Tag: LEGAL

Marilyn Manson’s former personal assistant, Ashley Walters, has won the right to revive her sexual assault lawsuit against the singer and take it to trial, Deadline reports. The same judge who last month dismissed the long-running case, citing the statute of limitations, ruled that it is now legally eligible due to a new California law extending that statute. The judge set a court date of March 27 to review developments.

The new law, Assembly Bill 250, was signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom last year but took effect just after last month’s dismissal. Steve Cochran, the L.A. Superior Court judge who has recently overseen the case, had initially ruled that he lacked the authority to apply the delayed discovery rule, due to the 10-year gap between Walters’ stint working with Manson and the 2021 lawsuit. Walters and her lawyers had argued that repressed memories delayed the filing. When an appellate panel ruled that she should be given a chance to prove as much, however, her lawyers failed to persuade Judge Cochran. 

Walters’ attorney Bina Ahmad told Deadline that her client “has had to overcome a lot of obstacles, as so many survivors are forced to do. Mr. Warner has tried time and again to avoid accountability for his abuse against Ms. Walters. But now, thanks to AB 250, abusers like Mr. Warner can no longer hide behind the statute of limitations.”

Manson denies Walters’ claims of sexual assault. Last year, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department dropped its pursuit of criminal charges against Manson, citing the statute of limitations and difficulty proving “charges of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Chad Hugo is suing his Neptunes’ producing partner Pharrell Williams over unpaid royalties, Billboard reports. In a lawsuit filed on Friday, January 23, Hugo claims Williams has refused to hand over crucial financial documents and owes him up to $1 million for work on the 2017 N.E.R.D. album, No One Ever Really Dies Alone.

“Williams engaged in self-dealing, concealed material information, and, upon information and belief, diverted revenues owed to Plaintiff,” Hugo’s attorney, Brent J. Lehman, claims in a filing obtained by Pitchfork. “Such willful, fraudulent, and malicious conduct warrants the imposition of punitive damages.”

Lehman declined to comment further on the suit. Pitchfork has also reached out to Williams’ representatives for comment.

In 2024, Hugo accused Williams of seeking sole ownership of the Neptunes’ trademark. Williams’ attorneys said they attempted to offer Hugo joint ownership, but Hugo’s reps claimed those business terms would have limited their client’s compensation.

As the Neptunes, Hugo and Williams’ work dominated the late ‘90s and early 2000s pop, rap, and R&B scenes. Between 1998 and 2006, the duo produced more than a dozen songs that charted on the Hot 100’s top 10, including No. 1 singles “Drop It Like It’s Hot” by Snoop Dogg, “Hollaback Girl” by Gwen Stefani, and “Money Maker” by Ludacris. In 2020, the Neptunes were inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame. The duo are also credited as producers in Hugo and Williams’ rap-rock hybrid group with Shay Haley, N.E.R.D.

Drake has filed an opening appellate brief seeking to overturn the ruling in his original lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG), Rolling Stone reports. In October, a federal judge dismissed the rapper’s defamation suit, which sought damages from the label for promoting Kendrick Lamar’s incendiary diss track “Not Like Us.” Pitchfork has reached out to attorneys for both UMG and Drake for comment.

In the 60-page filing obtained by Pitchfork, Drake’s attorneys call the original dismissal “erroneous” and again allege that UMG “promoted ‘Not Like Us’ while knowing that the song’s insinuations that he has sexual relations with minors were false and defamatory.”

Drake filed his initial lawsuit against UMG in January 2025, claiming the music corporation “waged an unrelenting campaign” to promote “Not Like Us,” Kendrick Lamar’s famous diss song that he believed to be defamatory. UMG had asked for the complaint’s dismissal, arguing that Drake “lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated.”

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas ostensibly agreed with UMG, ruling that “the broader context of a heated rap battle, with incendiary language and offensive accusations hurled by both participants, would not incline the reasonable listener to believe that ‘Not Like Us’ imparts verifiable facts.”

Music executive L.A. Reid has settled a lawsuit by a previous employee who accused him of sexual assault and harassment, Billboard reports. Details of the settlement—which was announced today, January 12, the day Reid’s trial was scheduled to begin—were not disclosed.

In 2023, Drew Dixon, a former vice president of A&R at Arista Records, alleged Reid had groped and digitally penetrated her without consent on two separate occasions while she worked at the label. The first incident reportedly took place on a private plane to a company retreat; the second in Reid’s car. After Dixon rebuffed Reid at future outings, she claims he derailed her career. Dixon filed her lawsuit under the Adult Survivors Act, which opened a one-year window for civil lawsuits involving sexual offenses, even if the statute of limitations had run out. In 2017, Reid stepped down from his position at Epic Records following a separate sexual-harassment allegation.

In a statement to Pitchfork, Imran H. Ansari, an attorney for Reid wrote that their client had “amicably resolved this matter with Ms. Dixon without any admission of liability.”

“Drew Dixon is an extraordinarily talented music executive, and this resolution will empower her to move forward with her creative pursuits—on her own terms—with her reputation, her voice, and her career reaffirmed,” Dixon’s attorney, Kenya Davis, said in a statement to Pitchfork. Dixon added, “I hope my work as an advocate for the Adult Survivors Act helps to bring us closer to a safer music business for everyone. In a world where good news is often hard to find, I hope for survivors that today is a ray of light peeking through the clouds.”

In 2017, Dixon accused the music mogul Russell Simmons of rape. She later appeared in On the Record, a documentary that detailed those allegations.

Bad Bunny has been sued over a voice recording sampled on “Solo de Mi” and “EoO”—companion songs featured on 2018’s X 100pre and last year’s Debí Tirar Más Fotos—Billboard reports. The plaintiff, Tainaly Y. Serrano Rivera, claims producer Roberto Rosado solicited the recording from her when they were theater students at the Interamerican University of Arecibo. The lawsuit argues that Rivera, having never agreed to its commercial use or signed a contract, is entitled to $16 million in privacy violation and publicity rights, on the basis that Bad Bunny plays the sample in-concert and has used it to sell merchandise. Rosado and Bad Bunny’s label Rimas are also named as defendants.

The lyric in question—“Mira, puñeta, no me quiten el perreo”—literally translates as “Damn, don’t take away my perreo!,” referring to the reggaeton subgenre. But, as Tatiana Lee Rodriguez writes in Pitchfork’s review of Debí Tirar Más Fotos, it is “more like the Boricua version of ‘Bitch, don’t kill my vibe!’” The lyric has become a meme, frequently appearing on social media and message boards.

This is not the first time Bad Bunny has been sued for sampled voice recordings. In 2023, his ex-girlfriend Carliz de la Cruz Hernández launched a legal battle—still ongoing—over the alleged use of her voice without permission on two songs.

Bad Bunny’s representatives did not immediately respond to request for comment.

Last year, Salt-N-Pepa’s Cheryl “Salt” James and Sandra “Pepa” Denton filed suit against Universal Music Group (UMG) over the rights to their catalog, claiming that the label had pulled the duo’s songs from streaming platforms after they attempted to regain control of their masters. Lawyers for UMG subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and today (Thursday, January 8), a judge in New York’s Southern District Court ruled in their favor.

James and Denton—Salt-N-Pepa’s former DJ, Spinderella, was not party to the complaint—based their claim on the “termination rights” outlined in Section 203 of the Copyright Act of 1976, which allow artists to reclaim the copyrights on their master recordings after several decades. However, in a copy of her decision obtained by Pitchfork, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote finds that Salt-N-Pepa never owned their masters to begin with; the group had originally granted ownership to their first label, Noise in the Attic (NITA) Productions, and were not included in the contract that transferred those rights to UMG predecessor Next Plateau Records in 1986.

In a statement to Pitchfork, a UMG spokesperson wrote, “While we are gratified that the court dismissed this baseless lawsuit, it should never have been brought in the first place. Prior to this suit—and without any legal obligation to do so—we made multiple attempts to resolve the matter amicably, improve the artists’ compensation, and ensure that Salt-N-Pepa’s fans had access to their music. Even with the court’s complete rejection of their claims, we remain open and willing to find a resolution to the matter and turn the page so we can focus our efforts on working together to amplify Salt-N-Pepa’s legacy for generations to come.”

“We respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision and fully intend to pursue our rights on appeal,” Salt-N-Pepa wrote in response to the dismissal. “We remain committed to vindicating and reclaiming our rights as creators under the Copyright Act.”

This story has been updated with a statement from Salt-N-Pepa.

Drake has been accused of participating in a racketeering conspiracy built around the online casino Stake. A class action lawsuit filed in Virginia this week argues that Stake is running an illegal gambling operation in the United States, in which Drake, who is paid to promote the platform, is complicit. It further alleges that he is funnelling proceeds—via Stake’s unregulated “tipping” system—to a third party, in Australia, to invest in bot farms that illegally boost Drake’s streaming numbers. Stake’s parent company, Sweepstakes Ltd., is named as a defendant alongside Drake, the streamer Adin Ross, and George Nguyen, the alleged Australian co-conspirator.

The basis of the lawsuit is that Stake operates in U.S. states, such as Virginia, that have outlawed real-money online gambling. Eyeing a possible (and highly contentious) legal loophole, Stake circumvents the online-gambling ban by selling “play money” that comes with free tokens. While the play money is worthless, the tokens can be wagered and later converted into cash for withdrawal. If a judge deems the practice to be illegal, Drake and Ross could be liable for promoting Stake.us, even if their own areas of residence permit online gambling.

Founded in Australia in 2017, Stake is a multibillion-dollar company whose fortunes skyrocketed during the cryptocurrency boom. It signed an endorsement deal with Drake in 2022 worth a reported $100 million a year; he has since undertaken frequent livestreams of online gambling sessions and giveaways. This past August, Drake seemingly fell out with the platform after having withdrawal attempts blocked. The matter appeared resolved in October when he posted a video staging his discovery of a $1 million balance restored to his account.

The bot-farming aspect of the lawsuit doubles as an attack on Stake’s “tipping” function, which allows users to transfer funds between accounts—a common feature of online casinos. The lawsuit claims that Drake, Ross, and Nguyen used the feature to covertly transfer gambling proceeds. That “wholly unregulated money transmitter,” the lawsuit adds, financed Nguyen’s further promotion of Stake, as well as a campaign to artificially boost Drake streams and “fabricate popularity; disparage competitors and music label executives; [and] distort recommendation algorithms.” This scheme, the lawsuit alleges, is carried out on platforms such as Spotify and “has suppressed authentic artists and narrowed consumers’ access to legitimate content.”

Two plaintiffs, LaShawnna Ridley and Tiffany Hines, filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of those affected in Virginia, claiming Drake’s promotion helped lure them onto Stake. They are seeking at least $5 million in damages, based on two violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and one of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. This is not the first lawsuit alleging that the platform is breaking U.S. gambling laws, or even the first implicating Drake: A Missouri complaint filed last October alleges that Drake and Ross misrepresented Stake.us as a harmless “social casino,” rather than an illegal gambling platform. That suit claims Drake and Ross further mislead their followers by hosting gambling livestreams directly funded by Stake, rather than out of their own pockets.

Attorneys for Sean “Diddy” Combs have filed a notice of appeal, requesting their client’s “immediate release” from federal prison and to “either grant a judgment of acquittal or vacate and remand for resentencing,” reports Rolling Stone.

In the notice, attorney Alexandra Shapiro accused Judge Arun Subramanian of acting “as a thirteenth juror” during sentencing, adding, “The judge defied the jury’s verdict and found Combs ‘coerced,’ ‘exploited,’ and ‘forced’ his girlfriends to have sex and led a criminal conspiracy. These judicial findings trumped the verdict and led to the highest sentence ever imposed for any remotely similar defendant—even though most others, unlike Combs, ran prostitution businesses that exploited poor or undocumented women or minors.” The current appeal follows an unsuccessful bid in September where Combs asked Judge Subramanian to consider an acquittal or new trial.

In October, Combs was sentenced to 50 months in prison and ordered to pay a fine of $500,000 after being found guilty of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. “A substantial sentence must be given to send a message to abusers and victims alike that exploitation and violence against women is met with real accountability,” Judge Subramanian said at the time. Combs had initially been acquitted on the more serious of charges of sex trafficking and racketeering, which carried the possibility of life in prison. The music mogul still faces numerous civil lawsuits accusing him of various sex crimes. In November, the L.A. Sheriff’s office announced it was investigating Combs for sexual battery.

Pitchfork has requested further comment from Combs’ attorneys and the U.S. Southern District of New York.

If you or someone you know has been affected by sexual assault or domestic abuse, we encourage you to reach out for support:

RAINN National Sexual Assault Hotline
https://www.rainn.org
1 800 656 HOPE (4673)

Crisis Text Line
SMS: Text “HELLO” or “HOLA” to 741-741

The National Domestic Violence Hotline
https://thehotline.org
1-800-799-SAFE (7233)

A federal judge has overturned the conviction of one of two men found guilty in the murder of Jason Mizell, aka Jam Master Jay, reports Billboard. Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall granted the motion for acquittal of Karl Jordan Jr., who was found guilty in 2024 of killing Mizell, his godfather and the D.J. for legendary rap group Run D.M.C., over a drug-related conspiracy. Ronald Washington, who was also found guilty in the killing, was denied a motion for acquittal.

In her 29-page ruling, Judge Hall said the government lacked proof that the crime had been drug-related. “Jordan has met the heavy burden to be granted a judgment of acquittal,” she wrote.

Mizell was in his studio in Queens, on Oct. 30, 2002, when a gunman shot him in the head. Despite witnesses present, the case sat cold for nearly two decades; murder charges were eventually filed against Jordan Jr. and Washington in 2020. In 2023, federal prosecutors charged a third man, Jay Bryant, with taking part in the killing. Bryant has pleaded not guilty and will stand trial in January 2026.

In a statement to Pitchfork, Jordan’s attorney’s wrote, “On behalf of Mr. Jordan and his family, today’s decision brings a measure of solace as they approach the holiday season.” A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York said the decision is currently being reviewed. Attorneys for Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A sexual assault lawsuit brought against Marilyn Manson by his former personal assistant, Ashley Walters, has been dismissed ahead of trial, Rolling Stone reports. In his ruling, Los Angeles County Judge Steve Cochran noted that Walters’ claims fell outside the statute of limitations.

“We have a situation where the complaint was not filed until about 10 years after the operative events. I’m not able to find that the delayed discovery rule is applicable,” Judge Cochran said in his remarks at today’s (Tuesday, December 16) hearing. “I don’t have the authority to rule that the delayed discovery doctrine would apply under the circumstances that exist in this case.” Pitchfork has reached out to Manson’s and Walters’ respective attorneys for comment.

Walters worked as Manson’s assistant between 2010 and 2011. During that time, she claims that the singer sexually harassed her and subjected her to verbal, physical, and psychological abuse. Her initial suit against Manson, filed in 2021, was dismissed the following year, also due to statute of limitations, before being revived on appeal. Walters’ lawyer, Kate McFarlane, reportedly plans to seek an appeal of this dismissal as well.

Last year, Manson dropped the defamation lawsuit he brought against Evan Rachel Wood and Illma Gore in 2022. After a yearslong investigation by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department into claims of domestic violence and sexual assault against Manson, it was announced in January that he will not face criminal charges.

If you or someone you know has been affected by sexual assault, we encourage you to reach out for support:

RAINN National Sexual Assault Hotline
http://www.rainn.org
1 800 656 HOPE (4673)

Crisis Text Line
SMS: Text “HELLO” or “HOLA” to 741-741

Kay Flock has been sentenced to 30 years in prison. The Bronx rapper was found guilty in March on charges of racketeering conspiracy; attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon in aid of racketeering; and possession of a firearm in relation to attempted murder and assault. Pitchfork has reached out to Kay Flock’s attorney, Michael T. Ashley, for comment.

In a statement released after Kay Flock’s sentencing, Jay Clayton, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said, “today’s sentence brings New Yorkers what they want: violent, gun-toting gang leaders off our streets.”

Kay Flock, whose real name is Kevin Perez, was initially charged with first-degree murder in December 2021—he was later found not guilty—and was eventually named in a federal indictment on racketeering charges, which listed him as a member of the gang “Sev Side” or “DOA.” Ahead of sentencing, the rapper’s attorneys claimed their client could not be the gang’s leader due to his “intellectual disability,” a claim that U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman rejected.

Part of the city’s burgeoning drill movement, Kay Flock made headway in 2021 with his breakthrough single “Being Honest” and debut mixtape, The D.O.A. Tape.

Dionne Warwick is being sued by a rights firm that claims she has backed out of a deal that entitles them to “hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars” for work recovering her royalties, court records show. The company, Artists Rights Enforcement Corporation, cites its negotiation of terms and payment for the “Walk on By” sample in Doja Cat’s “Paint the Town Red” as a key payday for which it is owed an ongoing cut of royalties. Warwick’s team did not immediately respond to Pitchfork’s request for comment.

In the lawsuit, filed in New York on Monday (December 15), Artists Rights claims that, since its 2002 deal with Warwick, the company has waived upfront fees in exchange for half of any royalties and settlements it negotiates and collects on her behalf, in perpetuity. That work includes managing the royalty agreement that resulted from Warwick’s 2002 lawsuit against Atlantic—over her ownership of her Scepter Masters and classic single “Then Came You”—as well as a deal involving royalties owed to Warwick by Sony, which were being funneled to the state of California to pay off Warwick’s tax bill. Artist Rights claims it has already agreed to reduce or waive its fees for various work done for Warwick over the years, and that the sum of its efforts is more than $2.5 million in revenue—including that recent boon from “Paint the Town Red.”

This September, however, Warwick allegedly sought to end the deal and to directly receive royalties from Sony, Rhino, and the British copyright collective PPL. Artists Rights argues that this violates their contract. The company says it is entitled to ongoing income for deals it negotiated—a structure designed to offset the risk it took on by waiving upfront fees. This type of agreement is not unheard of, according to Billboard, mirroring the no-win-no-fee model employed by some legal firms. Artists Rights is seeking the reinstatement of its cut from Warwick’s royalty deals as well as compensation and interest for missed payments since her attempted termination of the contract.