The Legal Beat
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.
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: Kendrick Lamar plays “Not Like Us” during his Super Bowl halftime show despite Drake’s defamation lawsuit; an appeals court sends a case over Jimi Hendrix’s music to trial; the estate of Notorious B.I.G. sues over a famed photo; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Say, Drake…
If a team of lawyers tried to dissuade Kendrick Lamar from performing “Not Like Us” during Sunday night’s Super Bowl halftime show, they didn’t do a great job.
Trending on Billboard
After much speculation about whether or not the rapper would play his chart-topping, Grammy-sweeping hit at the Superdome – a performance that came weeks after Drake sued Universal Music Group over allegations that the song defamed him by calling him a pedophile — Kendrick really didn’t hold back much.
With a trolling grin, he looked directly into camera and made eye contact with 120 million viewers when he rapped “Say, Drake, I hear you like ’em young” – a lyric he then followed up with lines like “You better not ever go to cell block one” and “Just make sure you hide your lil’ sister from him.” If anyone was expecting him to avoid the controversy entirely, think again.
Lamar did avoid saying the actual word “pedophile,” but that hardly made a difference when thousands in the crowd sang it for him — and millions more at home knew exactly what was missing. And no such omission spared Drake from the song’s comedic punchline: “Tryna strike a chord and it’s probably A minnnnorrrrr.”
The very structure of Kendrick’s set seemed designed to mock the idea that a lawsuit might stop him. Early in the show, he explicitly referenced the case, saying “I wanna do their favorite song, but they love to sue” before teasing the song’s infectious four-note riff. When Lamar quickly moved on to another song, it seemed like he wanted the fans to think that might be it. Maybe it was a happy compromise? A quick nod that wouldn’t give the lawyers heartburn?
Lol, nope: Minutes later, Kendrick launched into a full-blown rendition of “Not Like Us” on the world’s biggest stage. “They tried to rig the game,” he said right before he started, “but you can’t fake influence.” For good measure, Lamar brought out Serena Williams – rumored to be a one-time romantic partner of Drake – to crip walk on his metaphorical grave.
What does it all mean for the lawsuit? For Kendrick, probably not much. Don’t forget: he isn’t actually named as a defendant, and Drake’s lawyers have taken great pains to stress that their client is only suing a malevolent record label that boosted a defamatory song, not the rival rapper who created it: “UMG may spin this complaint as a rap beef gone legal,” they wrote in the original complaint, “but this lawsuit is not about a war of words between artists.”That stance doesn’t appear to be changing. Just hours before Kendrick took the stage in New Orleans, Drake’s lawyers released a new statement on the case that harshly attacked UMG – but they never mentioned the man himself. It would be hard to reverse course now, even after that stare into the camera.
Perhaps Drake’s legal team will try to add Fox or the NFL or even Apple (the show’s sponsor) as defendants, claiming they gave Kendrick a platform to republish lyrics they knew were defamatory. Or maybe they’ll cite the performance as more ammo against UMG — the latest example of how the popularity of the “Not Like Us” is harming Drake’s reputation. As CNN wrote after the game, in which the Philadelphia Eagles thrashed the Kansas City Chiefs: “Drake lost worse than the Chiefs at the Super Bowl.”
At the end of the day, those secondary moves won’t matter much unless a federal judge eventually rules that “Not Like Us” is actually defamatory in the first place. And as I wrote last week, legal experts are skeptical that’s going to happen.
Stay tuned at Billboard for more as Drake’s case moves forward – we’ll keep you updated on any major (or minnnnorrrrr) developments.
Other top stories this week…
JIMI HENDRIX TRIAL – A long-running legal battle over the rights to Jimi Hendrix’s music is headed to trial after a U.K. appeals court ruled against Sony Music. The case was filed by the estates of his two Jimi Hendrix Experience bandmates (bassist Noel Redding and drummer Mitch Mitchell), who say they own part of the copyrights to the trio’s albums and that Sony owes them millions. After the appeals court refused Sony’s renewed bid to dismiss the case, a trial is tentatively set for December in London.
BIGGIE BIGGIE BIGGIE – The estate of legendary rapper Notorious B.I.G. filed an infringement lawsuit against Target, Home Depot and others over allegations that they sold unauthorized canvas prints of a famed photo called the “King of New York.” Joined by the photographer who snapped the image, the estate accused a company called iCanvas of showing a “disdain for intellectual property law” by creating the prints sold by the big box stores: “Defendants specifically chose to use Mr. Wallace’s persona, name, image, likeness … in an attempt to capitalize on their fame and extraordinary financial value.”
A “WILD” COPYCAT? – MTV owner Viacom filed a lawsuit claiming that Nick Cannon’s new comedy battle rap game show (Bad vs. Wild) is a “flagrant” copycat of his long-running series Wild ’N Out. Notably, the lawsuit targeted only the streaming service that produces the show, Zeus Network, and not Cannon himself – claiming that the streamer effectively poached the star and is now “cosplaying” as successor to MTV’s Wild: “Zeus has chosen the path of least resistance: stealing the fruits of Viacom’s goodwill and decades of labor and innovation, and pawning it off as its own original idea.”
SUCH A LOVELY MESS – A year after the spectacular implosion of a criminal trial over the Eagles legendary 1976 album Hotel California, one of the accused men filed a civil lawsuit against Don Henley and longtime manager Irving Azoff over accusations they engaged in a “malicious prosecution.” The new case, filed by rare-books dealer Glenn Horowitz, says Henley knew the handwritten notes at the center of the trial were not stolen but misled authorities into bringing the charges. The trial ended abruptly last spring after new evidence cast doubt on whether Henley’s materials were stolen in the first place, prompting a judge to suggest prosecutors had been “manipulated” into filing the case.
MEGAN THEE PLAINTIFF – A federal judge ruled that Megan Thee Stallion can proceed with a defamation lawsuit accusing social media personality Milagro Gramz of waging a “campaign of harassment” against the star on behalf of Tory Lanez, who was convicted in 2022 of shooting the star rapper during an argument. The judge said Megan had made a “compelling case” that the blogger had defamed her with her posts, including those that suggested the star lied in her testimony during Lanez’s trial: “Plaintiff’s claims extend far beyond mere negligence — they paint a picture of an intentional campaign to destroy her reputation.”
OZZY SUED OVER OZZY PIC – Ozzy Osbourne was hit with a copyright lawsuit for allegedly posting images of himself to Instagram and other social media platforms, filed by a veteran rock photographer who snapped the pictures. The legendary rocker is just the latest to celeb to face that kind of bizarre-sounding lawsuit, joining the ranks of Miley Cyrus, Dua Lipa, Justin Bieber and many others. Once again for those in the back: the copyrights to a photo are almost always retained by the person who took it, and simply appearing in an image does not give a celebrity the right to repost it.
POP SMOKE PLEA DEAL – Corey Walker, a man charged with murder over the killing of Pop Smoke (Bashar Jackson), reached a deal with prosecutors to avoid a looming trial, pleading guilty to lesser charges of voluntary manslaughter and home invasion robbery that will see him serve 29 years in prison. The actual triggerman in the 2020 shooting, an unnamed 15 year old, admitted to the killing in 2023 and was sentenced as a juvenile to detention until is 25.
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: Experts weigh whether Kendrick Lamar can play “Not Like Us” during his Super Bowl halftime show amid Drake’s defamation lawsuit; Spotify wins a ruling dismissing a lawsuit over streaming royalties; federal prosecutors file a superseding indictment against Sean “Diddy” Combs; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Can Kendrick Play ‘Not Like Us’ At The Super Bowl?
Under normal circumstances, it’s silly to even ask the question. Obviously a Super Bowl halftime performer will play their chart-topping banger — a track that just swept record and song of the year at the Grammys and was arguably music’s most significant song of the past year.
Trending on Billboard
But these are very much not normal circumstances. Last month, Drake sued Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar‘s “Not Like Us,” claiming the label spread the song’s “malicious narrative” — namely, that Drake is a pedophile — despite knowing it was false.
That pending legal action makes it fair to wonder: When Lamar steps onto the world’s biggest stage on Sunday night, will he face pressure to avoid the whole mess by just skipping “Not Like Us” entirely?
To answer that question, I turned to top legal experts – who told me that Drake probably won’t win in court, but that corporate legal departments are also famously risk averse and might want to avoid trouble. For the full breakdown of how Sunday might go, read my entire story here.
Other top stories this week…
SPOTIFY BEATS ‘BUNDLE’ CASE – A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed against Spotify by the Mechanical Licensing Collective, rejecting the group’s allegations that the streamer illegally slashed its music royalty rates. The lawsuit, filed last year, accused Spotify of bookmaking trickery – namely, claiming that the addition of audiobooks to the platform entitled the company to pay a lower “bundled” rate for music. But in her ruling, the judge said Spotify had done nothing wrong under “unambiguous” regulations – and that if anything, the company had paid too much in royalties.
A.I. COPYRIGHT REPORT – The U.S. Copyright Office issued a long-awaited report on artificial intelligence. The report’s overall message was hardly groundbreaking: only human authors are eligible for copyrights, but material created with the assistance of AI can qualify on a case-by-case basis. But it included key assurances for existing music industry practices — saying using AI as a “brainstorming tool” to help write a song, or using it to assist in a recording studio session, would not automatically void copyright protection for the resulting songs.
TERMINATION GOES GLOBAL? A Louisiana federal judge issued an unusual legal decision on copyright termination, breaking with existing precedents and handing a major win to songwriters and their heirs. Ruling on a dispute over the 1963 rock classic “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love),” the judge said that termination rules apply not just to American copyrights but also to the rights to a song around the world – an outcome that legal experts have said would represent a “major upheaval” and could “radically revolutionize the way the music business runs.” The losing party in the case, who has warned the decision will cause “chaos,” is almost certain to appeal the ruling.
LYFT DISCRIMINATION CASE – A Detroit rapper named Dank Demoss (Dajua Blanding) filed a discrimination lawsuit against Lyft over allegations that one of the company’s drivers told her she was “too big” for the backseat of his car and that “his tires were not capable of supporting plaintiff’s weight.” In a viral video of the January incident, the driver can be heard telling Blanding that he’s “been in this situation before,” and that she needs to order a pricier “Uber XL” to accommodate her size.
UPDATED DIDDY INDICTMENT – New York federal prosecutors filed a superseding indictment against Sean “Diddy” Combs, adding additional victims and new allegations in the sprawling criminal case against him. Among the new claims: that he or his associates paid a $100,000 bribe to hotel staff to bury the now-infamous surveillance video of him assaulting his ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura in 2016. Another civil lawsuit was also filed against Combs, the latest in a long list of such cases filed by Texas attorney Tony Buzbee.
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: Limp Bizkit suffers a setback in its $200 million lawsuit against Universal Music Group; A$AP Rocky’s assault trial kicks off in Los Angeles; a deep-dive into the legal teams representing Drake and UMG in their legal battle over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Limp Bizkit’s UMG Lawsuit Hits A Snag
A lawsuit from Limp Bizkit says Universal Music Group (UMG) used “systemic” and “fraudulent” policies to deprive the band of millions in royalties. But a judge ruled last week that there was a big legal flaw in the blockbuster case.
Trending on Billboard
The lawsuit, filed last year and seeking $200 million in damages, claims that frontman Fred Durst and the band have “not seen a dime in royalties” due to “fraudulent” policies by UMG. The lawsuit argued the label’s conduct was so egregious that the band was entitled to “rescission” — a legal term for a ruling that would void its entire decades-long deal with UMG.
Rescission is not Limp Bizkit’s only legal angle, but it’s crucial to the band’s case. Without it, the group can’t pursue its separate allegations of copyright infringement — claims that would carry a huge damages award if proven. Such a claim could only succeed if the band’s contracts are voided and it legally regains its ownership of the copyrights.
It turns out Friday (Jan. 24) was just one of those days. In a ruling on UMG’s motion to dismiss the case, Judge Percy Anderson rejected the rescission claim — noting that, despite the band’s claim to have never been paid, it had in fact been “paid millions in advances” and that UMG had fronted “substantial sums” to produce its albums.
“Plaintiffs seek rescission of contracts that have governed the parties’ relationship beginning in 1996 — nearly 30 years — [but] plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged the type of ‘substantial’ or ‘total failure’ in the performance of the contracts that could support rescission,” the judge wrote.
The ruling isn’t a total defeat. Judge Anderson didn’t reach conclusions on many of the lawsuit’s other legal claims, including fraudulent concealment and intentional misrepresentation, and gave Limp Bizkit’s lawyers a chance to fix the rescission claim. But the judge’s wording suggested he will be skeptical of revoking a contract when “millions in royalties were advanced and paid under decades-old agreements.”
Following Friday’s decision, Limp Bizkit has until early next month to refile an amended version of the lawsuit. We’ll keep you posted at Billboard when they do so.
Other top stories this week…
A$AP SHOOTING TRIAL – A criminal trial in Los Angeles kicked off for rapper A$AP Rocky over accusations that he fired a gun at former friend A$AP Relli on a Hollywood street in 2021. The star (Rakim Meyers), charged with two felony counts of assault with a firearm, faces 24 years in prison if convicted after turning down a plea deal for just 180 days in county jail. In opening statements, prosecutors told jurors Rocky fired a 9mm pistol and revealed that they had recovered a loaded magazine from such a gun during a search of his home. Defense attorneys responded by arguing that Rocky carried only a “prop gun” and had fired it as a warning to “scare” Relli because he was attacking another A$AP crew member. Stay tuned: Rihanna, Rocky’s wife, is expected to appear in court on Wednesday (Jan. 29).
LAWYER UP – With Drake’s lawsuit against UMG over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us” still in the earliest stages, I wrote a deep-dive on the high-powered legal teams each side has hired. For Drake, that meant turning to a veteran litigator who has made a name for himself representing the alleged victims of conspiracy theories on the internet. For UMG, it meant hiring one of the biggest law firms in the world — and one that the music giant has repeatedly used in major cases over the years.
MICHAEL MOVIE DELAY – An upcoming Michael Jackson biopic has been delayed for months due to a recently revealed, decades-old legal agreement that will require costly re-shoots of key scenes. First reported last week by the news site Puck, the agreement barred any portrayal of the family of Jordan Chandler, a then-13-year-old boy who accused the superstar singer of molestation in the 1990s — but the movie featured the family prominently anyway. A source with knowledge of the film’s production told Billboard that re-shoots are already scheduled and that the movie’s ultimate release — now scheduled for October — is not in jeopardy.
THERE GOES GRAVITY – Eight Mile Style, the publishing company that owns the copyrights to Eminem’s “Lose Yourself,” filed an infringement lawsuit against a Ford dealership near the rapper’s native Detroit, accusing the company of using the iconic track in TikTok videos that warned viewers they “only get one shot” to buy a special edition truck. The case is just the latest over social media videos allegedly featuring uncleared music — a problem that has recently led to litigation against Chili’s, Marriott and a slew of NBA teams.
SPEIDI SUIT – Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag joined more than 20 other property owners in suing the city of Los Angeles over the recent devastating fires in Southern California. Attorneys for Montag — whose 2010 album recently re-charted after going viral — claim the city’s decision to “drain” a local reservoir left firefighters without enough water to battle the blaze effectively.
CHRIS BROWN SUES – The R&B star filed a defamation case against Warner Bros. Discovery over a 2024 documentary claiming he had a long history of sexually abusing women. Brown’s attorneys say Warner’s ID network released the movie in “their pursuit of likes, clicks, downloads and dollars” even though they knew it contained false and damaging claims about him: “They did so after being provided proof that their information was false.”
ROCK & ROLL FAIR USE – The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame asked a federal judge to dismiss a copyright lawsuit over an image of Eddie Van Halen snapped by Neil Zlozower, a prolific rock photographer who has filed dozens of such cases in recent years. In seeking to toss the case, the Rock Hall argued that it made legal “fair use” of the Van Halen pic, saying it was part of a museum exhibit designed to “educate the public about the history of rock and roll music.”
MANSON NOT CHARGED – Los Angeles prosecutors announced that Marilyn Manson (Brian Warner) won’t face criminal charges following a four-year investigation into allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault. The city’s newly-elected DA praised the “courage and resilience of the women who came forward,” but said that the statute of limitations had expired for any domestic violence charges against the rocker and that his office simply could not prove a sexual assault charge in court.
“BRAZEN THIEVERY” – Independent label and publisher Artist Partner Group (APG) filed a copyright lawsuit against Create Music Group, claiming that the digital distributor uploaded and monetized songs on YouTube that it didn’t actually own. “Create’s ‘business model’ is to steal the intellectual property and contractual rights of innocent rightsholders,” APG’s attorneys wrote.
DIDDY DEFAMATION – Sean “Diddy” Combs lodged a defamation lawsuit over allegations that a man named Courtney Burgess falsely claimed to have videos of the embattled hip-hop mogul committing sexual assault. The lawsuit, which also names Burgess’ attorney Ariel Mitchell as a defendant, claims the fake reports about the videos caused him “profound reputational and economic injury and severe prejudice” ahead of his looming criminal trial on sex trafficking and racketeering charges.
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: Drake sues Universal Music Group for defamation over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us”; the Supreme Court upholds a ban on TikTok but President Donald Trump says he’ll delay it; Nelly demands punishment for a “frivolous” lawsuit over Country Grammar; and more.
THE BIG STORY: Drake v. UMG
Two months after Drake shocked the music industry with court filings suggesting he might file a lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us, the superstar rapper did exactly that — seemingly unswayed by public ridicule that he had hired lawyers during a rap beef.
Trending on Billboard
In a case filed in Manhattan federal court, Drake accused Universal Music Group of defaming him by promoting Lamar’s song — a brutal diss track that savaged Drake as a “certified pedophile” and became a chart-topping hit in its own right. The star claimed that his own label had “waged a campaign against him,” boosting a “false and malicious narrative” even though it knew it was false.
“UMG intentionally sought to turn Drake into a pariah, a target for harassment, or worse,” the star’s lawyers wrote. “UMG did so not because it believes any of these false claims to be true, but instead because it would profit from damaging Drake’s reputation.”
Can Drake really sue over a diss track? While the term “slander” gets thrown around a lot these days, actual legal defamation is pretty hard to prove in America. Drake would need to show that Lamar’s statements were provably false — a tricky task in a lyrical context where listeners have come to expect bombastic boasting and obvious exaggerations.
“The public … has to believe that the speaker is being serious, and not just hurling insults in a diss fight,” Dori Hanswirth, a longtime media law attorney, told me last year. “If the statements are not taken literally, then they are rhetorical hyperbole and not considered to be defamatory. The context of this song-by-song grudge match tends to support the idea that this is rhetorical, and a creative way to beef with a rival.”
That’s essentially the same argument that UMG made when it responded to Drake’s “illogical” lawsuit: That all parties involved in rap beefs, from the artist to the labels to the fans, have always known that it’s all part of a game — until now.
“Throughout his career, Drake has intentionally and successfully used UMG to distribute his music and poetry to engage in conventionally outrageous back-and-forth ‘rap battles’ to express his feelings about other artists,” UMG wrote in its response. “He now seeks to weaponize the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music.”
For more, go read our entire story on the lawsuit, featuring a detailed breakdown of the allegations and a link to Drake’s full complaint.
THE OTHER BIG STORY: TikTok Ban
The TikTok rollercoaster continues. After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law effectively banning TikTok over national security concerns, newly-inaugurated President Donald Trump quickly claimed to have delayed the ban — a move that restored the app for users but left plenty uncertain.
In a unanimous ruling Friday, the high court said the law — set to go into effect on Sunday (Jan. 19) — was fair game because the U.S. government has valid fears about China’s control over TikTok, a service with 170 million American users that has become a key promotional tool for the music industry.
As a result of that ruling, TikTok briefly went dark for users on Saturday and vanished from Google’s and Apple’s app stores. Service was restored on Sunday after Trump announced that he was planning an executive order to delay the ban.
In an order issued Monday (Jan. 20), Trump (who once led the charge against TikTok but later reversed course) instructed his attorney general not to enforce the ban for 75 days to give his administration time to “determine the appropriate course forward.” Trump had previously said he would “negotiate a resolution,” potentially for an American company to buy TikTok — the explicit goal of the ban.
Trump’s move was a win for TikTok and its many U.S. fans, but it raises difficult legal questions.
Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, the president cannot outright ignore laws passed by Congress. In practice, enforcement priorities can sometimes be a bit discretionary — like with federal drug laws in states that legalized cannabis — but does that leeway extend to flatly refusing to enforce a national security law? The TikTok law does contain a provision allowing for a 90-day delay if a sale is imminent, but it’s unclear if Trump’s order triggered that option, or if he was even legally eligible to do so.
For now, that uncertainty has left things in limbo. Trump’s assurances clearly allayed fears, but the app remains unavailable for download on the app stores — likely because the law threatens huge financial penalties against service providers like Google and Apple that violate the ban.
What happens next? A lawsuit challenging Trump’s executive order? An act of Congress to repeal the ban? A sale of TikTok to an American firm? Stay tuned…
Other top stories…
NELLY NOT PLAYING – Nelly (Cornell Haynes) asked a judge to issue legal sanctions in a copyright lawsuit filed by his former St. Lunatics bandmate Ali over Nelly’s 2000 debut album Country Grammar. The case claims that Nelly has failed to pay his former St. Lunatics bandmate Ali for his work on the album, but the star’s lawyers argued in the new filings that those decades-old allegations are so “frivolous” that Ali and his lawyers must face penalties for filing them: “Plaintiff’s claims should never have been brought in the first place,” Nelly’s attorneys wrote.
“THOROUGHLY ENJOYED HERSELF” – Attorneys for Sean “Diddy” Combs argued in new legal filings that key evidence disclosed by prosecutors — videos of the alleged “freak off” parties at the center of case — show only consensual sex and “fundamentally undermine” the charges against him. Far from the “sensationalistic media reports,” Diddy’s attorneys wrote, the videos at issue “unambiguously” show that the alleged victim “not only consented but thoroughly enjoyed herself.”
GYM MELEE LAWSUIT – Tekashi 6ix9ine (Daniel Hernandez) filed a lawsuit against LA Fitness, claiming the gym chain is legally responsible for a 2023 “violent assault” in which he was attacked in the sauna at one of the company’s South Florida locations — and owes him at least $1 million in damages for his trouble. The lawsuit claimed the assailants were members of the Latin Kings criminal gang and that LA Fitness should have had measures in place to prevent the entry of “affiliates of violent gangs” and people with “aggressive and dangerous propensities.”
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: TikTok – and the music industry – wait for a Supreme Court ruling on the app’s fate; Megan Thee Stallion wins a new civil restraining order against Tory Lanez; Travis Scott and SZA face a copyright lawsuit over their collab hit; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: TikTok’s Future Hangs In The Balance
The U.S. Supreme Court could rule at any moment on the future of TikTok – a key cog in the modern music industry. And it doesn’t look good for TikTok.
Trending on Billboard
At arguments on Thursday, justices on both sides of the high court’s ideological divide seemed to signal that they plan uphold a law requiring the app’s Chinese-owned parent ByteDance to either sell TikTok to a U.S. company or face a total ban on January 19. TikTok and groups of users argued that the law violates the First Amendment’s protections for free speech, but the justices appeared more concerned about national security concerns cited by the government.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said China could use internal TikTok data to “develop spies, to turn people, to blackmail people.” Justice Elena Kagan noted that the First Amendment doesn’t even apply to a foreign firm like ByteDance. Chief Justice John Roberts pointedly asked TikTok’s lawyer if the court was “supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent is, in fact, subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?”
Following the hearing, courtwatchers weren’t optimistic about TikTok’s chances: “I think it’s more likely than not that TikTok & TikTok users lose this case 9-0,” wrote Leah Litman, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan Law School, in a post on Bluesky.
Many legal battles have big stakes for the industry, but few are on the scale of the TikTok case. With more 170 million American users, the app has become a key part of the modern music ecosystem – a core promotional tool for labels and a jumping off point for many new artists, albeit one that has occasionally butted heads with rights owners and can sometimes prove difficult to harness into lasting success.
As Billboard‘s Elias Leight writes, record labels are already gearing up for the potential of life without TikTok — an outcome that executives tell him is hard to even imagine: “Where is new artist discovery happening in 2025 if this app completely disappears?” The live music business is also preparing to lose the platform, Billboard’s Dave Brooks writes, since festivals and other promoters have increasingly relied upon TikTok in recent years to reach ticket buyers.
The wild card in all of this, of course, is President-elect Donald Trump – who was very famously For It Before He Was Against It when it comes to the TikTok ban but has now said he wants to “negotiate a resolution” to save the platform.
Trump is set to take office on Jan 20, just hours after the ban is scheduled to go into effect. Stay tuned.
Other top stories this week…
“WON’T LET ME FORGET IT” – Megan Thee Stallion won a civil restraining order against Tory Lanez after tearfully testifying before a Los Angeles judge that she was scared he’ll “shoot me again” when released from prison and “maybe this time I won’t make it.” The order came more than two years after Lanez was convicted of shooting the superstar rapper in the foot during a drunken incident in the Hollywood Hills. Lanez is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence, but Megan warned the judge that he has continued to harass her from behind bars: “It just seems like I have to relive it every day. The person who shot me won’t let me forget it.”
COPYRIGHT CLASH – Travis Scott, SZA and Future were hit with a copyright lawsuit by Victory Boyd (a singer signed to Jay-Z‘s Roc Nation record label) over allegations that they stole key elements of their 2023 hit “Telekinesis” from her 2019 song “Like The Way It Sounds.” Boyd says she initially shared her song with none other than Kanye West, who then allegedly shared it with Scott.
UNMASKING ORDER – K-hip-hop star Jay Park asked a U.S. court to force Google to identify an anonymous YouTube user so he could sue the person in Korean court, citing allegedly defamatory internet videos linking him to drug traffickers and disparaging Korean-Americans. The case isn’t entirelys surprising: As K-pop has exploded in global popularity — and with it an intense online fan culture — superstar acts like BTS and BLACKPINK have repeatedly turned to Korea’s strict libel laws to target statements made on the internet. Last year, NewJeans filed a similar U.S. case seeking to reveal a YouTuber’s identity.
RELEASE DATE – YoungBoy Never Broke Again (a.k.a. NBA YoungBoy) will be released from prison in July, according to federal inmate records — far sooner than indicated by his formal two-year sentence handed down last month. The rapper (real name Kentrell Gaulden) received the sentence after taking a plea deal last year to resolve federal gun possession charges in Louisiana and Utah. The likely explanation: YoungBoy is being credited with time-served for jail stints while he awaited trial.
CASE CLOSED (FOR NOW) – An anonymous Jane Doe accusing Diplo of sharing “revenge porn” dropped her lawsuit against the DJ, just weeks after a federal judge ruled she would need to reveal her identity if she wanted to proceed with the case. The move to end the suit was filed “without prejudice,” meaning she could still refile her lawsuit at some point in the future.
CARDI v. TASHA CONTINUES – Years after Cardi B won a multi-million dollar defamation verdict against gossip blogger Tasha K, the superstar is still battling to get that money. In a court filing last month, Cardi accused Tasha of using bankruptcy as part of a “fraudulent scheme to shield debtor’s assets and income from creditors.” Tasha then fired back last week, arguing that the rapper is trying to “sabotage” her career and “silence” her.
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: A recap of all the biggest music law stories from 2024; a civil lawsuit against Nicki Minaj claiming she assaulted a tour staffer; an agreement to delay Lil Durk’s murder-for-hire trial by months; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: 2024 Music Law Recap
Before we get to 2025 (happy New Year, by the way) let’s quickly recap all of the biggest music law stories of 2024 — a collection of high-stakes legal battles for some of the industry’s biggest players.
For Live Nation and Ticketmaster, the Department of Justice’s antitrust case posed an existential threat; for Young Thug and Lil Durk, each facing criminal cases accusing them of blurring the line between artist and gangster, a life prison sentence loomed; for Michael Jackson’s estate, court approval of a massive catalog sale hung in the balance; for Miley Cyrus, allegations of infringement stalked the biggest hit of her career; and for Drake, he put his reputation on the line to go to court over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track.
Trending on Billboard
And none of that even approached the scale of the legal debacle facing Sean “Diddy” Combs. After decades as a chart-topping artist/producer and one of the industry’s most powerful men, the music mogul was hit with a flood of abuse allegations — first in the form of civil lawsuits, then in a stunning criminal indictment that could put him behind bars for life.
For more, go read our entire story on the 10 biggest music law stories of the year.
Other top stories this week…
BACKSTAGE BLOWS – Nicki Minaj was hit with a civil lawsuit over allegations that the rapper physically attacked a tour staffer named Brandon Garrett backstage at an April concert. Garrett says the rapper (Onika Maraj) hit him multiple times after flying into a rage at the Detroit stop on her 2024 Pink Friday 2 tour — an outburst that allegedly featured the star screaming: “You’re a dead man walking. You just f—ed up your whole life and you will never be anyone, I’ll make sure of it.”
DURK DELAYED – Lil Durk’s trial on federal murder-for-hire charges will be pushed back until October after both his lawyers and federal prosecutors agreed to a months-long delay. The case — over an alleged plot to kill rival rapper Quando Rondo — had been set for trial this month, but his attorneys waived his right to an immediate trial because the case is “so unusual and so complex” that they needed more time to prepare.
NAME GAME – A federal judge ruled that a woman accusing Diplo of sharing “revenge porn” must reveal her identity if she wants to proceed with the case. “Doe” pseudonyms have become common in sexual abuse complaints, and attorneys for the DJ’s accuser argued she might face blowback. But the judge was unswayed, saying court cases must usually feature real names: “Those using the courts must be prepared to accept the public scrutiny that is an inherent part of public trials.”
DISMISSAL DENIED – Danny Elfman lost a bid to end a libel lawsuit filed against him by former friend Nomi Abadi, who claims the prolific film composer defamed her when he issued a strongly-worded statement denying her accusations of sexual harassment. Elfman argued that his statement was protected by “litigation privilege” because it was issued amid threats of court action, but the judge didn’t buy it: “To allow defendant Elfman to make statements and permit their publication while hiding behind the litigation privilege would decimate the purpose of the privilege.”
KISS CASE CLOSED – Kiss members Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley reached a settlement to end a wrongful termination lawsuit accusing them of firing their longtime hairstylist, David Mathews, after he complained about “unsafe working conditions” amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The band is still facing another lawsuit filed by the family of Francis S. Stueber, a guitar tech who died in October 2021 while quarantining in a hotel room on tour.
TUPAC UPDATE – Duane Davis, the ex-gang leader facing a murder trial over the long-unsolved 1996 killing of Tupac Shakur, asked a Nevada judge to dismiss the charges against him. In doing so, he cited “egregious” constitutional violations because of the 27-year delay, a supposed lack of corroborating evidence and a failure to honor previous immunity agreements.