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: 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.

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 goes to legal war over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us”; Miley Cyrus strikes back at a copyright lawsuit over her chart-topping “Flowers”; Universal Music Group responds to Limp Bizkit’s $200 million royalties lawsuit; and much more.

THE BIG STORY: Drake Takes UMG To Court

Back in May, as Kendrick Lamar and Drake exchanged scathing diss tracks, I wrote an entire story dismissing the idea that Drake would sue over the beef. Sure, these were very specific insults from Kendrick, and I talked to legal experts about what it might look like if he did. But it was almost unthinkable that he’d really do it. As I wrote at the time, “An actual lawsuit seems unlikely, for the simple reason that any rapper responding to a diss track with a team of lawyers would be committing reputational suicide.”

Welp, here we are. In a pair of actions filed Monday (Nov. 25) in New York and Texas, Drake and his lawyers went to legal war over “Not Like Us” — only not with Lamar himself, but with the label that both superstars have called home for the majority of their careers.

Trending on Billboard

In the New York petition, Drake’s attorneys accused Universal Music Group (UMG) of launching an illegal “scheme” involving bots, payola and other methods to artificially pump up Lamar’s song. In the Texas filing, he echoed those claims but went even further, complaining that UMG could have blocked the release of a song that “falsely” accused him of being a “pedophile,” but instead “chose to do the opposite.”

“UMG designed, financed and then executed a plan to turn ‘Not Like Us’ into a viral mega-hit with the intent of using the spectacle of harm to Drake and his businesses to drive consumer hysteria and, of course, massive revenues,” his lawyers write. “That plan succeeded, likely beyond UMG’s wildest expectations.”

It’s worth noting that neither action is quite a lawsuit. Both were “pre-action” filings, seeking discovery and depositions that might yield evidence supporting such claims. But in seeking that info, Drake’s lawyers leveled serious accusations: In New York, they accused UMG of racketeering, deceptive business practices and false advertising; in Texas, they said they had enough evidence to sue the company for defamation, and might also tack on civil fraud and racketeering claims.

UMG, for its part, quickly fired back, calling the allegations “offensive and untrue” and stressing that it employs the “highest ethical practices” in promotion: “No amount of contrived and absurd legal arguments in this pre-action submission can mask the fact that fans choose the music they want to hear.”

Drake’s allegations raise tricky questions about the line between litigation and public relations. The star is no dummy when it comes to the music business, and he’s repped in these cases by top partners at an elite BigLaw firm. It’s hard to imagine they’d file entirely baseless actions based purely on hurt feelings. But in a hip-hop world that prizes authenticity above all else, it’s also fair to wonder if the benefits of this approach can possibly outweigh the risk of reputational harm.

Stay with Billboard as this dispute moves forward — we’ll keep you updated on every development.

THE OTHER TOP STORY: Miley Strikes Back

Two months after Miley Cyrus was hit with an eyebrow-raising copyright infringement lawsuit over her chart-topping “Flowers,” her attorneys fired back with an interesting response.

Raised eyebrows, you say? The case, which claims “Flowers” infringes the copyright to Bruno Mars’ “When I Was Your Man,” targets an “answer song” — a track with lyrics that overtly respond to those of an earlier song. In this case, fans speculated that Cyrus was alluding to a song that her ex-husband had loved. Does that kind of lyrical riffing amount to infringement? Experts didn’t think so at the time.

But in September, Miley was hit with a lawsuit seeking to prove that it does, arguing that her smash hit “would not exist” without Mars’ song. Adding to the intrigue? The case was filed not by Mars himself, but by an investment firm that bought out the rights of one of his co-writers.

In her first response to the case this week, attorneys for Miley said that the total lack of involvement from Mars and two other co-writers was not some procedural quirk in the case, but rather a “fatal flaw” that required the outright dismissal of the lawsuit.

For more, go read our full story on Miley’s response, which includes access to the full motion filed by her attorneys.

Other top stories this week…

JUST ONE OF THOSE SUITS – Universal Music Group (UMG) fired back at a lawsuit from Limp Bizkit frontman Fred Durst claiming the label owes the band more than $200 million, calling the allegations “fiction” and demanding they be thrown out of court. Durst alleged last month he had “not seen a dime in royalties” over the decades, but UMG said in its first response that it had paid the band millions and that the lawsuit is “based on a fallacy.”

ST. LUNATICS DROP OUT – Three of Nelly’s former St. Lunatics bandmates (childhood friends Murphy Lee, Kyjuan and City Spud) formally dropped out of a lawsuit seeking royalties from the rapper’s breakout album Country Grammar — two months after they said they hadn’t wanted to sue him in the first place.

YOUNG THUG LAWSUIT – Now that he’s home from jail, attorneys for concert giant AEG said they’re ready to push ahead with a civil lawsuit accusing the rapper of violating an exclusive touring agreement. Filed in 2020 but long delayed by his criminal case, the case claims Young Thug owes more than $5 million under the deal and that he’s obligated to hand over some of his music to pay down that debt. And in newer filings, AEG leveled new accusations that Thug improperly sold off some of those rights while the case was pending.

TRUMP GUITARS – Guitar manufacturer Gibson sent a cease-and-desist letter to the branding agency behind a line “Trump Guitars” endorsed by President-elect Donald Trump, alleging the design of the instrument infringes the company’s trademark rights to the shape of the famed Les Paul guitar.

TORY LANEZ UPDATE – California prosecutors flatly rejected recent claims made by Tory Lanez’s legal team that the gun he allegedly used to shoot Megan Thee Stallion has gone “missing,” calling the accusations about vanished evidence “demonstrably false” and “troubling.” Those arguments were made as part of Lanez’s appeal seeking to overturn his felony convictions over the 2020 shooting.

‘ELECTRIC AVENUE’ SETTLEMENT – Donald Trump reached an agreement with Eddy Grant to resolve a long-running lawsuit over his use of “Electric Avenue” without permission in a 2020 campaign video. The deal came two months after a federal judge ruled that Trump infringed the copyright to the 1982 hit, and will resolve any need for further litigation to figure out how much the President-elect must pay in damages under that ruling.

SONY ENDS RACE CASE – Sony Music settled a lawsuit filed by a former assistant to Columbia Records chief executive Ron Perry who claimed she was forced to resign after pushing back on hiring practices that allegedly discriminated against white applicants. Sony had called those accusations “contradictory and false” and was actively seeking to have the case dismissed when the settlement was reached.

SIRIUS TROUBLE? A New York state judge ruled that SiriusXM violated federal consumer protection law by making it too difficult for listeners to cancel their subscriptions. The ruling came from a lawsuit filed last year by New York’s attorney general, who accused the company of subjecting canceling subscribers to a “burdensome endurance contest” that required phone conversations with a live agent and extended time spent on hold.

PIRACY AT SCOTUS – Nearly five years after the major labels won a $1 billion music piracy verdict against Cox Communications, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled that it might jump into the case by asking the U.S. Department of Justice to weigh in.

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 lawyer repping alleged Diddy victims is accused of extorting settlements out of “innocent celebrities” by linking them to the rapper; NBA YoungBoy reaches a plea deal to resolve prescription drug charges; Sony settles a copyright lawsuit over Whitney Houston’s biopic; and much more.

THE BIG STORY: Mystery Celeb Sues Diddy Crusader For Extortion

Back in October, shortly after Houston attorney Tony Buzbee announced that he’d be filing a torrent of abuse litigation against Sean “Diddy” Combs, he gave an interview to TMZ warning that he was also planning to sue other celebrities who had “allowed it to go on” and “said nothing” about the alleged abuse: “All of these individuals and entities in my view have exposure here,” he said.

Trending on Billboard

During the same interview, Buzbee confirmed that he’d already been sending legal demand letters to those high-profile individuals and that some had quickly inked settlements to avoid lawsuits and keep their names private. In a clip from the TMZ newsroom discussing the interview, one staffer said: “It just feels like a money grab!”

Now, it turns out that sentiment is shared by one of the celebrities Buzbee is targeting.

In a lawsuit filed Monday (Nov. 18) in Los Angeles, an unnamed “John Doe” celebrity accused Buzbee of extortion, claiming the attorney was threatening to unleash “wildly false horrific allegations” if they weren’t sufficiently paid off. Repped by a legal team from the white shoe law firm Quinn Emanuel, the mysterious “public figure” called Buzbee’s efforts a “cynical extortion scheme” aimed at “innocent celebrities” who have “any ties to Combs — no matter how remote.”

The case raises uncomfortable questions about the American legal system. Are threats of civil litigation and demands for settlement simply a cost-effective way for attorneys to seek justice for victims? Or are they tantamount to legalized blackmail, exploiting the publicity surrounding lawsuits and the risk of reputational ruin to coerce unearned payouts?

To Buzbee, who immediately announced that he would move forward with his lawsuit against the mystery celeb, it’s clearly the former: “It is obvious that the frivolous lawsuit filed against my firm is an aggressive attempt to intimidate or silence me and ultimately my clients,” he said in a statement following the filing of the extortion case. “That effort is a gross miscalculation.”

Other top stories this week…

MORE DIDDY NEWS – Prosecutors accused the disgraced rapper of seeking to “subvert the integrity” of his sex trafficking case from jail, including by contacting witnesses and orchestrating “social media campaigns” to influence public opinion and taint the jury pool. The star’s lawyers quickly fired back, claiming prosecutors had obtained their evidence by improperly searching his cell and violated his right to attorney-client privilege — actions they called “outrageous government conduct.”

LIL DURK UPDATE – Represented by a prominent new criminal defense attorney, Lil Durk pleaded not guilty to federal murder-for-hire charges over an alleged plot to kill rival rapper Quando Rondo in a 2022 shooting. At the same arraignment hearing, the judge also set a tentative trial date for early January, but that schedule could (and very likely will) be moved back as the case proceeds.

PLEA DEAL – Rapper NBA YoungBoy pleaded guilty to his role in a large-scale prescription drug fraud ring that operated out of his multimillion-dollar home in Utah — a location where he was already serving under house arrest stemming from earlier gun charges. The deal came with a 27-month prison sentence, but the penalty was suspended pending the resolution of YoungBoy’s firearms case.

METAL SETTLEMENT – Megadeth and lead singer Dave Mustaine agreed to pay $1.4 million to resolve allegations that they still owed commissions to Cory Brennan, a longtime manager who says he was “unceremoniously” fired and replaced by Mustaine’s son. But the deal will not resolve Mustaine’s countersuit, in which he claims that Brennan’s “repeated management failures” caused him serious harm.

“REAL LOVE” RESPONSE – Universal Music Group (UMG)asked a federal judge to dismiss a copyright lawsuit claiming Mary J. Blige’s 1992 hit “Real Love” sampled from “Impeach the President” by the Honey Drippers — a legendary piece of hip-hop source material used by Run-DMC, Dr. Dre and others. UMG argued that the accuser (Tuff City Records) popped up “out of the blue” decades later to sue over two tracks that “sound nothing alike.”

YE SUED YET AGAIN – The rapper (formerly Kanye West) was hit with a lawsuit over Vultures 1 from a group of Memphis rappers who claim the star and Ty Dolla $ign committed “brazen” copyright infringement by sampling from a 1994 song called “Drink a Yak (Part 2)” even after failing to secure a license. The new case is just one of more than a dozen that have been filed against Ye over claims of unlicensed sampling or interpolating during his prolific career.

WHITNEY CASE CLOSED – Sony Music reached an undisclosed settlement to end a lawsuit claiming the producers of the 2022 Whitney Houston biopic (Whitney Houston: I Wanna Dance With Somebody) never fully paid to use her songs, including “I Will Always Love You” and “I’m Every Woman.” The case, filed in February, said such licenses were particularly valuable in the context of musical biopics: “It is nearly impossible to explain the importance of a musician’s creative genius or unique style and talent without the use of the musician’s music.”