival reignited the feud and led to new complaints from Jackson and Evans over how McNair was advising vendors to prepare for the event. The pair even criticized McNair for waiting too long to cancel the festival after learning of the heat advisory.
Jackson and Evans, through their lawyer Kenneth Sternberg of Sternberg Law, are suing McNair on 15 civil counts including breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. They are also seeking “a judgment declaring that McNair is solely responsible for any liability” linked to any transactions or contracts that Jackson or Evans didn’t personally approve of, “regardless of the name in which the contract was signed.” Sternberg is also asking that McNair be forced to pay $2 million for punitive and compensatory damage, plus interest.
Sean “Diddy” Combs just scored a significant win in his case against alcohol giant Diageo after a judge denied two crucial motions filed by the liquor maker, according to court documents filed Thursday.
Combs himself was present in court for the ruling, during which New York state judge Joel M. Cohen rejected Diageo’s motions for the case to be dismissed or, alternatively, sent to private arbitration. The case will now move forward in state court, with the trial open to the public.
The lawsuit, brought by Combs in May, claims Diageo breached its partnership deal with the artist and entrepreneur for its DeLeón Tequila by failing to properly support the brand, thereby harming its sales. Combs’ lawsuit also leveled accusations of racism against the alcohol company, accusing it of treating his product line “worse than others because he is Black.”
In June, Diageo fired back by calling Combs’ racism accusations “false and reckless” and part of an effort to “extract additional billions” from the company while concurrently filing motions for dismissal or arbitration. At the same time, a spokeswoman for Diageo noted the company had permanently severed its business relationship with Combs, claiming the rapper had “repeatedly undermined our partnerships and threatened to publicly defame Diageo if we did not meet his unreasonable financial demands.” The company additionally painted Combs as “an unreliable and untrustworthy business partner” who failed in his obligations to support DeLeón.
In asking Cohen to keep the case out of court, the company argued that the “garden variety” business dispute should have been decided under a binding arbitration agreement previously signed by both parties. But the judge clearly disagreed, striking down Diageo’s motions after hearing oral arguments from attorneys on both sides of the case for more than 90 minutes on Thursday.
“This case has always been about getting fair and equal treatment,” said Combs’ lawyer John Hueston in a statement. “Today’s decision is an important step in the right direction. Diageo tried to end this action. Today the judge soundly rejected that effort.”
Combs added, “I’m fighting for fair and equal treatment for everyone. This isn’t just about me. I look forward to continuing this fight in court. We all deserve the same 24 hours.”
A spokesperson for Diageo sent the following statement: “While we are disappointed with yesterday’s procedural decision, it is important to underscore that this is not a ruling on the merits of the claims, which we maintain are false and baseless. We are currently considering all legal options.”
After his arrest on Thursday evening (Sept. 7) in Oklahoma for obstruction of an investigation, Zach Bryan posted a video on Friday morning (Sept. 8) further explaining what happened during the incident in which he said he got “too lippy” with officers.
Bryan is sitting in his car in the nearly five-minute clip, speaking directly to fans while driving to New York with his dog Jack in the passenger seat. “I just wanted to be completely transparent with everyone who listens to my music about what happened yesterday with me getting arrested,” said the singer who just scored his first Billboard 200 No. 1 album with his new self-titled project and his first Billboard Hot 100 No. 1 song with “I Remember Everything,” featuring Kacey Musgraves.
Prefacing his story by saying that he will have to deal with the “legalities” of the arrest, that he did go to jail and that police did not play any favorites with him, Bryan bluntly said, “I was an idiot today. My decisions did not reflect who I was as a person… I should have been smarter about it”; in an earlier social media post, Bryan said he’d had an “incident” with the Oklahoma Highway Patrol and that “emotions got the best of me, and I was out of line in the things I said.”
He then laid out what he said was the full timeline of events, which Bryan explained began three days ago when he was driving through a small town in Oklahoma, where he was pulled over by a police office for going “4-5 [miles] over” the speed limit. The singer said after being asked for his license, registration and address, he explained to the officer that he was not comfortable giving out his address because of his notoriety as a musician.
Bryan said the officer informed him that if he did not give his address he would go to jail. “I’m like, ‘man, I’m not gonna give you my address,’” Bryan said he told the cop, who then allegedly asked him to step out of the vehicle, at which point the singer said he was handcuffed. “I’m like, ‘man, what the hell is going on? Why are you doing this?’” he recalled saying.
After Bryan discussed it with the officer, he agreed to give his address and the cuffs were taken off, but the encounter “frustrated me a lot because I didn’t know if I had a right to refuse giving him my address,” he said. Fast forward to Thursday, when Bryan tells his security guard that he’s driving to Boston to see his favorite team, the Philadelphia Eagles, play the New England Patriots in Foxborough on Sunday.
The pair begin driving and Bryan said they were 40 minutes from his Tulsa house — with his security guard trailing him in another car — when he saw his security get pulled over. Bryan said he pulled around the block and parked his car near his security guard’s and waited for the traffic stop to conclude. After 15 minutes Bryan said he wondered why it was taking so long, so he got out of his car. “I was gonna smoke a cigarette [and] the cop comes up to me and he’s like, ‘sir, get back in your vehicle.’ And I’m like, ‘I’m not the one getting pulled over,’” Bryan said he told the officer.
When told he would go to jail if he didn’t get back in his car, “like a dumbass I said, ‘take me to f—ing jail? What do you mean?’” Bryan said he replied, admitting that he got “too lippy” with the cop, who then brought him over to his cruiser. “I didn’t help my situation at all,” Bryan said of his confrontation with the patrolman. “I felt like a child, it was ridiculous, it was immature. And I just pray everyone knows I don’t think I’m above the law. I was just being disrespectful and I shouldn’t have been and it was my mistake.”
After getting cuffed for the second time in three days — Bryan noted that the restraints were tight on his wrists — the singer was placed in the front seat of the cruiser, where he engaged in some back-and-forth about how the handcuffs hurt. He said the officer told him, “they’re not supposed to be comfortable.” Bryan said he began getting “more angry and angry” about the situation, “which is the worst thing you can do.”
After 15 minutes Bryan said he was released from the police cruiser, at which point he said he was just “mouthing off, like an idiot. Like an actual child. I’m like, ‘man, someone’s gotta get a hold of you guys. Why are you using your authority like this? This is so wrong.’ When in reality they were just doing their jobs. I was upset.”
He said the officer then explained that he was going to talk to Bryan and he didn’t want to be interrupted, after which Bryan said he would listen, but then he wanted to respond. “He started talking, I interrupted him. Naturally, because I was just angry,” Bryan said. The officer then informed the singer that he was taking him to jail, where he spent several hours, during which Bryan said he “cooled off a little bit.”
He said everyone in booking at the Vinita, OK jail was very kind to him and that he and the arresting officer ended up shaking hands, after which he posted his online apology note. “I was just an idiot and I’ll take the fall for it,” Bryan said. “I’m a grown man and I shouldn’t have behaved like that. And it won’t happen again.”
Watch Bryan’s video below.