Legal
Page: 82
Fugees rapper Pras, accused in multimillion-dollar political conspiracies spanning two presidencies, was convicted Wednesday (April 26) after a trial that included testimony ranging from actor Leonardo DiCaprio to former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Prakazrel “Pras” Michel was accused of funneling money from a now-fugitive Malaysian financier through straw donors to Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, then trying to squelch a Justice Department investigation and influence an extradition case on behalf of China under the Trump administration.
The defense argued the Grammy-winning rapper from the 1990s hip-hop group the Fugees simply wanted to make money and got bad legal advice as he reinvented himself in the world of politics.
Michel first met Malaysian financer Low Taek Jho in 2006, when the businessman usually known as Jho Low was dropping huge sums of money and hobnobbing with the likes of Paris Hilton. Low helped finance Hollywood films, including “The Wolf of Wall Street.” DiCaprio testified Low had appeared to him as a legitimate businessman and had mentioned wanting to donate to Obama’s campaign.
Michel also testified in his own defense. He said Low wanted a picture with Obama in 2012 and was willing to pay millions of dollars to get it. Michel agreed to help and used some of the money he got to pay for friends to attend fundraising events. No one had ever told him that was illegal, he said.
Prosecutors said Michel was donating the money on Low’s behalf, and later tried to lean on the straw donors with texts from burner phones to keep them from talking to investigators.
After the election of Donald Trump, prosecutors say Michel again took millions to halt an investigation into allegations Low masterminded a money laundering and bribery scheme that pilfered billions from the Malaysian state investment fund known as 1MDB. Low is now an international fugitive and has maintained his innocence.
Michel also got paid to try and persuade the U.S. to extradite back to China a government critic suspected of crimes there without registering as a foreign agent, prosecutors said.
On that charge, the defense pointed to testimony from Sessions, who was Trump’s top law enforcement officer until he resigned in 2018. Sessions said he’d been aware the Chinese government wanted the extradition but didn’t know Michel. The rapper’s ultimately futile efforts to arrange a meeting on the topic didn’t seem improper, the former attorney general said.
The case against a Fugees rapper accused in multimillion-dollar political conspiracies across two presidencies wound down with closing arguments Thursday (April 20) that capped off a trial that included testimony from actor Leonardo DiCaprio and former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Prakazrel “Pras” Michel is accused of funneling money from a now-fugitive Malaysian financer through straw donors to Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, then trying to squelch a Justice Department investigation and influence an extradition case on behalf of China under the Trump administration.
“He willingly broke the law to line his pockets and generate access and influence at the highest reaches of government,” prosecutor Sean Mulryne said. “He wanted money. Lots of it. And he got it.”
The defense argued the Grammy-winning rapper from the 1990s hip-hop group the Fugees simply got bad advice as he reinvented himself in the world of politics.
“Mr. Michel is a proud American [and] entrepreneur,” said defense attorney David Kenner. “Mr. Michel was simply being himself – a connector. He saw an opportunity to make easy money for himself, and there’s nothing wrong with that.”
The case is expected to go to a jury on Monday.
When Michel first met Low Taek Jho in 2006, the businessman usually known as Jho Low was dropping huge sums of money and hobnobbing with the likes of Paris Hilton. He helped finance Hollywood films, including The Wolf of Wall Street. DiCaprio testified Low had appeared to him as a legitimate businessman and had mentioned wanting to donate to Obama’s campaign.
Michel also testified in his own defense. He said Low wanted a picture with Obama in 2012 and was willing to pay millions of dollars to get it. Michel agreed to help and used some of the money he got to pay for friends to attend fundraising events. No one had ever told him that was illegal, he said.
Prosecutors said he was donating the money on Low’s behalf and later tried to lean on the straw donors with texts from burner phones to keep them from talking to prosecutors.
After the election of Donald Trump, prosecutors say Michel again took millions to halt an investigation into allegations Low masterminded a money-laundering and bribery scheme that pilfered billions from the Malaysian state investment fund known as 1MDB. Low is now an international fugitive and has maintained his innocence.
Prosecutors said Michel also tried to convince the U.S. to extradite back to China a government critic suspected of crimes there.
“This case is about foreign influence, it’s about foreign money, and it’s about greed,” Mulryne said.
The defense also pointed to testimony from Sessions, who was Trump’s top law enforcement officer until he resigned in 2018. He said he’d been aware the Chinese government wanted the extradition but didn’t know Michel. The rapper’s ultimately futile efforts to arrange a meeting on the topic didn’t seem improper, said Sessions
“What happened in 2017 was not willful and it was not deliberate,” Kenner said.
A new lawsuit claims that GloRilla used unlicensed samples from a decades-old New Orleans hip-hop song in her hit songs “Tomorrow” and “Tomorrow 2.”
The case, filed Wednesday in Louisiana federal court, alleges that GloRilla’s tracks “misappropriated many of the recognizable and key protected elements” from “Street of Westbank,” a 1994 song by the group Dog House Posse.
The complaint is light on specifics, but claims that GloRilla copied many elements from the earlier song, including “musical arrangements, percussion tracks, synthesized orchestration, including but not limited to piano, cello, violin, contrabass, and drum set, and tone and melody.”
Beyond the sample itself, the lawsuit says GloRilla’s songs also “mimic and copy the arrangement of ‘Street of Westbank’ by the choice of the instrumentation accompanying the rap lyrics, the choice of when the instruments drop out and reenter and what instruments drop in and reenter.”
A rep for GloRilla did not immediately return a request for comment on the allegations.
While GloRilla broke out with “F.N.F. (Let’s Go),” her biggest hit to date is “Tomorrow 2” – a remix featuring Cardi B that reached No. 9 on the Hot 100 in October and ultimately spent 22 weeks on the chart.
Based on a comparison of the two songs, the alleged sample appears to be the first few notes of “Street of Westbank,” which are then looped throughout the song; a similar-sounding sequence appears to be looped throughout GloRilla’s song. But the extent to which those similarities actually constitute any violation of copyright law will be litigated in court.
Listen to both songs here:
Read the entire lawsuit here:
A lawsuit filed against Afroman by a group of Ohio police officers after they raided his home is “nothing short of absurd,” the American Civil Liberties Union says – and a clear threat to his First Amendment rights.
In a motion filed Wednesday, the activist group asked an Ohio court to immediately dismiss the case, which claims that Afroman (real name Joseph Forman) caused the officers “emotional distress” by publicizing images of the guns-drawn raid on his home. The ACLU called it “a meritless effort to use a lawsuit to silence criticism.”
“Plaintiffs are a group of law enforcement officers who executed what appears to have been a highly destructive and ultimately fruitless search of a popular musician’s home. Now they find themselves at the receiving end of his mockery and outrage,” the ACLU wrote. “There is nothing the First Amendment protects more jealously than criticism of public officials on a matter of public concern.”
Police raided Afroman’s Ohio home with guns drawn on Aug. 21, smashing down his door and seizing $5,031 in cash and other property. The raid came on a search warrant linked to suspicions of drug trafficking, but no charges were ever filed and the money was later returned.
After the search, Afroman repeatedly posted video and images to social media, using them to express outrage at alleged damage done to his property and at what he viewed as excessive use of force. One video showed officers searching his home under the title “watch cops steal money.” He later used some of those images on t-shirts and other merchandise, including one that compared one of the officers to an obese character from the animated sitcom Family Guy.
Last month, the officers responded by suing the rapper, claiming the posts and merchandise amounted to an unauthorized commercial exploitation of their likeness, as well as an invasion of their privacy. The officers said they had been “subjected to threats, including death threats” because of Afroman’s posts, and had suffered “emotional distress.”
But in Wednesday’s filing, the ACLU said the officers had not come close to making a coherent claim about what Afroman actually did wrong.
“Plaintiffs do not identify the substance of any particular statement in the videos- or for that matter, anywhere else–that they claim is false,” the group wrote. “Instead, the central focus of their complaint is that Mr. Foreman is making money off of his video commentary and related merchandise, and is criticizing Plaintiffs harshly in the process. That is not tortious conduct; it is protected speech.”
As for the accusation about an invasion of privacy, the ACLU called that claim “nothing short of absurd.”
“They were in Mr. Foreman’s home, not their own,” the group wrote. “Nothing about Mr. Foreman’s expression involves matters of plaintiffs’ intimate personal privacy that could be protected by law. To the contrary, his description–and criticism–of their police work is a legitimate matter of public concern.”
An attorney for the officers did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday.
Drake is facing a new copyright lawsuit claiming he used an unlicensed sample from the song of a Ghanaian rapper on his chart-topping 2022 album, Honestly, Nevermind.
In a case filed Tuesday (April 18) in Manhattan federal court, an artist named Obrafour (real name Michael Elliot Kwabena Okyere Darko) claims Honestly, Nevermind track “Calling My Name” features a short clip of a vocal phrase — “Killer cut, blood, killer cut” — that was pulled directly from Obrafour’s earlier song, “Oye Ohene.”
Unlike many such cases, Obrafour claims to have smoking gun evidence: An email from someone at Republic Records seeking to clear the clip. The June 2022 note allegedly admitted that Drake had already “used samples from the above referenced song” and wanted permission to release it.
But according to the lawsuit, Drake’s album and song — complete with the unlicensed sample — were released just nine days later, before Obrafour had a chance to respond to the email.
“Defendants continue to engage in infringement, despite acknowledging that they needed to secure rights and authorization from Obrafour,” lawyers for the Ghanaian rapper wrote. “Defendants have never accounted to, credited, or otherwise compensated Obrafour for their unauthorized use of the copyrighted work.”
Honestly, Nevermind, which was surprise-released on June 17, 2022, debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 and spent 43 weeks on the chart, though “Calling My Name” was less successful; the track debuted at No. 20 on the Hot 100 but dropped off the following week.
According to his lawsuit, Obrafour received an email nine days earlier bearing the subject line: “Drake ‘Darkness’ (working title) contains samples from ‘Oye Ohene’ Ft Tinny written and performed by Obrafour.”
The sender told Obrafour that they were “currently working on a sample clearance for Republic recording artist Drake” and were seeking “consent for both the master rights and publishing rights” to the clip. On June 13, Obrafuour received a second email that read: “Hi confirming you received this email thanks.”
Then he, says, the album dropped.
“Obrafour had not yet responded to the June 8, 2022 clearance email or the follow-up June 13, 2022 clearance email at the point when Drake’s ‘Honestly, Nevermind’ album was released,” his lawyers wrote in the complaint. “Nonetheless, the infringing work is one of the songs appearing on the “Honestly, Nevermind” album, as released to the world by ‘surprise’ on June 17, 2022.”
Reps for Drake and Republic Records did not immediately return requests for comment.
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 fake Drake song featuring AI-generated vocals highlights legal uncertainty over artificial intelligence; the rapper Cam’ron becomes the latest music star to face a copyright lawsuit over using a photo of himself; Megan Thee Stallion makes bold new accusations in her long legal battle against her record label; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Fake Drake Debacle & The AI Fight Ahead
A new song featuring AI-generated fake vocals from Drake and The Weeknd went sensationally viral over the weekend, underscoring growing concerns over the impact of artificial intelligence on the music industry and highlighting the legal uncertainties that surround the new technology.
The track, “Heart On My Sleeve,” featured voices that were uncannily similar to those of the two superstars — a trick the anonymous creator says was accomplished by using artificial intelligence. By Monday evening, the track had been mostly pulled from the internet, but not before racking up hundreds of thousands of spins on streaming platforms and millions of views on social media.
As evidenced by the speedy removal, artists and labels already have pretty good legal tools to police something as blatant as “Heart On My Sleeve.” Experts say the song potentially violates the rights of publicity of the two stars by mimicking their voices, and that it also possibly used an unauthorized sample of Metro Boomin’s producer tag.
But the incident came just days after news broke that Universal Music Group had asked streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music to stop AI companies from accessing the label’s copyrighted songs to “train” their machines, and that issue poses far bigger questions — about the extent that AI can be legally used to create new music that isn’t a clear copycat of specific superstars — with fewer clear answers.
For a full breakdown of all this week’s developments, including expert commentary on the issue, go read our entire story here.
THE OTHER BIG STORY: Cam’ron Copyright Conundrum
Back in 2003, a photographer snapped a shot of the rapper Cam’ron at the Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Show in New York, where he wore a pink fur coat and hat while holding a matching flip phone. Pink would go on to become a signature color for the rapper, who released a bright pink collab sneaker with Reebok in 2016; GQ later ran an entire article called “Cam’ron Is Very Particular When It Comes to the Color Pink,” underneath the same 2003 image of his “iconic pink mink coat.”
Now, twenty years later, that image has become something of a problem for Cam.
In a lawsuit filed last week, the photographer who snapped it claimed that the rapper had slapped the image on a huge range of commercial products sold by his Dipset Couture brand, ranging from t-shirts to shower curtains to decorative pillows to socks — all without getting any kind of license from her.
These kinds of cases happen a surprising amount. Miley Cyrus, Dua Lipa, Justin Bieber and a slew of other stars have also been sued in recent years after they re-used photos of themselves snapped by someone else. That’s because the copyright to such a photo is owned by the photographer, not the person featured in it.
But the lawsuit against Cam’ron is potentially more serious than those earlier cases. To understand why, go read our full story, complete with all the legal documents filed in the case.
Other top stories this week…
LIVE NATION WINS FESTIVAL CASE – A federal appeals court rejected a lawsuit claiming Live Nation was “stringing along” a country singer when the company considered — but ultimately passed on — her proposal for an all-female country music festival in Chicago. “An expression of interest in participating in a project is not a promise to do so,” the court said.
NICK CARTER FACING NEW ABUSE LAWSUIT – Backstreet Boys member Nick Carter was hit with another sexual abuse lawsuit, this time from Melissa Schuman — a former member of teen-pop group Dream who has long claimed the singer assaulted her.
MEGAN’S NEW ATTACK – Megan Thee Stallion hurled bold new accusations at her record label 1501 Certified Entertainment, claiming the company’s leaders are trying to make themselves “judgment-proof” by draining 1501’s bank accounts.
REMEMBER NFTS? – Lil Yachty reached a settlement with a non-fungible token (NFT) seller called Opulous over allegations that the company used his name and likeness without permission to raise over $6.5 million in venture capital funds.
ORCHESTRA SHOWDOWN IN PHILLY – Citing “unlawful, anticompetitive and predatory conduct,” the Philly Pops accused the Philadelphia Orchestra of violating federal antitrust laws by abusing its control over local concert venues and ticketing services to try to crush its smaller rival.
A song featuring AI-generated fake vocals from Drake and The Weeknd might be a scary moment for artists and labels whose livelihoods feel threatened, but does it violate the law? It’s a complicated question.
The song “Heart on My Sleeve,” which also featured Metro Boomin’s distinctive producer tag, racked up hundreds of thousands of spins on streaming services before it was pulled down on Monday evening, powered to viral status by uncannily similar vocals over a catchy instrumental track. Millions more have viewed shorter snippets of the song that the anonymous creator posted to TikTok.
It’s unclear whether only the soundalike vocals were created with AI tools – a common trick used for years in internet parody videos and deepfakes – or if the entire song was created solely by a machine based purely on a prompt to create a Drake track, a more novel and potentially disruptive development.
For an industry already on edge about the sudden growth of artificial intelligence, the appearance of a song that convincingly replicated the work product of two of music’s biggest stars and one of its top producers and won over likely millions of listeners has set off serious alarm bells.
“The ability to create a new work this realistic and specific is disconcerting, and could pose a range of threats and challenges to rightsowners, musicians, and the businesses that invest in them,” says Jonathan Faber, the founder of Luminary Group and an attorney who specializes in protecting the likeness rights of famous individuals. “I say that without attempting to get into even thornier problems, which likely also exist as this technology demonstrates what it may be capable of.”
“Heart On My Sleeve” was quickly pulled down, disappearing from most streaming services by Monday evening. Representatives for Drake, The Weeknd and Spotify all declined to comment when asked about the song on Monday. And while the artists’ label, Universal Music Group, issued a strongly worded statement condemning “infringing content created with generative AI,” a spokesperson would not say whether the company had sent formal takedown requests over the song.
A rep for YouTube said on Tuesday that the platform “removed the video in question after receiving a valid takedown notice,” noting that the track was removed because it used a copyrighted music sample.
Highlighted by the debacle is a monumental legal question for the music industry that will likely be at the center of legal battles for years to come: To what extent do AI-generated songs violate the law? Though “Heart on My Sleeve” was removed relatively quickly, it’s a more complicated question than it might seem.
For starters, the song appears to be an original composition that doesn’t directly copy any of Drake or the Weeknd’s songs, meaning that it could be hard to make a claim that it infringes their copyrights, like when an artist uses elements of someone else’s song without permission. While Metro Boomin’s tag may have been illegally sampled, that element likely won’t exist in future fake songs.
By mimicking their voices, however, the track represents a clearer potential violation of Drake and Weeknd’s so-called right of publicity – the legal right to control how your individual identity is commercially exploited by others. Such rights are more typically invoked when someone’s name or visual likeness is stolen, but they can extend to someone’s voice if it’s particularly well-known – think Morgan Freeman or James Earl Jones.
“The right of publicity provides recourse for rights owners who would otherwise be very vulnerable to technology like this,” Faber said. “It fits here because a song is convincingly identifiable as Drake and the Weeknd.”
Whether a right of publicity lawsuit is legally viable against this kind of voice mimicry might be tested in court soon, albeit in a case dealing with decidedly more old school tech.
Back in January, Rick Astley sued Yung Gravy over the rapper’s breakout 2022 hit that heavily borrowed from the singer’s iconic “Never Gonna Give You Up.” While Yung Gravy had licensed the underlying composition, Astley claimed Yung Gravy violated his right of publicity when he hired a singer who mimicked his distinctive voice.
That case has key differences from the situation with “Heart on My Sleeve,” like the allegation that Gravy falsely suggested to his listeners that Astley had actually endorsed his song. In the case of “Heart on My Sleeve,” the anonymous creator Ghostwriter omitted any reference to Drake and The Weeknd on streaming platforms; on TikTok, he directly stated that he, and not the two superstars, had created his song using AI.
But for Richard Busch of the law firm King & Ballow, a veteran music industry litigator who brought the lawsuit on behalf of Astley, the right of publicity and its protections for likeness still provides the most useful tool for artists and labels confronted with such a scenario in the future.
“If you are creating a song that sounds identical to, let’s say, Rihanna, regardless of what you say people are going to believe that it was Rihanna. I think there’s no way to get around that,” Busch said. “The strongest claim here would be the use of likeness.”
But do AI companies themselves break the law when they create programs that can so effectively mimic Drake and The Weeknd’s voices? That would seem to be the far larger looming crisis, and one without the same kind of relatively clear legal answers.
The fight ahead will likely be over how AI platforms are “trained” – the process whereby machines “learn” to spit out new creations by ingesting millions of existing works. From the point of view of many in the music industry, if that process is accomplished by feeding a platform copyrighted songs — in this case, presumably, recordings by Drake and The Weeknd — then those platforms and their owners are infringing copyrights on a mass scale.
In UMG’s statement Monday, the label said clearly that it believes such training to be a “violation of copyright law,” and the company previously warned that it “will not hesitate to take steps to protect our rights and those of our artists.” The RIAA has said the same, blasting AI companies for making “unauthorized copies of our members works” to train their machines.
While the training issue is legally novel and unresolved, it could be answered in court soon. A group of visual artists has filed a class action over the use of their copyrighted images to train AI platforms, and Getty Images has filed a similar case against AI companies that allegedly “scraped” its database for training materials.
And after this week’s incident over “Heart on My Sleeve,” a similar lawsuit against AI platforms filed by artists or music companies gets more likely by the day.
A Fugees rapper on trial in a multimillion-dollar campaign finance and foreign influence case was trying to reinvent himself as he entered the political arena, not break any laws, defense attorneys said Monday (April 17).
Prakazrel “Pras” Michel became a best-selling, Grammy-winning artist with the 1990s hip-hop group the Fugees, but in the years after its breakup was looking for his next chapter, attorney David Kenner said as he began making the defense case.
Michel surrounded himself with people to help with his transition to politics and eventually entered the orbit of a wealthy Malaysian “playboy” but didn’t engage in “James Bond … cloak and dagger stuff,” he said.
“There was no agreement to do anything in an unlawful way,” Kenner said.
Michel is charged in political conspiracies under two different U.S. presidents. Federal prosecutors say he funneled money from the fugitive Malaysian financer through straw donors to Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign. He’s also accused of trying to squelch an investigation into the businessman and persuade then-President Donald Trump’s administration to return to China a “vocal critic of the government.”
The Justice Department says Michel conspired with Low Taek Jho, usually known as Jho Low. The fugitive financier is accused of masterminding a money laundering and bribery scheme that pilfered billions from the Malaysian state investment fund known as 1MDB. Low has maintained his innocence.
Looted money paid for jewelry and luxury art and helped finance Hollywood films like The Wolf of Wall Street. Actor Leonardo DiCaprio testified that Low had appeared to him to be a legitimate businessman and had mentioned wanting to donate to Obama’s campaign.
When Michel first met Low at a nightclub in 2006, the businessman “appeared and acted as though he had unlimited amounts of money,” Kenner said. Michel would later make money himself through his association with Low, but “making money, even if you consider it greedy, is not a crime.”
Prosecutors, on the other hand, say Low directed millions to Michel, who funneled the money to straw donors to give to the Obama reelection campaign in 2012. He later tried to lean on the donors to keep them from talking to investigators, prosecutors said.
In 2017, prosecutors say, the Grammy-winning rapper worked with a Republican “fixer” to try and shut down a U.S. investigation into Low and embezzlement from the Malaysian fund. He’s also accused of pushing the Trump administration to send a Chinese person who had fled to the U.S. back to China.
The defense says he tried to set up a meeting on that issue, but no one ever told him he should have registered as a foreign agent before doing so, Kenner said.
“What he was trying to do was go through the proper channels,” he said.
The long-running legal dispute between grunge icons Soundgarden and Vicky Cornell, the widow of late lead singer Chris Cornell, has been resolved. According to a statement posted on the social media account of the band and Cornell on Monday morning (April 17) the agreement will pave the way for the eventual release of Cornell’s final recorded vocals with the group.
“Soundgarden and Vicky Cornell, on behalf of the Estate of Chris Cornell, are happy to announce they have reached an amicable out of court resolution,” read the statement. “The reconciliation marks a new partnership between the two parties, which will allow Soundgarden fans around the world to hear the final songs that the band and Chris were working on. The two parties are united and coming together to propel, honor and build upon Soundgarden’s incredible legacy as well as Chris’s indelible mark on music history – as one of the greatest songwriters and vocalists of all time.
Two years after Cornell was found dead by suicide at age 52 in a Detroit hotel room on May 17, 2017, Vicky Cornell sued surviving band members guitarist Kim Thayil, drummer Matt Cameron and bassist Ben Shepherd and the band’s longtime business manager. The suit claimed what she described as attempts to “strong-arm” her into turning over seven unreleased audio recordings made by the singer before his death by allegedly withholding royalties owed to the estate.
Two months later, the band sued Vicky Cornell claiming she had no right to withhold the tracks from what was expected to be the group’s final album. In March 2020 Soundgarden asked a judge to dismiss Cornell’s lawsuit on procedural grounds and then they countersued her in May of that year over the proceeds of a Jan. 2019 tribute concert; those claims were dropped in July 2020.
Cornell filed a second lawsuit in Feb. 2021 in which she claimed the living members undervalued her share of the group, which was filed by more back-and-forth over the band’s March 2021 demands that Vicky Cornell turn over the keys to the group’s social media accounts.
At press time no additional information was available on when the unheard music will be released.
See the joint statement below.
A federal appeals has rejected a lawsuit claiming Live Nation was “stringing along” a country singer when the company considered – but ultimately passed on – her proposal for an all-female country music festival in Chicago.
Rae Solomon claimed the concert giant led her to believe it would invest in her idea – a “modern” riff on the famed Lilith Fair with a “predominantly country spin” – only to unfairly back out later. She says Live Nation then stole the concept when it organized an all-women day at 2019’s Lake Shake Festival.
But in a ruling Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that Live Nation had not made “any misrepresentations in its dealings with Solomon.” The court said Live Nation had offered only “sales talk, future intention, and opinion,” not concrete plans to work with her.
“An expression of interest in participating in a project is not a promise to do so,” the court wrote. “The statement represents nothing more than Live Nation’s interest in the project.”
All of Live Nation’s interactions with Solomon were “non-specific and noncommittal nature,” the court wrote, and the company “did not conceal its questions, doubts, or lack of commitment” to her project.
Solomon pitched the idea of her “Zenitheve” festival to Live Nation’s Women Nation Fund, a program that aims to help “underrepresented female entrepreneur” in the live music industry. And Live Nation’s interest was initially piqued; in early meetings in 2018, company reps told her that Zenitheve was “right down the fairway for the kind of stuff we’re interested in” and “exactly what the fund is set up for.”
But according to court documents, Solomon soon ran into hurdles. She envisioned a lineup including Kacey Musgraves, Maren Morris and other female country stars, but she had not actually booked artists to perform. And after meetings in which Live Nation suggested “keep[ing] the conversation going,” the company soon expressed serious doubts.
Michael Wichser, Live Nation’s senior vice president for mergers and acquisitions, said Solomon’s business plan was “lackluster” and “worried about Solomon’s abilities to obtain artists or get a team in place.” Live Nation’s chief communications officer Carrie Davis, meanwhile, thought her idea was not “compelling or unique” and noted that Solomon had not “confirmed any sponsorships or artists.”
A month after Live Nation formally passed on the idea, the company announced the plan for the all-women day at Lake Shake, a yearly country festival in Chicago. Solomon claims the move led her investors to pull out of Zenitheve, forcing her to halt the project.
She quickly sued, claiming Live Nation had made intentional and negligent misrepresentations to her and demanding more than $25 million in damages. Among other things, she claimed that Live Nation had acted the way that it did so that it could copy her plan.
But in Thursday’s decision, the Sixth Circuit said that motive was directly contradicted by the facts of the case.
“[Solomon] claims that Live Nation misrepresented any intention of working with [her] because it had only one motivation from the start: stringing Solomon along and stealing her idea,” the appeals court wrote. “That speculation, however, crumbles against Live Nation’s uncontradicted evidence that the organizer of the Lake Shake Festival, Brian O’Connell, had no knowledge of the Zenitheve proposal.”