The Legal Beat
THE BIG STORY: A little under 18 months after sexual abuse allegations against Sean “Diddy” Combs were first made public – and 8 months after he was indicted over them – the once-powerful rap mogul headed to trial this week on felony charges that could put him behind bars for life.
When things got underway in the courtroom Monday, I was sitting just rows behind the now-gray-haired superstar as prosecutors accused him of years of criminal conduct – centered on claims that he coerced longtime girlfriend Cassie Ventura and other women to take part in drug-fueled, marathon sex sessions with male escorts called “freak offs.”
The start the trial, which is expected to run for eight weeks, was something of a circus. News crews filled the plaza outside the courthouse in Lower Manhattan as a line of spectators wrapped around the block – so many that they eventually filled the entire large courtroom and two overflow rooms. Professional “line sitters” were charging $350 for a spot closer to the door; one person waiting in line, there at the crack of dawn, told me that he didn’t want to miss the “trial of the century.”
Trending on Billboard
To catch up after the first two days of the trial, go check all of Billboard’s coverage:
–On day one, both sides made their opening statements to the jury. Prosecutors said Combs had used his power for decades to “feed his every desire” — and they almost immediately played an infamous video of him assaulting Cassie in a Los Angeles hotel. Defense attorneys, meanwhile, said the women had consensually partaken in Diddy’s “swinger lifestyle” and that the star cannot be convicted merely based on weird sex, a “toxic relationship,” or even domestic violence: “We take full responsibility that there was domestic violence. Domestic violence is not sex trafficking.”
–On day two, Ventura took the stand. The star witness in the prosecution’s case, Cassie told jurors that participating in “freak off” sex performances “became a job” for her and left her feeling “humiliated.” But she said she felt she had no choice — at times because she was in love with Combs and wanted to please him, but also, later, because she feared blackmail, physical violence or other blowback: “He was a scary person. He would be violent.”
If you need a general catch-up on the Diddy case before the trial goes any further, go read our explainer on everything you need to know – or our deep-dive analysis in which the prosecutors from R. Kelly’s highly-similar case explain how this one might go. You can also read about the many, many lawyers involved in the Diddy debacle.
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.
Other top stories this week…
TAYLOR GETS SUBPOENAED – Taylor Swift was hit with a subpoena formally dragging her into the legal drama between her friend Blake Lively and Lively’s It Ends With Us director and co-star Justin Baldoni. The subpoena, filed by Baldoni’s lawyers, is certain to be opposed by Swift’s lawyers after her reps blasted the filing: “This document subpoena is designed to use Taylor Swift’s name to draw public interest by creating tabloid clickbait instead of focusing on the facts of the case.”
HER LAWYERS, TOO – Speaking of Taylor’s lawyers: Her longtime outside law firm, Venable, was also hit with a subpoena from Baldoni’s attorney. The filing specifically name-drops Douglas Baldridge, a Venable partner who’s worked with Swift since 2013 and recently returned to the firm after a stint as her general counsel. In legal filings this week, the firm formally opposed a filing that it described as a “fishing expedition” by Baldoni and his lawyers: “Venable had nothing to do with the film at issue or any of the claims or defenses asserted in the underlying lawsuit.”
LIL DURK DENIED BAIL – Days after federal prosecutors dropped Lil Durk’s rap lyrics from his murder-for-hire case, his lawyers argued that the new “watered-down” charges dramatically weakened the case against him and supported his push to be released from jail ahead of trial. But a federal judge then refused to release him, citing a report that Durk has been using other inmates’ jailhouse phone calls, thereby showing a “disrespect for the rules.”
HALLE RESTRAINING ORDER – A Los Angeles judge granted a restraining order to Halle Bailey against DDG, her ex-boyfriend and the father of her 1-year-old son, after she claimed that he had attacked her multiple times. In legal filings seeking the order, Bailey alleged that in one incident, her ex (Darryl Dwayne Granberry Jr.) pulled her hair, slammed her face on the steering wheel and chipped her tooth.
DRAKE v. UMG UPDATE – Weeks after Drake updated his libel lawsuit against UMG to add gripes about Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl performance of “Not Like Us,” the music giant again asked a judge to dismiss the entire case. In doing so, UMG’s lawyers said the new claims about the halftime show are what the case is really about: “Drake’s attack on the commercial and creative success of the rap artist who defeated him, rather than the content of Lamar’s lyrics.”
SMOKEY ROBINSON ALLEGATIONS – The legendary Motown singer and his wife were hit with an explosive new lawsuit, seeking $50 million in damages over claims that he repeatedly raped four housekeepers over nearly two decades. Robinson’s lawyers strenuously denied the claims, calling them “vile, false allegations” and “an ugly method of trying to extract money from an 85-year-old American icon.”
BAD BUNNY COPYRIGHT CASE – The reggaeton superstar was sued for infringement over allegations that a track from his chart-topping Un Verano Sin Ti (“Enséñame a Bailar”) featured an unlicensed sample from a song called “Empty My Pocket” by a Nigerian artist named Dera. The lawsuit claims the issue was raised with Bunny’s reps, but that they’ve “turned a blind eye” and “stonewalled” efforts to properly clear the sample.
ANOTHER SAMPLE DISPUTE – British singer-songwriter Bakar and his viral track “Hell N Back” – featured in millions of TikTok videos – were hit with a messy new lawsuit over the song’s prominent use of a sample from Robert Parker’s 1967 R&B track “I Caught You In A Lie.” The case claims Bakar and Sony Music cleared the sample, but did so with the wrong rightsholders who have been making “false claim of ownership” to Parker’s song.
DATA BREACH AT iHEART – iHeartMedia was hit with a proposed class action from subscribers after publicly disclosing that several of its radio stations were hacked months ago, exposing Social Security numbers, financial information and other personal details. The company says it “immediately implemented our response protocols” to contain the hack, but attorneys for the subscribers say iHeart waited four months to tell subscribers about it.
LIVE NATION AT SCOTUS – Live Nation asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling last year that said the concert giant couldn’t enforce “opaque and unfair” arbitration agreements against ticketbuyers. That ruling – a scathing critique of Live Nation’s approach – showed improper “judicial hostility,” Live Nation warned the justices, and will create “massive uncertainty” over how such clauses can be used and enforced.
(DIDN’T) GET THEM TO THE GREEK – The Grammy-winning band The Kingston Trio sued a Los Angeles music attorney for fraud, claiming that he lied about having an “inside track” to book the folk group at the Greek Theatre last summer. The group says the lawyer, David A. Helfant, charged them high fees but didn’t actually have any secret mojo to get them booked at the legendary venue. Helfant denied the allegations, saying they were “completely without merit.”
FLORIDA DRAG LAW ICED – A federal appeals court has upheld an injunction blocking the state of Florida from enforcing a law signed by Governor Ron DeSantis that would restrict drag shows in the state, ruling that the statute likely violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech: “The act wields a shotgun when the First Amendment allows a scalpel at most,” the court wrote.
WEEZER WIFE CHARGED – Author Jillian Lauren, the wife of Weezer bassist Scott Shriner, was officially charged with two felony counts following a bizarre shootout with police at her Los Angeles home last month. The charges are serious (discharge of a firearm with gross negligence and assault with a semiautomatic firearm) but less than she initially faced when booked on suspicion of attempted murder following the April 8 altercation.
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: Prosecutors delete Lil Durk’s lyrics from his murder-for-hire case, jury selection begins in Diddy’s sex-trafficking trial, Led Zeppelin’s Jimmy Page is sued over a decades-old credits dispute and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Rap On Trial — Or Not?
When federal prosecutors indicted Lil Durk on murder-for-hire charges last year, they quoted from one of his songs, claiming the lyrics were a direct reference to the alleged shooting and evidence of his guilt.
That was a controversial choice. The use of rap music as evidence in criminal cases has drawn pushback in recent years, as critics argue it threatens free speech and can sway juries by tapping into racial biases. Some states have moved to restrict the practice, but many have not — and there are no such rules in federal prosecutions.
Trending on Billboard
In Durk’s case, his lawyers strongly objected to the use of his music, arguing the song in question was written and recorded months before the shooting even took place. They called the lyric allegations “false evidence” that had been unfairly used to indict him and to deny him pre-trial release. In a public statement, Durk’s family said he had been the latest rapper to be “criminalized for their creativity.”
Prosecutors initially defended the move, arguing that Durk had “repeatedly used his pulpit as a voice of violence.” But in an updated version of the indictment released last week, they backed down — removing all reference to his lyrics and instead focusing on other allegations tying him to the shooting.
The case against Durk will continue — in a separate filing, the feds stressed that the new indictment still contains “significant allegations that show defendant’s alleged role in the execution-style murder” — but it will do so without his lyrics.
Other top stories this week…
DIDDY TRIAL, EXPLAINED – Jury selection is officially underway in the sex trafficking trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, ahead of opening statements next week. To get you up to speed before the trial gets underway, I put together an exhaustive explainer on everything you need to know about the Diddy trial — from the exact charges he’s facing, to key players in the courtroom, to the Cassie Ventura tape and much more.
AIN’T OVER YET – A federal appeals court revived a lawsuit claiming Sam Smith and Normani stole key elements of their 2019 hit “Dancing With a Stranger” from an earlier track, ruling that a judge prematurely dismissed the case and should have sent it to a jury. That’s a worrying ruling for any artist hit with a song-theft lawsuit; if such disputes must be litigated all the way to trial to be decided, they become dramatically more expensive.
WHOLE LOTTA LITIGATION – Led Zeppelin‘s Jimmy Page was hit with a new lawsuit over the credits to “Dazed and Confused,” reviving a decades-old dispute over the iconic track. Jake Holmes has claimed for years that he actually wrote the song, and he reached a legal settlement with Page back in 2012 to resolve those allegations. But in the new case, Holmes says Page is effectively ignoring the settlement and has released archival recordings that infringe Holmes’ copyrights.
SCENT SETTLEMENT – Revlon and Elizabeth Arden have fully settled a corporate espionage lawsuit, filed last year, that claimed several former employees “sabotaged” the companies’ decades-old fragrance partnership with Britney Spears and took the business to an upstart rival called Give Back Beauty. The settlements clear the way for Give Back Beauty to formally take over Britney’s lucrative perfume brand, which reportedly earns tens of millions per year.
JAY V. BUZBEE GOES ON – Jay-Z filed an unusual new allegation in his legal war with attorney Tony Buzbee, accusing the lawyer of ordering employees at his law firm to edit Wikipedia pages in an effort to damage the rapper’s reputation. The new claim was the latest salvo in a bitter fight that started when Buzbee filed a shocking lawsuit accusing Jay-Z of raping an unnamed girl decades ago.
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: Mariah Carey wants payback after winning a lawsuit over “All I Want for Christmas is You”; Diddy’s trial judge says jurors can see an infamous surveillance video; 50 Cent sues to stop the release of a movie he stars in; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Mariah’s Christmas Revenge
To paraphrase a legendary line from HBO’s The Wire: “If you come at the queen, you best not miss.”
Trending on Billboard
A month after the Queen of Christmas defeated a copyright lawsuit over her holiday classic “All I Want for Christmas is You,” Mariah Carey and other defendants in the case are now seeking legal revenge – demanding that the songwriter who filed the action repay the legal bills they spent defending it.
Vince Vance claimed that “All I Want” ripped off his own earlier song of the same name, but a federal judge tossed the case out last month, citing experts who said the songs shared mostly just “commonplace Christmas song clichés.” The judge even said that some of Vance’s filings were so “frivolous” that he’d need to reimburse Carey and others the money the spent beating them.
In a motion earlier this month, Carey and others argued that Vance and his lawyers must hand over a whopping $180,000 to pay for those baseless filings. They said they had been “perfectly justified” in paying high rates to teams of elite lawyers because Vance had been seeking drastic remedies, including $20 million in damages and the “destruction of all copies” of the song.
Vance’s attorneys responded last week, arguing that Carey’s demand was “simply not reasonable” and that his lawsuit, while unsuccessful, had been a legitimate use of the court system. Saying the award should not exceed $70,000 at the very most, they warned that the full fine could bankrupt an “elderly man” who does not have “vast resources.”
“The plaintiff is elder and living off his music catalog and some touring,” the songwriter’s attorneys wrote. “One artist should not push another artist to the brink of a financial collapse.”
Will the judge aim to deter future bad copyright cases by punishing Vance? Or be swayed by his pleas for mercy? Stay tuned at Billboard in the months ahead to find out.
Other top stories this week…
DIDDY TRIAL LOOMS – With jury selection set to begin next week, a federal judge issued a key pre-trial ruling that an infamous 2016 surveillance video of Sean “Diddy” Combs assaulting his former girlfriend Cassie Ventura in the hallway of a Los Angeles hotel can be played for jurors at his sex trafficking trial. Diddy’s attorneys had argued the clip has been deceptively edited and would “unfairly confuse and mislead the jury”; prosecutors blasted that argument as a “desperate” attempt by Combs to avoid “crushing” evidence of his crimes.
JAY-Z LIBEL SUIT – The star’s unnamed rape accuser and her attorney Tony Buzbee asked a federal judge to dismiss the rapper’s defamation lawsuit against them, arguing they cannot be sued over claims they made as part of a court case. They cited the “fair report privilege” – a legal doctrine that largely immunizes legal proceedings from libel liability. And they said that a headline-grabbing NBC News interview, in which she echoed her claims about Jay-Z, was protected under the same legal logic.
MOVIE BATTLE – 50 Cent filed a lawsuit aimed at blocking the release of an upcoming horror movie called SkillHouse in which he plays the starring role, claiming he never signed a final agreement and had not been paid. The rapper (Curtis Jackson) says he filmed his scenes because he trusted that a deal would eventually be reached, but it never was: “Nevertheless, defendants have billed Jackson as the star and producer of the film [and] have shamelessly and deceptively marketed the film as a ’50 Cent Movie’ and ‘produced by 50 Cent,’ when it is nothing of the sort.”
SHADY SETTLEMENT – Eminem’s publisher reached a settlement to end a copyright lawsuit it filed against a Ford dealership near his hometown of Detroit – a case that claimed the company used the rapper’s “Lose Yourself” in TikTok videos that warned viewers they would “only get one shot” to buy a special edition truck. Eminem doesn’t own Eight Mile Style and was not involved in the lawsuit.
COOKIE INFRINGEMENT – Warner Music Group filed a copyright lawsuit against cookie chain Crumbl, claiming the Utah-based company used more than 159 songs by artists such as Lizzo, Mariah Carey, Ariana Grande and Beyoncé in TikTok and Instagram videos without permission. The case against Crumbl is the latest in a rash of lawsuits accusing commercial brands of using easily-available music in social media ads without the necessary synch licenses – cases that have targeted Marriott, NBA teams, Chili’s, and the University of Southern California.
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: DMX’s estate wins a legal battle with his ex-wife over his music catalog; Nelly’s former St. Lunatics bandmate drops a lawsuit over his debut solo album; Soulja Boy is hit with a $4 million civil verdict for assault and sexual battery; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: DMX Estate Battle
Back in 2016, the late great DMX (Earl Simmons) signed a divorce settlement with his then-wife Tashera Simmons, ending a long marriage that had extended through his turn-of-the-century heyday, as he released Billboard Hot 100 hits like “Party Up (Up In Here).”
Trending on Billboard
Among other provisions, the deal mentioned “intellectual property,” a key marital asset for a chart-topping musician. Tashera says that clause gave her co-ownership of his copyrights and trademarks, but DMX insisted that it only granted her the right to receive royalty payments — an argument his estate has maintained in the years since his 2021 death.
That’s a crucial distinction. Royalties are all well and good, but ownership would give Tashera approval power over the use of DMX’s catalog and name. That would mean an effective veto over potentially lucrative projects, like a biopic about the legendary rapper.
In a ruling last week, a New York judge ruled against Tashera on that question, declaring that DMX’s estate (run by an ex-fiancée and a daughter by another woman) was the “sole owner of all intellectual property rights.” Why that ruling? To find out, go read our full story here, with access to the full decision issued by the judge.
Other top stories this week…
NELLY CASE CLOSED – OR IS IT? – Nelly’s former St. Lunatics bandmate Ali moved to voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit that had accused the rapper of failing to pay him for his alleged work on Nelly’s 2000 debut album Country Grammar. But Nelly’s lawyers quickly opposed the move, arguing that Ali and his lawyers must face sanctions for filing a “ridiculous” case that “should never have been brought.”
SOULJA BOY VERDICT – Following a month-long trial, a Los Angeles jury held Soulja Boy liable for assault, sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress in a civil lawsuit filed by a former personal assistant who claimed that he raped her. Jurors awarded the Jane Doe accuser more than $4 million in damages, and she could win even more in so-called punitive damages in future proceedings.
“PATENTLY FALSE” – Record executive Kevin Liles asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit accusing the 300 Entertainment founder of sexual assault in the early 2000s, arguing there’s zero evidence for the “salacious” allegations because they are “entirely false.” His lawyers argued the allegations — that Liles harassed and sexually assaulted an unnamed female employee while serving as the president of Def Jam Records in 2002 — are both “patently false” and were filed far past the statute of limitations.
LIMITATIONS OF STATUE – Former Migos rapper Quavo (Quavious Marshall) was hit with a copyright lawsuit centered on a recent music video he released on TikTok — not over an uncleared sample or a stolen melody, mind you, but a quartz sculpture of a 1961 Ferrari that he used as a prop. The case, filed by sculptor Daniel Arsham, claimed that Quavo “unlawfully exploited” the piece by rapping in front of it during the December social media video: “Mr. Arsham never consented to the artwork being used in the infringing content.”
KAROL G RULING – A court in Colombia ruled that Karol G’s “+57” violated that country’s laws because its lyrics “sexualized” minors, capping off months of controversy over the track. “Sexualizing minors reduces them to becoming objects of desire, and exposes them to risks that can affect their development,” the court wrote in the ruling. The song, also featuring J Balvin, Maluma, Feid, Blessd, Ryan Castro and DFZM, has faced a barrage of criticism after it originally included a line about a woman being a “mamacita” since she was 14 years old.
AI LEGISLATION – A federal law that would ban unauthorized AI deepfake impersonations, known as the NO FAKES Act, was reintroduced in Congress — only this time with public support from AI powerhouses including OpenAI and YouTube. First introduced last year, the bill would create a federal right of publicity for the first time, allowing individuals to police how their name, image and likeness are used by others, an issue that has become far more pressing as AI video generators make it far easier to create uncanny deepfakes.
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: Young Thug’s Atlanta prosecutors get really mad over a social media post; Diddy’s sex trafficking case heats up as a trial date looms; Mariah Carey seeks payback after beating a “Christmas” copyright case; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: DA Gets Mad About Young Thug’s Tweets
Less than six months after Young Thug pleaded guilty to gang charges and was sentenced to probation, he found himself facing accusations from Atlanta prosecutors that he had violated his release terms. The issue? A mean tweet.
To rewind: After sitting in jail for more than two years on felony accusations over his “YSL” group, Thug rebuffed a plea deal and simply pleaded guilty in October, winning a sentence of only probation — a humiliating result for the Fulton County District Attorney’s office after the longest-running trial in state history had descended into chaos.
Trending on Billboard
While Thug avoided prison, he was hit with strict release terms from the judge, who warned him that “there better be no violations.” And on Wednesday (April 2), prosecutors accused him of just such a misstep — citing a social media post on X (formerly Twitter) in which the rapper had criticized an investigator as “the biggest liar in the DA’s office.” They called that post “a blatant disregard for the law” and part of a “a calculated campaign of intimidation.”
Unsurprisingly, Thug’s attorneys disagreed — calling those accusations “baseless” and arguing that the rapper was legally entitled to voice his opinion about the government even while under probation: “Mr. Williams can admit to all of the allegations alleged and still not have violated any term of his probationary sentence.”
When the dust settled Thursday (April 3), Judge Paige Reese Whitaker sided with Thug and declined to revoke his probation. But she also suggested that he be more careful on social media: “While the court does not find that the cited social media post rises to the level of a violation of defendant’s probation, it may be prudent for defendant to exercise restraint regarding certain topics.”
Other top stories this week…
DIDDY CASE HEATS UP – The sweeping sexual abuse case against Sean “Diddy” Combs heated up with the trial looming next month, first with a new superseding indictment that added new legal charges against the star, and then with news that his ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura would testify against him at the trial using her real name. Prosecutors argued that the other three alleged victims should remain anonymous, though, citing such treatment in previous cases against R. Kelly and Ghislaine Maxwell.
PRE-TRIAL CLASH – Meanwhile, federal prosecutors and Diddy’s defense attorneys sparred over a crucial pre-trial question: Whether jurors can hear testimony from numerous other accusers beyond the four women at the core of the government’s case. His lawyers say the feds are trying to “pollute the trial with decades of dirt” by adding last-minute “incendiary” claims to paint him as a “bad guy”; the government says Combs is “desperately” trying to keep relevant testimony about his other intent and knowledge “hidden from the jury.”
MARIAH’S REVENGE – After beating a copyright lawsuit over her holiday classic “All I Want for Christmas is You,” Mariah Carey and other defendants demanded that Vince Vance, the little-known songwriter who filed the case, repay more than $180,000 they spent on lawyers defending certain “frivolous” motions. That might sound like a lot for just a few motions, but Carey says she was “perfectly justified” in paying elite lawyers because Vance was seeking drastic remedies like $20 million in damages and the “destruction of all copies” of the song.
DRAKE DISCOVERY – A federal judge ruled that Drake could move forward with discovery in his defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” allowing his attorneys to begin demanding documents like Lamar’s record deal. The ruling went against UMG, which had argued that Drake’s case was so flawed that it would likely be quickly dismissed, making discovery a waste of everyone’s time. But discovery in a civil lawsuit is a two-way street — infamously so in defamation cases — and UMG can now also seek vast swathes of sensitive materials about Drake, including demanding to depose the rapper himself.
HAYES v. TRUMP SURVIVES – A federal judge ruled that President Donald Trump must face a copyright lawsuit filed by the estate of Isaac Hayes over the president’s alleged use of the 1966 song “Hold On, I’m Coming” on the campaign trail. The president’s attorneys had argued that Hayes’ estate had failed to show that it even owned a copyright to the song, but a judge said the estate had done just enough to avoid having the case tossed at the outset.
“NOTHING MISLEADING” – SiriusXM asked a federal judge to dismiss a class action claiming the company earns billions by foisting a deceptive “U.S. Music Royalty Fee” onto subscribers, arguing there had been “nothing misleading” about its pricing and marketing. The lawsuit claims the fee makes the service far more expensive than advertised, but SiriusXM argued that users “received what they paid for” and knew about the fee: “Sirius XM has done exactly what it said it would do: charge a monthly price for music subscriptions, plus ‘fees and taxes’.”
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: Dua Lipa shuts down a copyright lawsuit over her smash hit “Levitating”; Tony Bennett’s daughters sue their brother over the late singer’s estate; Latin music exec Angel Del Villar is convicted of working with a promoter with links to Mexican cartels; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Dua Lipa Levitates Out of Another Lawsuit
Back in March 2022, Dua Lipa was sued for copyright infringement twice in just four days over “Levitating,” her breakout hit that spent 77 weeks on the Billboard Hot 100. But three years later, both cases are now dead and gone.
Trending on Billboard
In a decision issued last week, a federal judge granted Lipa summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by songwriters L. Russell Brown and Sandy Linzer, who accused the superstar of ripping off their 1979 song “Wiggle and Giggle All Night” and their 1980 song “Don Diablo.”
The complaint cheekily claimed that Lipa “levitated away plaintiffs’ intellectual property,” but Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled that there was essentially no IP to steal — that the songs shared only the kind of basic musical building blocks that are not covered by federal copyright law.
“It is possible that a ‘layperson’ could listen to portions of plaintiffs’ and defendants’ songs and hear similarities,” the judge wrote in her decision. “But … the similarity between the works concerns only non-copyrightable elements of the plaintiffs’ work.”
The other lawsuit against Lipa — filed by a Florida reggae band named Artikal Sound System over their 2015 track “Live Your Life” — was voluntarily dropped in 2023 after another judge ruled in her favor that there was no sign that anyone involved in creating “Levitating” had had “access” to the earlier song — a key requirement in any copyright lawsuit.
As we wrote back in 2022, it seems you’re not truly a pop star until you’ve been sued for copyright infringement a few times; just ask Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran or Katy Perry. Now, Lipa can truly join that distinguished group — as someone who has not just faced such cases, but fought back and won.
Other top stories this week…
FAMILY FEUD – Tony Bennett’s daughters (Antonia and Johanna Bennett) expanded their legal battle against their older brother (D’Andrea “Danny” Bennett), claiming in a new lawsuit that he has “abused” his power over the late singer’s affairs to “enrich himself.” Echoing an earlier case, the sisters accused Danny of “improper and unlawful conduct” both before and after the legendary singer’s 2023 death, including “excessive and unearned commissions” and giving “gifts to himself and his children.” Danny’s lawyers have called such accusations “baseless” and argued he was “fully authorized to take the steps he took.”
GUILTY VERDICT – Latin music executive Angel Del Villar was convicted by a federal jury on felony charges of doing business with a concert promoter linked to Mexican drug cartels, setting the stage for a potential decades-long prison sentence for the Del Records CEO. Prosecutors alleged Del Villar had repeatedly arranged concerts with Jesus Pérez Alvear, a Guadalajara-based promoter subject to federal sanctions for helping cartels “exploit the Mexican music industry to launder drug proceeds and glorify their criminal activities.” Del Villar’s attorneys vowed to appeal the verdict, saying the jury “got it wrong.”
AI RULING – A federal judge issued a ruling denying Universal Music Group’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have immediately blocked artificial intelligence company Anthropic PBC from using copyrighted lyrics to train future AI models. The judge said that it remained an “open question” whether using copyrighted materials to train AI is illegal — something of a trillion-dollar question for the booming industry — meaning UMG and other music companies could not show that they faced the kind of “irreparable harm” necessary to win such a drastic remedy.
SAMPLING SPAT – Ye (formerly Kanye West) was hit with a copyright lawsuit claiming he sampled a song by German singer-songwriter Alice Merton despite her express refusal to license it to him because of his history of antisemitic statements. Merton said she’s the direct descendant of Holocaust survivors and that being involuntarily associated with the controversial rapper left her “shocked and humiliated.” The case is the latest of at least a dozen lawsuits West has faced over his career over allegations of unlicensed sampling or interpolating.
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: Miley Cyrus can’t escape a copyright lawsuit claiming she stole her “Flowers” from a Bruno Mars song; more drama in Drake’s lawsuit against UMG over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us”; Mariah Carey wins a copyright lawsuit over “All I Want For Christmas Is You”; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Miley Can’t Wreck “Flowers” Copyright Case
When Miley Cyrus was sued last year, accused of ripping off her chart-topping “Flowers” from the Bruno Mars song “When I Was Your Man,” it wasn’t Mars or any of the song’s co-writers who filed the case. Instead, it was a financial entity called Tempo Music Investments, which had bought out the rights of co-writer Philip Lawrence.
Trending on Billboard
Does that matter? Miley’s attorneys certainly thought it did, arguing in a motion to dismiss that it represented a “fatal and incurable defect” in the lawsuit. But in a ruling this week, a federal judge rejected that argument, calling it “incorrect” and a “misunderstanding” of legal precedent.
In doing so, the judge warned that restricting entities that buy partial copyrights from enforcing them in court — a major issue in the music industry after a years-long catalog acquisition bonanza — would be a radical shift in the legal landscape with major economic consequences.
“Such a limitation would diminish the value of jointly owned copyrights, because buyers would be less interested in purchasing a copyright that they cannot enforce, thereby disincentivizing co‐authorship and collaboration in works,” the judge wrote. “This would undermine Congress’s intent.”
For more on the ruling, go read our entire story here, including the full ruling issued last week.
Other top stories this week…
MORE DRAKE v. UNIVERSAL – UMG asked a judge to halt all discovery in Drake’s defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” arguing that he was unfairly demanding “highly commercially sensitive documents” — including Lamar’s record deal. The star’s lawyers fired back just days later, arguing discovery should continue because they would likely win the case, noting that “millions of people” around the world think Kendrick was literally calling Drake a pedophile.
CHRISTMAS CAME EARLY – A federal judge dismissed a copyright lawsuit against Mariah Carey that accused her of stealing key elements of her perennial holiday classic “All I Want for Christmas is You” from a little-known 1989 song of the same name by an artist named Vince Vance. In doing so, the judge endorsed reports by musicologists who said the two tracks were “very different songs” that shared only “commonplace Christmas song clichés” that had been used in many earlier tracks.
LIMP LITIGATION – A federal judge shook up Limp Bizkit’s $200 million lawsuit against UMG, sending much of the contentious legal battle to state court but reviving some of its key accusations. In an earlier ruling, the judge had outright rejected the band’s “rescission” demand seeking to void its contracts with the music giant; in the new decision, the judge left that question open for a future ruling by a state court. The ruling means that the band’s copyright infringement allegations, which carry the potential for a large damages award, are also back in play.
LIVE NATION SETTLEMENT – The concert giant agreed to pay $20 million to settle a lawsuit claiming it failed to warn investors about the kind of anticompetitive behavior that ultimately led to the Justice Department’s sweeping antitrust case. Plaintiffs’ lawyers say the deal provides a “fair, reasonable, and adequate result” from the lawsuit, which claimed Live Nation saddled shareholders with significant losses because it didn’t disclose the “regulatory risks it was currently facing” before news of the big antitrust case was made public.
DIDDY DECISION – A federal judge dismissed racketeering accusations and other claims against Sean “Diddy” Combs in a civil lawsuit filed by former collaborator Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones, ruling that the music producer failed to meet the legal requirements to sue under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. But the judge also allowed other parts of Jones’ sexual abuse lawsuit to move forward, including claims that Combs sexually assaulted him.
BUZBEE WITHDRAWAL – Elsewhere in the world of Diddy, attorney Tony Buzbee withdrew from 15 abuse lawsuits in New York federal court, two days after telling a judge he had “made an error in judgment” by failing to disclose that he was not admitted to practice law in that court. Buzbee, who has filed more than 20 Combs cases and fought an acrimonious battle with Jay-Z, said his admission problems had “become a distraction” from the allegations in his cases.
DERULO TRIAL AHEAD – A federal judge ruled that Jason Derulo must face a jury trial over allegations that he improperly failed to credit or pay a co-writer named Matthew Spatola on the chart-topping hit “Savage Love.” Seeking to dismiss the case, Derulo had argued that Spatola didn’t deserve a stake in the copyright just because he was present for a few studio sessions, but the judge said jurors might see things differently. A trial is tentatively scheduled for May.
CASE DISMISSED – Showtime won a ruling dismissing a lawsuit by a woman who claimed George & Tammy — a TV series about country music legends George Jones and Tammy Wynette — unfairly turned her late husband George Richey, who was previously married to Wynette, into “the villain.” The show might have been “unflattering” to him, the judge said, but the accuser didn’t meet the legal requirements for her to sue Showtime for unjust enrichment: “Normally, a plaintiff who cries unjust enrichment must have actually enriched somebody,” the judge wrote.
EMINEM LEAK CHARGES – Federal prosecutors charged Joseph Strange, a longtime former employee of Eminem, with criminal copyright infringement over allegations he leaked the rapper’s unreleased music on the internet. In charging documents, the feds said Strange played or distributed over 25 songs online without Eminem’s or his label’s consent: “The significant damage caused by a trusted employee to Eminem’s artistic legacy and creative integrity cannot be overstated,” the rapper’s spokesman said.
“MAFIA-LIKE ORGANIZATION” – Eugene “Big U” Henley Jr., who helped launch the late Nipsey Hussle‘s career, was hit with a federal criminal case that claims he ran the Rollin’ 60s Neighborhood Crips as a “mafia-like” group despite outwardly posing as an anti-gang activist and music executive. Among other allegations, the feds say Henley was responsible for the murder of a 21-year-old aspiring rapper who was signed to his Uneek Music label.
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: Universal Music Group asks a judge to dismiss Drake’s defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us”; Live Nation loses an early battle in the Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit; Karol G is accused of copyright infringement over a song from her chart-topping album Mañana Será Bonito; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: “A Misguided Attempt To Salve His Wounds”
In its first court response to Drake’s defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” the world’s biggest music company didn’t exactly hold back.
Trending on Billboard
Universal Music Group filed a scathing motion seeking to dismiss the libel case this week – not only arguing that it was “meritless,” but also ridiculing Drake for filing it in the first place.
“Plaintiff, one of the most successful recording artists of all time, lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated,” UMG’s lawyers wrote. “Instead of accepting the loss like the unbothered rap artist he often claims to be, he has sued his own record label in a misguided attempt to salve his wounds.”
Twisting the knife further, the label cited a 2022 petition in which Drake and other stars demanded that prosecutors stop citing rap lyrics as evidence in criminal trials: “Drake was right then and is wrong now. The complaint’s unjustified claims against UMG are no more than Drake’s attempt to save face for his unsuccessful rap battle with Lamar.”
For more, go read the full story here, which includes access to the actual motion filed in court by UMG.
Other top stories this week…
LIVE NATION RULING – A federal judge ruled that the Justice Department can move ahead with a key allegation in its antitrust case against Live Nation: That the company illegally forces artists to use its promotion services if they want to perform in its massive network of amphitheaters. The ruling denied Live Nation’s bid to dismiss that claim, known as “tying” in antitrust law parlance, at the outset of the government’s sweeping monopoly case.
KAROL G LAWSUIT – Two producers filed a copyright lawsuit against Karol G and UMG over accusations that a track called “Gatúbela,” from the Colombian superstar’s chart-topping album Mañana Será Bonito, stole key elements from their earlier song called “Punto G.” In an unusual twist, the plaintiffs claim that one of Karol G’s producers tacitly admitted the charge in an exchange on social media.
OFFSET SUES PRODUCER – The former Migos member launched a lawsuit against ChaseTheMoney, a producer who worked on his 2023 album Set It Off, claiming the one-time collaborator has been demanding a large increase in fees and royalties long after the deal was done. The case is a “declaratory judgment” lawsuit, meaning Offset is preemptively seeking a court ruling that the original contract with Chase was valid and that he did nothing wrong by sticking to it.
SONY MUSIC v. USC – Sony Music sued the University of Southern California (USC) for more than $25 million over claims that the college sports powerhouse illegally used songs by Michael Jackson, Beyonce and AC/DC in TikTok and Instagram videos hyping its teams. The lawsuit, which claims USC was warned multiple times over several years, is the latest in a string of copyright cases filed against brands that use the vast music libraries provided by social media platforms for what rightsholders say are simply digital advertisements.
CLINTON CLASH – George Clinton filed a lawsuit over allegations that his one-time business partner, Armen Boladian, fraudulently obtained the rights to the vast majority of the funk pioneer’s music catalog. The case, which accuses Boladian and his Bridgeport Music of “abusive, deceptive, and fraudulent practices,” is only the latest time the music legend and his former agent have sparred in court. Boladian’s attorneys told Billboard that Clinton has “lost each and every time” and that they would quickly seek to dismiss the latest case.
DIDDY VIDEO – Attorneys for Sean “Diddy” Combs’ alleged in court filings that CNN “substantially altered” and then destroyed the infamous 2016 surveillance video of him assaulting his former girlfriend Cassie Ventura. CNN quickly responded by flatly denying the charge, saying it “never altered the video and did not destroy the original copy of the footage.” Prosecutors later reportedly revealed at a hearing that they have a recording of the original surveillance footage.
DEFAMATION DISMISSED – A federal judge dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by Diana Copeland, a former assistant to R. Kelly, against Netflix and Lifetime over how she was portrayed in the documentary “Surviving R. Kelly.” The judge ruled that Copeland had failed to clear the “high bar” for filing libel cases over newsworthy subjects: “The First Amendment demands ‘adequate breathing space’ for the free flow of ideas, especially about public figures on matters of public controversy.”
CASE CLOSED – The rapper Plies dropped a copyright lawsuit he’d filed against Megan Thee Stallion, GloRilla, Cardi B and Souja Boy over accusations that the 2024 song “Wanna Be” featured an uncleared sample. Filed last year, the case claimed that Megan and GloRilla stole Plies’ material indirectly by legally sampling a Soulja Boy song – a track that the lawsuit alleged had itself illegally used material from his 2008 track “Me & My Goons.”
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: Daddy Yankee sues his ex-wife for $250 million; Jay-Z’s dispute with his former accuser and her lawyer goes on; prosecutors say Taylor Swift tickets were stolen and resold by hackers; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Daddy Yankee Goes Back To Court
Daddy Yankee’s legal war with ex-wife Mireddys González isn’t over yet.
The pair finalized their divorce last month, but in a lawsuit filed last week in Puerto Rico, the reggaetón superstar (Ramón Luis Ayala Rodríguez) accused her and her sister Ayeicha González Castellanos of mismanaging two of his companies to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Trending on Billboard
“Mireddys and Ayeicha … proceeded to concentrate in themselves a greater power than authorized and, together, made negligent and selfish decisions that were detrimental to both the companies and [Daddy Yankee] in his personal capacity and as an artist,” the star’s lawyers wrote.
The lawsuit follows, and often echoes, the allegations Yankee made in December when he sought an injunction against González – namely that the two women had withdrawn $100 million from his companies’ bank accounts without authorization. Now, Yankee claims that after regaining control of the companies, his team discovered many new irregularities, including the “disappearance” of key records.
For all the details, go read the full story from Billboard’s Griselda Flores.
Other top stories this week…
FIGHT GOES ON – Jay-Z’s rape accuser is standing by her story, according to court documents filed last week — directly contradicting a recent lawsuit in which the superstar claimed the woman had admitted to fabricating the allegations. Later in the week, the star’s lawyers filed sworn statements from private investigators to whom the accuser allegedly recanted, and suggested that she and her lawyer should sit for depositions.
HACKED TICKETS – Members of a “cybercrime crew” stole more than 900 tickets to the Taylor Swift Eras Tour and other events and then resold them for more $635,000 in illegal profit, according to charges handed down by New York prosecutors. The tour, which wrapped in December with a record-shattering haul of more than $2 billion in face-value ticket sales over a two-year run, spawned an infamously pricy resale market – something the accused fraudsters were allegedly able to exploit.
“FLOWERS” UPDATE – Miley Cyrus seems unlikely to immediately escape a copyright lawsuit filed over allegations that her Grammy-winning “Flowers” infringed the Bruno Mars song “When I Was Your Man.” At a court hearing, a Los Angeles federal judge indicated that would likely deny a motion to dismiss the case filed last year by attorneys for Cyrus.
SHEERAN CASE AT SCOTUS – The legal battle over whether Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” infringed Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On” has reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In a petition for certiorari filed last week, a company that owns a stake in the rights to Gaye’s 1973 song urged the justices to overturn a November ruling by a lower appeals court that rejected the lawsuit, arguing that “the rights of thousands of legacy musical composers and artists” were at stake in the case.
ANTITRUST SHOWDOWN – A lyrics service called LyricFind filed an antitrust lawsuit against Musixmatch, claiming that the larger rival has reached an exclusive licensing deal with Warner Music Group (WMG) that’s “unprecedented in the music industry” and is aimed at securing an illegal monopoly for providing lyrics to streamers like Spotify.
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: Jay-Z goes on the legal offensive to clear his name of rape allegations, Drake’s lawyers cite Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl show in legal filings, Cardi B wins a re-payment plan from a bankrupt gossip blogger and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Jay-Z Strikes Back
When an unnamed woman accused Jay-Z in December of taking part in one of Sean “Diddy” Combs’ alleged sexual assaults, it was a shocking expansion of the already-sprawling claims against the hip-hop mogul — made all the more explosive by the claim that she was only 13 years old at the time.
But less than three months later, the case against Hov has already been dropped without explanation and without a settlement — and now the superstar is filing his own case aimed at fully clearing his name.
Trending on Billboard
In a lawsuit filed in Alabama federal court, he accused the Jane Doe plaintiff and her lawyer, Tony Buzbee, of carrying out an “evil conspiracy” to extort a settlement from him by leveling the “false and malicious” allegations of rape. Notably, the new lawsuit said the Doe accuser had “voluntarily admitted” directly to Jay-Z’s team that the star did not assault her and that Buzbee “pushed” her to make those allegations.
“Mr. Carter does not commence this action lightly,” his lawyers wrote. “But the extortion and abuse of Mr. Carter by Doe and her lawyers must stop.”
Go read the full story here, including access to the actual lawsuit Jay-Z’s attorneys filed in court.
Other top stories this week…
THAT DIDN’T TAKE LONG – Just two weeks after Kendrick Lamar’s blistering Super Bowl performance, Drake’s attorneys called out the halftime show in court documents filed in their defamation lawsuit against UMG over Lamar’s “Not Like Us.” The star’s lawyers cited the show as evidence of the ongoing harm that Drake is “continuing to suffer” while the case is delayed in court. And it paid off: Following Drake’s filing, the federal judge overseeing the case sided with the rapper and refused to let UMG postpone an initial hearing.
DEFAMATION DEBT – Gossip blogger Tasha K agreed in bankruptcy court to pay Cardi B more than $1 million in small installments over the next five years — a plan necessary to start paying down a $3.9 million defamation judgment Cardi won against her for making outlandish claims about drug use, STDs and prostitution. Under the terms of the deal, Tasha will still owe the rest of the damages award even after she finishes the repayment plan, and she is barred from “derogatory, disparaging, or defamatory statements” about the superstar while the plan is in effect.
LILES ABUSE LAWSUIT – Kevin Liles was hit with a lawsuit alleging the 300 Entertainment CEO sexually harassed and raped an unnamed executive assistant while serving as the general manager of Def Jam Recordings in the early 2000s. Liles immediately denied the “outrageous claims,” vowing to “fully clear my name” and file a defamation lawsuit against the accuser and her attorneys.
GRACELAND SCAMMER – A Missouri woman named Lisa Jeanine Findley pleaded guilty to a bizarre plot to defraud Elvis Presley’s family by trying to auction off his Graceland mansion. According to prosecutors, Findley falsely claimed that Presley’s daughter had pledged the home as collateral for a loan before her death; Findley then threatened to sell Graceland to the highest bidder if Presley’s family didn’t pay $2.85 million. Following her guilty plea, Findley is scheduled to be sentenced on June 18 and faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
DRAKE DROPS IHEART – Drake and iHeartMedia reached a settlement to end a legal action claiming iHeart received illegal payments from UMG to boost radio airplay for Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” — a preliminary action that Drake filed last fall in the lead up to his defamation lawsuit against UMG. In a statement to Billboard, the radio giant said it had agreed to provide Drake’s attorneys with documents showing that iHeart had done nothing wrong and that no payments had been made by either party.
ROCKY NOT CLEAR YET – Just over a week after A$AP Rocky was acquitted on criminal charges that he shot former friend A$AP Relli, a Los Angeles judge lifted a hold on Relli’s civil lawsuit against Rocky. As reported by Rolling Stone, Rocky’s lawyer argued at a hearing that “there’s no longer a basis” for the case following the not guilty verdict, but Relli’s lawyer vowed to proceed: “The standard in a criminal case is much higher than … in a civil matter. We still believe that our claims have merit, and we intend on fully litigating them.”
THUG TOURING SETTLEMENT – Young Thug and concert giant AEG quietly settled a multi-million dollar legal battle over a touring partnership gone sour. The lawsuit, first filed in 2020 but delayed for years by Thug’s high-profile criminal case, claimed that the star owed more than $5 million under a 2017 touring agreement — and that he was obligated to hand over some of his music rights to pay down that debt. The settlement came as Thug is gearing up to start performing in concert again for the first time since he took a plea deal to end the years-long criminal drama in Atlanta.