Legal
Page: 96
Spotify CEO Daniel Ek on Wednesday (Nov. 30) blasted Apple for “stifling innovation and hurting consumers,” publicly renewing his company’s longstanding grievance that the tech giant abuses its dominant position over the market for smartphone apps.
In a series of tweets, the Spotify founder said Apple was “shameless in their bullying” of app developers and called on lawmakers in both the U.S. and the European Union to take “action” against a company that he said “doesn’t seem to care about the law or courts.”
“Over and over again @Apple gives itself every advantage while at the same time stifling innovation and hurting consumers,” Ek wrote. “Apple offers consumers the illusion of choice and give[s] developers the illusion of control.”
A spokeswoman for Apple did not immediately return a request for comment on Ek’s tweets.
Spotify has long been an outspoken critic of the rules Apple imposes on its app store — namely a 30% surcharge on most transactions made within the platform, and provisions that restrict how apps steer customers toward outside payment systems.
Apple says tight rules for app developers are needed to protect users from payment fraud and privacy violations. But critics say the company — which currently controls more than half the U.S. smartphone market with the iPhone and iOS operating system — is merely exploiting its dominant position to extract more money. Those complaints are even stronger from Spotify, since it also directly competes with Apple Music for subscribers.
Google, which accounts for the vast majority of the rest of the market for smartphone apps, is facing similar criticism and litigation.
The arguments against Apple’s app policies won a powerful ally last week when new Twitter owner Elon Musk raised the issue amid his own messy dispute with the tech giant. After claiming Apple had pulled its advertising and had threatened to pull Twitter from its app store, the polarizing billionaire asked his 120 million followers if they were aware that Apple “puts a secret 30% tax on everything you buy.”
In Wednesday’s thread, Ek directly quoted Musk’s tweet, as well as others who have voiced similar criticism. Citing “bipartisan support and global interest,” he said that “momentum” was building for some kind of action against Apple.
“So how much longer will we look away from this threat to the future of the internet?” Ek wrote. “How many more consumers will be denied choice? There’s been a lot of talk. Talk is helpful but we need action.”
Apple is already facing a high-profile lawsuit, filed by Fortnite creator Epic Games, that claims the app store policies violate federal antitrust laws. A trial court issued a split ruling on the case last year, and the battle is currently pending before a federal appeals court.
Though not directly involved in the Epic case, Spotify filed its own complaint against Apple in 2019 with the European Commission, the EU’s regulatory enforcement watchdog. Last year, EU regulators released preliminary findings that Apple had likely broken the law, saying the company “deprives users of cheaper music streaming choices and distorts competition.”
Even bigger changes could be coming via new legislation. In Washington, D.C., a bipartisan trio of senators are pushing a bill called the Open App Markets Act, which would impose strict new rules on both Apple and Google’s app stores. And lawmakers in the EU have already passed a new statute called the Digital Markets Act, which will place a raft of new restrictions on how app stores are run.
Though it will take time for the new EU law to fully go into effect, it was aimed directly at complaints like the one Ek voiced Wednesday against Apple. In an interview with Wired last month, one of the law’s architects said he expected “significant” consequences: “If you have an iPhone, you should be able to download apps not just from the App Store but from other app stores or from the internet.”
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: Live Nation faces potential legal fallout from Ticketmaster’s Taylor Swift fiasco, Journey bandmates sue each other over an American Express account, Mariah Carey loses a bid for ‘Queen of Christmas’ trademarks, and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Taylor Swift … Trust Buster?
A week removed from Ticketmaster’s disastrous presale for Taylor Swift’s upcoming Eras Tour, criticism of parent company Live Nation isn’t getting any quieter – and the threat of legal repercussions is growing.Live Nation has apologized to fans and pinned the blame on a “staggering number of bot attacks” and “unprecedented traffic.” And whether or not the star really was forced to use Ticketmaster is a complicated question, as Billboard’s Dave Brooks writes.But the debacle, which saw widespread service delays and website crashes as millions of fans tried (and many failed) to buy tickets for Swift’s 2023 Eras Tour, has nonetheless resurfaced some uncomfortable legal questions for the all-powerful concert giant.Since they merged in 2010, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have been dogged by accusations that they form a near-monopoly in the market for live concerts, potentially violating federal antitrust laws. Federal regulators at the U.S. Department of Justice approved that deal, but only after Live Nation signed a so-called consent decree that aimed to allay fears that they might abuse their dominant position. Among other things, the agreement prohibits the company from retaliating against venues or acts that refuse to use Ticketmaster. Those rules were set to expire in 2020, but were extended by five years in 2019 after the DOJ accused Live Nation of repeatedly violating the decree.In the wake of the Swift fiasco, those same monopoly questions are back in the spotlight – and some lawmakers want more than just another extension of the consent decree.On Tuesday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) blasted Live Nation as a “monopoly” and called for regulators to “break them up.” Two days later, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the chair of the Senate subcommittee for antitrust issues, warned that the company’s market share “insulates it from the competitive pressures that typically push companies to innovate and improve their services.”Then on Friday, the New York Times reported that DOJ had already been investigating Live Nation for months over potential antitrust violations, reaching out to venues across the country to ask about the company’s conduct. Reacting to that news, Klobuchar and two other Democratic senators on Monday urged the Justice Department to take hard action if they discover more violations, including “unwinding the Ticketmaster-Live Nation merger and breaking up the company.”“This may be the only way to truly protect consumers, artists, and venue operators and to restore competition in the ticketing market,” the senators wrote.Such action might have been unthinkable just a few years ago, amid a decades-long period of relatively lax antitrust enforcement that saw airlines and mobile providers (and yes, music companies) merging into ever-larger conglomerations. But the Biden-era Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission have embarked on an aggressive new effort to crack down on such mega-mergers, including successfully blocking book publisher Penguin Random House from buying up rival Simon & Schuster.Beyond the Justice Department probe, other legal threats also potentially loom for Live Nation. The attorneys general of Tennessee, North Carolina, Nevada and Pennsylvania have all launched investigations into whether state consumer protection and antitrust laws were violated, including a Tennessee state law that aims to fight the use of automated “bots” on ticketing websites.And don’t forget about class actions. Live Nation is already facing an existing case that accuses the company of “blatant, anti-consumer behavior,” and the rest of the plaintiffs bar could be eager to try similar cases in the wake of such a high-profile snafu. At least one group of Swift-loving lawyers is already brainstorming how to bring cases.Faced with all that, can Live Nation shake it off? Stay tuned…
Other top stories this week…
JOURNEY’S CREDIT CARD CLASH – Journey guitarist Neal Schon filed a lawsuit against bandmate Jonathan Cain over allegations that he’s blocking access to “critical” financial records for the band’s American Express account, through which “millions” in Journey money has allegedly flowed: “This action is brought to turn the lights on, so to speak, and obtain critical financial information Schon has been trying to obtain but has been denied.” The case is the third legal battle among Journey members in the past two years, but the first to divide Schon and Cain — the only core members remaining in the band from Journey’s heyday.I FEEL SUED – Primary Wave and the estate of James Brown were hit with a lawsuit claiming their $90 million catalog sale last year violated an agreement that the iconic singer had struck decades earlier with another company. The case was filed by David Pullman’s Pullman Group (best known for creating so-called Bowie Bonds in the 1990s) over allegations that the blockbuster sale breached a contract that Pullman company struck with Brown way back in 1999, which allegedly guaranteed the company the right to broker any such deal in the future.YOUNG THUG GANG TRIAL SET FOR JANUARY – A Georgia judge refused to delay the closely-watched criminal case against Young Thug, Gunna and others accused of participating in an Atlanta gang, meaning their trial is now locked in to start on January 9. Prosecutors wanted to move the trial back by nearly three months because a few defendants had not yet been appointed a lawyer. But with Young Thug, Gunna and many others stuck in jail until trial, defense lawyers strongly opposed the delay: “It is unjust that [Young Thug] rots in the county jail and … is being required to wait on the appointment of counsel for co-indictees.”DUA LIPA RIPS COPYRIGHT SUIT – Attorneys for Dua Lipa asked a federal judge to quickly toss out a lawsuit claiming she stole her smash hit song “Levitating” from a little-known reggae track called “Live Your Life.” Florida band Artikal Sound System sued the star for copyright infringement last year, arguing the songs were so similar it was “highly unlikely that ‘Levitating’ was created independently.” But in their response last week, Lipa’s attorneys said those allegations were full of “vague, boilerplate labels and conclusions” and “devoid of a shred of factual detail.”MARIAH CANT GET ‘CHRISTMAS’ TRADEMARKS – The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected Mariah Carey’s application to register “Queen of Christmas” as a federal trademark, siding instead with Elizabeth Chan, another singer who says she’s used the same name for years. Repped pro bono by BigLaw attorneys, Chan had argued that no single singer or company should be able to lock up the title. “It is wrong for an individual to attempt to own and monopolize a nickname like ‘Queen of Christmas’ for the purposes of abject materialism,” Chan said in a statement after the ruling.R. KELLY MANAGER SENTENCED – Donnell Russell, R. Kelly’s friend and former manager, was sentenced to 20 months in prison after pleading guilty to charges that he stalked one of Kelly’s sexual abuse victims in an effort to keep her silent. Prosecutors said Russell used “reprehensible” tactics against the unnamed victim after she filed a civil lawsuit against the disgraced singer in 2018, including threatening messages to her mother and leaking explicit photos online.SLACKER ON HOOK FOR HUGE ROYALTY JUDGMENT – A federal judge refused to undo his own earlier ruling that Slacker owes nearly $10 million in unpaid music royalties to SoundExchange, despite the steamer’s warnings that the huge judgment could trigger financial ruin for the company. SoundExchange urged the judge to ignore those pleas and last week he obliged – ruling that the seven-figure judgment was simply the result of an agreement that Slacker itself had signed.
Journey guitarist Neal Schon is suing bandmate Jonathan Cain over allegations that he’s blocking access to “critical” financial records — the latest in a string of legal clashes among members of the iconic ’80s rock band.
In a lawsuit filed last month in California state court, Schon accused Cain — the only other core band member remaining from Journey’s heyday — of refusing to give him access to records from an American Express account, through which he claims that “millions in Journey funds have flowed.”
As fifty-fifty co-owners of the band’s corporate entity, Schon says each of them has a right to inspect all financial records, but claims that Cain has “improperly restricted and blocked” him from seeing the Amex records for months.
“This action is brought to turn the lights on, so to speak, and obtain critical financial information Schon has been trying to obtain but has been denied,” his lawyers wrote in an Oct. 31 complaint. “Schon has tried to avoid legal action, repeatedly requesting that Cain grant him access to the AMEX account [but] Cain has not been forthcoming and cooperative, making this action necessary.”
The case is hardly the first legal battle among Journey members.
Back in 2020, Schon and Cain filed a lawsuit against former drummer Steven Smith and former bassist Ross Valory, accusing them of engaging in an “attempted corporate coup d’état” to improperly use the Journey band name. That case ended last year with an “amicable settlement” that saw Smith and Valory depart the band.
And in September, former lead singer Steve Perry took legal action to stop Schon and Cain from registering federal trademarks on the names of many of the band’s biggest hits, including “Anyway You Want It” and “Wheel In The Sky.” Perry, who left Journey in 1998, says his ex-mates cannot unilaterally use the song names because the trio signed a partnership agreement requiring unanimous consent. The case remains pending.
Unlike the earlier cases, the new lawsuit over the Amex account pits Schon and Cain against one another. Schon says each of them should have “unfettered access” to all financial records, but that Cain “set up the account so that only he is authorized to access the records and information.”
And from the wording of the complaint, it sounds like Schon’s gripes potentially go deeper than a single credit card.
“Cain is interfering with Journey, refusing to respond to booking opportunities, blocking payment to band members, crew, and vendors, refusing to execute necessary operating documents, and in other ways as well,” Schon’s lawyers wrote. “Cain has further refused to deal with critical, time-sensitive touring contracts for Journey’s 2023 tour and ensure payment for band members and crew, who Cain contends are ‘non-essential.’ Schon believes those band and crew who are crucial to the band’s success should be paid. Cain’s conduct is inexplicable.”
A rep for Cain did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday.
Read the entire complaint here:
In the wake of Ticketmaster’s disastrous sale of tickets to Taylor Swift’s upcoming tour, a report has surfaced that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating whether parent company Live Nation has abused its huge market share in the live music industry.
According to a story Friday in the New York Times, the DOJ’s antitrust division had already been scrutinizing Live Nation for months before Tuesday’s botched rollout, which saw widespread service delays and website crashes as millions of fans tried – and many failed – to buy tickets for Swift’s 2023 Eras Tour.
The Times report said that antitrust investigators have been contacting music venues and others involved in the live music industry for months to ask about Live Nation’s practices, aiming to determine whether the company maintains an illegal monopoly over the sector. The story was sourced to “two people with knowledge of the matter”; a spokesperson for the DOJ did not immediately return a request for comment.
Though the DOJ probe reportedly predates the Swift debacle, it echoes criticism that has been leveled at Live Nation in the days since the messy Eras presale.
On Thursday, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the chair of the Senate subcommittee for antitrust issues, wrote an open letter to Live Nation, complaining that the company’s market power “insulates it from the competitive pressures that typically push companies to innovate and improve their services.” Klobuchar said the results were the kind of “dramatic service failures” that took place during Swift’s presale.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), was even blunter, tweeting Tuesday: “Daily reminder that Ticketmaster is a monopoly, it’s merger with Live Nation should never have been approved, and they need to be reigned in. Break them up.”
As alluded to by Ocasio-Cortez, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have long been dogged by accusations that they exert an unfair dominance over the market for live concerts, particularly since they merged in 2010 to create their current structure.
The combined entity has operated for its entire existence under a so-called consent decree imposed by the DOJ when it approved the merger. Under the decree, Live Nation is prohibited from retaliating against venues that refuse to use Ticketmaster. Those restrictions were set to expire in 2020 but were extended by five years in 2019 after the DOJ accused Live Nation of repeatedly violating the decree.
Ticketmaster has already tried to offer explanations for what went wrong on Tuesday, publishing a since-deleted in-depth blog post that said that it had misjudged demand for presale tickets and was ill-prepared for the millions of fans that tried to log in.
“I apologize to all our fans. We are working hard on this,” Liberty Media CEO and Live Nation chairman Greg Maffei said in an appearance on CNBC on Thursday. “Building capacity for peak demand is something we attempt to do, but this exceeded every expectation.”
Whether or not that explanation satisfies federal antitrust investigators, it does not appear to have been enough for Swift. In a statement issued Friday in which the star said the calamitous presale “really pisses me off,” Swift did not call out Ticketmaster explicitly, but laid the blame on an unnamed “outside entity.”
“I’m not going to make excuses for anyone because we asked them, multiple times, if they could handle this kind of demand and we were assured they could,” Swift wrote.
A federal judge says he won’t undo his ruling that Slacker owes nearly $10 million in unpaid music royalties to SoundExchange, seemingly unmoved by the streamer’s warning that the ruling will have a “devastating” impact on the company’s finances.
SoundExchange claims Slacker’s parent LiveOne has failed to pay royalties for years, and last month won a ruling requiring the streamer to hand over $9,765,396. Slacker said last month that the huge judgment could trigger financial ruin for the company – a warning SoundExchange urged the court to disregard.
In a decision issued Wednesday, Judge André Birotte Jr. did exactly that. He ruled that the seven-figure judgment was simply the result of an agreement that Slacker itself had signed – and noted that the streamer was not actually legally disputing the terms of that deal.
“Defendants cannot argue that the judgment is a result of ‘excusable neglect’ or that it is ‘without fault,’ when the judgment was entered pursuant to stipulation that defendants negotiated for and assented to,” Judge Birotte wrote. “Because Defendants signed the stipulation, and in fact do not dispute the amount of money Plaintiff is entitled to, the court finds the judgment is fair, adequate, and reasonable.”
SoundExchange, which collects performance royalties for sound recording copyrights, sued LiveOne in June, claiming the company had stopped paying artists and labels way back in 2017. And it claimed that a subsequent audit revealed it had been underpaying for years before that.
Court records show the two sides entered into the repayment plan in 2020, which gave Slacker two years to pay off its debts. But in the June lawsuit, SoundExchange claimed that Slacker had quickly failed to live up to the terms of the agreement.
“By refusing to pay royalties for the use of protected sound recordings, Slacker and LiveOne have directly harmed creators over the years,” SoundExchange president and CEO Michael Huppe said at the time. “Today, SoundExchange is taking a stand through necessary legal action to protect the value of music and ensure creators are compensated fairly for their work.”
Just a few months into the litigation, SoundExchange played an unusual legal trump card. On Oct. 12, the group invoked a so-called consent judgment, which had been inked and pre-signed by execs at Slacker back in 2020 as part of the repayment plan. Under the terms of that earlier deal, if Slacker ever defaulted again, its executives agreed that a judge should enter a so-called judgment against the company for the full sum owed.
On Oct. 13, Judge Birotte did so, ordering the Slacker to pay $9,765,396, which covered both unpaid royalties and late fees. He also permanently barred the company from using the so-called statutory license, an important federal provision that makes copyright licenses for recorded music automatically available to internet radio companies like Slacker and Pandora at a fixed price.
A week later, Slacker asked the judge to overturn his own ruling, saying it had been procedurally improper. To support the request, Slacker warned the judge had quickly caused other creditors to call in other debts owed, threatening “economic damage” to the company that would be “unsustainable.”
“Plaintiff’s surreptitious request for entry of judgment has triggered LiveOne’s default on two substantial senior secured notes which are secured by all of LiveOne’s and their subsidiaries assets,” the streamer wrote.
SoundExchange urged the judge to deny the request, saying it had spent years “indulging” the company’s “many excuses for non-payment,” and that it had simply become time for the streamer to be legally forced to pay up: “Five years is long enough.”
In Wednesday’s decision, Judge Birotte sided with SoundExchange, ruling there was no legal wiggle room for Slacker to challenge an agreement signed by its own executives. The judge said that unless there is proof of “fraud or misconduct” – and there is none – there was no reason to undo the ruling. And he was unmoved by the company’s warnings of economic ruin.
“Defendants argue that the ‘repercussions will be devastating to LiveOne, its employees, and to its creditors,” the judge wrote. Defendants, however, have failed to explain what balance is actually due, whether defendants’ creditors have elected to require immediate payment, or how the repercussions will actually impact its business or livelihood.”
A representative for Slacker parent LiveOne did not immediately return a request for comment on the decision.
Read the entire decision here:
A man charged with arranging the killing of Young Dolph pleaded not guilty Thursday (Nov. 18) — one year after the rapper and record label owner was ambushed and shot to death while buying cookies at a bakery in his hometown of Memphis, Tennessee.
Hernandez Govan, 43, made a brief appearance in Shelby County Criminal Court in Memphis. He was arrested last week after he was indicted on charges including first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder in the killing of the rapper, who was 36 when he died. The judge scheduled Govan’s next hearing for Dec. 16.
Govan is the third man charged in the Nov. 17, 2021, slaying of Young Dolph, whose real name was Adolph Thornton Jr. The killing in broad daylight stunned Memphis and shocked the entertainment world. Police said two men exited a white Mercedes-Benz and fired shots into Makeda’s Homemade Cookies, which is near the rapper’s boyhood home in the Castalia neighborhood. Police released photos taken from surveillance video that captured the shooting, and authorities later found the car abandoned.
Justin Johnson and Cornelius Smith Jr., have pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and other charges in the shooting and are being held in jail without bond. They are scheduled to appear in court on Jan. 20.
In a weekly newsletter, Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy said Govan “solicited the murder and put it in motion.” But no evidence has been made public to support that statement, and a suspected motive has not been disclosed. The investigation is ongoing.
“I know that you all are wanting details, you’re wanting facts, you’re wanting sort of answers to some of these mysteries and things like that,” prosecutor Paul Hagerman told reporters after Thursday’s hearing. “Even if we knew them, we couldn’t tell you. As a matter of ethics and our requirements under the law, we’ve got to confine ourselves to what’s made public.”
Govan’s lawyer, Bill Massey, said he was seeking the prosecution’s evidence in the case, which Massey said may not go to trial until after next year due to the amount of evidence and the number of defendants.
Known for his depictions of tough street life and his independent approach to the music business, Young Dolph was admired for charitable works in Memphis. He organized Thanksgiving turkey giveaways, donated thousands of dollars to high schools, and paid rent and covered funeral costs for people in the Castalia Heights neighborhood where he was raised.
His work as a rapper, producer and owner of the independent label Paper Route Empire took him away from Memphis, but the father of two had returned to the city days before his killing to visit a sick relative and organize a turkey giveaway that took place without him.
After Young Dolph’s death, a section of a street near his boyhood home was renamed for him. A private funeral was held and he was honored during a public celebration at FedExForum, the home of the Memphis Grizzles of the NBA and the University of Memphis men’s basketball team.
City officials and community activists also pointed to the killing as a symbol of the scourge of gun violence in Memphis. Since the rapper’s death, Memphis has seen several other high-profile killings this year, including the shooting of a United Methodist Church pastor during a carjacking in her driveway; the kidnapping and shooting of an elementary school teacher who police said was abducted during an early morning run; and a man’s daylong shooting rampage that was partially livestreamed and led to the death of three people.
Young Dolph is one of several prominent hip-hop artists to be killed in recent years. His independent approach to the music business drew comparisons to Los Angeles rapper Nipsey Hussle, who was fatally shot in 2019. Other rappers who have lost their lives to gun violence since 2018 include XXXTentacion, Pop Smoke and, most recently, Takeoff, who was killed outside of a bowling alley after a party in Houston on Nov. 1.
In an article in The Atlantic dated Tuesday, rappers Too Short and E-40 called for the hip-hop community to find ways to come together and support each other amid the spate of gun deaths in the industry.
Young Dolph was born in Chicago and moved to Memphis with his parents when he was 2. He released numerous mixtapes, starting with 2008′s Paper Route Campaign, and multiple studio albums, including his 2016 debut King of Memphis. He also collaborated on other mixtapes and albums with fellow rappers Key Glock, Megan Thee Stallion, T.I., Gucci Mane, 2 Chainz and others.
He had three albums reach the top 10 on the Billboard 200, with 2020′s “Rich Slave” peaking at No. 4. Makeda’s, the bakery where he was shot, was boarded up and closed before it reopened in September.
Drake and 21 Savage‘s fake Vogue cover is no more.
After publisher Condé Nast hit them with a lawsuit for promoting fake cover story in the heralded magazine to market their new album, Her Loss, the rappers have “voluntarily ceased and desisted” from all uses of the Vogue cover and trademark as well as the name, image or likeness of editor-in-chief Anna Wintour and any false or misleading statements concerning the magazine to promote the album. This includes taking down all public displays of the fake cover, including online and social media posts and any physical copies. Importantly, all of those actions were required under a temporary restraining order issued by a federal judge on Nov. 10 backing up the publisher’s lawsuit.
The new document, filed in New York federal court on Thursday (Nov. 17), notes that Drake and 21 Savage agreed only to take down the image “to avoid unnecessary cost and expense” while they continue to fight the case. The filing explicitly noted they were not “conceding any liability” or “wrongdoing” in the matter.
The fake Vogue cover was one of several fake promos for Her Loss, which dropped Nov. 4. These so-called deepfakes also included sham appearances by the rappers on NPR’s Tiny Desk series and The Howard Stern Show.
Though Tiny Desk greeted the stunt with good humor — even inviting the rappers to appear on the show for real — and Stern joked about the incident on his SiriusXM series, Condé Nast was less than amused. In a complaint filed Nov. 9, the publisher’s lawyers characterized the stunt as a “flagrant infringement” of the company’s trademark rights, designed to exploit the “tremendous value that a cover feature in Vogue magazine carries” without actually being granted that privilege. The suit demanded an immediate injunction forcing the rappers, along with Drake’s PR agency Hiltzik Strategies, which was named as a co-defendant, to cease all uses of the “counterfeit cover.”
On Nov. 10, the Condé Nast lawsuit was followed by a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, who ruled the fake cover was likely violating the publisher’s trademarks because Drake and 21 were “misleading consumers” and “deceiving the public.” Notably, such restraining orders are only granted to plaintiffs who are deemed likely to win their case.
One particular point of contention outlined in the complaint was an Instagram post by Drake teasing the fake cover story, in which the superstar personally thanked Wintour for the honor. In the suit, Condé Nast’s lawyers wrote that Vogue and Wintour in fact “had no involvement in Her Loss or its promotion, and have not endorsed it in any way” and that the publisher did not “authorize, much less support,” the release of “a counterfeit version of perhaps one of the most carefully curated covers in all of the publication business.”
The lawyers went on to write that the deep fake was so convincing that several media outlets reported that the cover was in fact real, adding, “The confusion among the public is unmistakable.”
As the legal drama continues to unfold, Drake and 21 Savage may argue that the fake media blitz was meant as a parody of the way media and artists work together to promote album launches; in some circumstances, laws allow for the proliferation of such spoofs without repercussion. That may be a difficult argument to make, however. As Condé Nast noted in its lawsuit, the fake Vogue issue disseminated both online and physically represented “a complete, professionally reprinted reproduction” of the magazine, with “no indication that it is anything other than the cover of an authentic Vogue issue.”
Condé Nast did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the latest filing.
A Georgia judge on Thursday (Nov. 17) refused to delay the closely-watched criminal case against Young Thug, Gunna and others accused of participating in an Atlanta gang, rejecting calls from prosecutors to move the start of the trial from January to March.
Prosecutors sought the delay — from Jan. 9 to Mar. 27 — on the grounds that some of the 28 defendants in the case still lacked court-appointed attorneys. But with Young Thug, Gunna and many others stuck in jail until trial, defense lawyers opposed efforts to push back the proceedings.
At a hearing on Thursday, Fulton County Judge Ural Glanville denied the government’s motion to delay the trial, court documents show, and set jury selection to begin on Jan. 5.
Both Young Thug (Jeffery Williams) and Gunna (real name Sergio Kitchens) were indicted in May, along with dozens of others, on accusations that their group YSL was not really a record label called “Young Stoner Life,” but a violent Atlanta street gang called “Young Slime Life.” The charges include allegations of murder, carjacking, armed robbery, drug dealing and illegal firearm possession over the past decade.
The two stars, who strongly deny the charges, have both repeatedly sought to be released on bond ahead of their trials. But both have been refused on multiple occasions, largely because prosecutors have warned that they might threaten witnesses or otherwise obstruct the case. More than 20 other defendants have also been refused bond, meaning they’re also stuck in jail until trial.
The case is built around Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a state law based on the more famous federal RICO statute that’s been used to target the mafia, drug cartels and other forms of organized crime. Such laws make it easier for prosecutors to sweep up many members of an alleged criminal conspiracy (in this case, 28 total) based on many smaller acts that aren’t directly related.
But indicting that many people in a single case has apparently led to a shortage of court-appointed defense attorneys. In an Oct. 6 court filing, prosecutors asked to push the trial back by nearly three months, arguing that eight defendants still lacked lawyers and that any attorney retained after that point could not “properly prepare” for a January trial.
But that request did not sit well with Young Thug’s lawyers, who said it was prosecutors’ own fault for not preparing more public defense counsel before handing down such sweeping indictments – and “disingenuous” to now argue that a delay was needed.
“It is unjust that Mr. Williams rots in the county jail and … is being required to wait on the appointment of counsel for co-indictees,” the rapper’s lawyer, Brian Steel, wrote in an Oct. 10 filing that also renewed the rapper’s request to be released ahead of trial. “It has been too long to leave a human being in custody without trial, without discovery, without the statutory right to a speedy trial and without bond.”
Beyond indicting two of rap’s biggest stars and leaving them in prison to await trial, the YSL case has also made waves because it cited their lyrics as supposed evidence of their crimes — a controversial practice that critics say unfairly sways juries and injects racial bias into the courtroom. California recently banned the tactic in that state, but Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has strongly defended using it against Young Thug and Gunna.
R. Kelly’s former manager was sentenced Thursday to 20 months in prison after pleading guilty to charges that he stalked one of Kelly’s sexual abuse victims in an effort to keep her silent.
Donnell Russell pleaded guilty in July to using threats, harassment and intimidation to silence one of the women abused by Kelly, who was convicted last year on sex trafficking and racketeering charges and sentenced to 30 years in prison in June.
Ahead of his sentencing, Russell’s lawyers argued he should receive only probation, arguing he’d led an “otherwise exemplary life” before “crossing the line in his attempts to curry favor with Robert Kelly.”
But prosecutors strongly disagreed, citing dozens of prior arrests and calling his conduct “abhorrent.” They asked for 24 to 30 months, saying it was needed to deter such behavior: “If victims are concerned that this type of conduct will not be adequately punished, it could chill victims from pursuing legal remedies and from cooperating with law enforcement investigations.”
Following Thursday’s sentencing, Russell’s attorney did not immediately return a request for comment from Billboard.
Prosecutors say Russell, a self-described manager, advisor and friend to Kelly, used “reprehensible” tactics against the unnamed victim after she filed a civil lawsuit against the singer in 2018. They included sending threatening messages to the woman and her mother, and then publishing explicit photos of her on the internet.
“Just a sample. We will seek criminal charges. You’ve been warned,” Russell wrote in a December 2018 message to the victim and her mother, referring to the nude images.
Separate from the stalking charges, Russell was also convicted in July of making a phone threat that gunfire was about to occur at a crowded Manhattan theater that was preparing for a premiere of Lifetime’s Surviving R. Kelly series. The phone threat prompted a call to police and an evacuation that forced the premier to be canceled.
Russell awaits sentencing next week on those charges.
Primary Wave and the estate of James Brown are facing a new lawsuit that claims their $90 million catalog sale last year violated an agreement that the iconic singer had struck decades earlier with another company.
Announced in December, the sale saw Primary Wave scoop up a portion of Brown’s publishing rights, master royalty income and name/likeness rights from the singer’s estate – adding the “Soul Brother No. 1” to the likes of Whitney Houston and Prince in the company’s growing catalog.
But in a new lawsuit filed Tuesday (Nov. 15) in Manhattan federal court, David Pullman’s Pullman Group says the blockbuster sale represents a breach of a contract it struck with Brown way back in 1999 that guaranteed the company the right to broker any such deal in the future.
And Pullman says the breach was no small error: It’s demanding more than $11 million in damages from the Brown estate, and a whopping $125 million from Primary Wave.
“The Primary Wave transaction violated The Pullman Group’s exclusive rights under the exclusive engagement letter to arrange such asset sales for Brown and his estate,” Pullman’s lawyers wrote in their complaint.
In response to the allegations, a rep for the Brown estate told Billboard on Wednesday that the lawsuit “has no merit and the Estate and Trust intend to vigorously defend the action.” A rep for Primary Wave did not immediately return a request for comment.
Pullman is best known for creating so-called Bowie Bonds – a novel financial vehicle that offered investors the right to collect future royalties in return for a lump payment to an artist. He pioneered the arrangement with a $55 million deal with David Bowie in 1997, hence the name.
In the new lawsuit, Pullman Group says it created such a bond offering for Brown in 1999 to help the late singer deal with “financial difficulties,” which were spurred by his “spending habits and legal problems.” Under the terms of the deal, Brown received an up-front payment of $26 million in exchange for future royalties over a set period of time.
But crucially, Pullman’s lawsuit says the deal also guaranteed the company “exclusive rights to arrange all future refinancing or asset sales of Brown’s assets.” It says the that contractual sweetener was included because the deal was risky for Pullman and the company had already agreed to waive its normal up-front fees in Brown’s case.
But in December 2021, Pullman says it learned from media reports that Brown’s estate had reached a deal with Primary Wave. The agreement had been struck “secretly and behind The Pullman Group’s back,” and the estate had instead used a company called Shot Tower Capital to arrange the deal.
“By working for years in secret on the Primary Wave transaction, Primary Wave and Shot Tower Capital intentionally and maliciously interfered with The Pullman Group’s exclusive contractual rights,” the company’s lawyers wrote.
The lawsuit says Pullman would have been entitled to a 12.5% fee from any rights deal struck by Brown’s estate – meaning the estate owes the company $11.3 million from Primary Wave’s $90 million payment.
Pullman wants far steeper damages from Primary Wave and Shot Tower Capital. Accusing them of so-called tortious interference with a contract – meaning an outside party essentially induced someone to break their word – Pullman is seeking at least $125 million in damages from each company.
A rep for Shot Tower Capital did not immediately return a request for comment on the lawsuit’s accusations.
In a statement to Billboard, David Pullman said he and Brown had a “great mutually successful and beneficial relationship and friendship for years,” but that the current legal dispute had been caused by those running his estate.
Read the entire lawsuit here: