Jay-Z’s Diddy Case, Drake’s Legal Motives, ‘Y.M.C.A.’ Lawsuit Threats & More Top Music Law News
In this week's Legal Beat, Jay-Z fights back against shocking accusations, experts weigh Drake's UMG actions, a 'Y.M.C.A' singer threatens lawsuits over 'gay' label, and much more.
staff
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 shocking civil lawsuit against Jay-Z accusing him of raping a teen girl in 2000 alongside Sean “Diddy” Combs; a deep-dive into possible motives behind Drake’s legal actions against Universal Music Group; a threat of defamation lawsuits over “Y.M.C.A.” being labeled a “gay anthem”; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Jay-Z Pulled Into Diddy Debacle
Three months after Sean “Diddy” Combs was indicted on sprawling sexual abuse charges, a new civil lawsuit claims Jay-Z participated in one of Diddy’s assaults – a shocking allegation against one of the music industry’s most powerful figures.
In a complaint filed Sunday evening in New York federal court, an unnamed Jane Doe alleges the star (Shawn Carter) raped her as a 13-year-old girl in 2000 alongside Combs at an after-party following the MTV Video Music Awards. The case was filed by Tony Buzbee, a Texas attorney who has filed more than 20 such lawsuits against Combs and has threatened dozens more.
“Another celebrity stood by and watched as Combs and Carter took turns assaulting the minor,” the lawsuit reads. “Many others were present at the afterparty, but did nothing to stop the assault.”
To say that Jay-Z has denied the allegations would be putting it lightly. In a forceful statement Sunday night, he called the lawsuit a “blackmail attempt” filed by a “fraud” attorney. Then, less than a day after the case was filed, his attorneys responded in court by calling the case “extortionate” and arguing that the accuser should be required to litigate such “heinous allegations” under her real name. And in yet another filing on Tuesday, they accused Buzbee of pressuring another client to lie – a claim he has denied and called “nothing short of defamation.”
Beyond the lawsuit itself, the allegations against Jay-Z have also sparked a broader legal war — pitting the star’s team and his attorneys at the prestigious BigLaw firm Quinn Emanuel against Buzbee and his prolific plaintiffs’ firm.
For starters, it turns out that it was Jay-Z who filed the mysterious extortion lawsuit against Buzbee last month, accusing him of concocting a “cynical” scheme to extract settlements from innocent celebrities by threatening to link them to Diddy. Buzbee, meanwhile, has fired back with a lawsuit of his own, suing Quinn Emanuel in Texas over allegations that the firm has been harassing him and his clients with “bogus” lawsuits and other “outrageous” conduct.
Jay-Z’s lawyers have already asked for a fast-tracked hearing on their motions, so stay tuned at Billboard for more developments as the case moves forward.
Other top stories this week….
DRAKE’S MOTIVES – What could Drake possibly be thinking? That’s the question Billboard’s Steve Knopper set out to answer in his excellent piece examining the possible motives behind the rapper’s widely-ridiculed legal actions against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar‘s savage diss track “Not Like Us.” Is Drake perhaps seeking leverage to “alter his existing deal” with UMG? Or is it just a “publicity stunt”? Go read Steve’s whole story to find out what industry attorneys had to say.
DON’T SAY GAY? Village People singer Victor Willis is threatening to file defamation lawsuits against news outlets that describe his iconic 1978 disco hit “Y.M.C.A” as a “gay anthem,” saying there’s “nothing gay” about lyrics that have been widely interpreted as a double entendre about gay life. But legal experts told Billboard that such cases that would face serious obstacles in court, thanks largely to the First Amendment and its robust protections for free speech: “Mr. Willis’ threatened libel claim would be a nonstarter for numerous reasons,” one media attorney said.
NBA YOUNGBOY SENTENCED – YoungBoy Never Broke Again was sentenced to 23 months in prison after striking a deal with prosecutors to finally resolve all of his various legal entanglements. The plea deal, which also included 60 months of probation after his release, could see him released as soon as next year due to credit for time he has already served in jail awaiting trial.
BASSNECTAR TRIAL LOOMS – A federal judge refused to dismiss a civil lawsuit accusing electronic music producer Bassnectar of sexually abusing three underage girls, sending the long-running case to a jury trial. Ruling on claims made by one alleged victim, the judge noted that she was “only sixteen” at the time and the DJ was “obviously able to observe her in person,” meaning a jury could find that he had “recklessly disregarded” that she was under the age of 18.
STEREOPHONIC SETTLEMENT – The creators of the hit Broadway play Stereophonic reached a settlement to resolve a copyright lawsuit claiming they stole elements of the show from a memoir written by music producer Ken Caillat about the infamous recording of Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours. Caillat claimed that the play – widely seen as a winking reference to Fleetwood – was an “unauthorized adaptation” of his book.
Related
YSL JURY VERDICT – After hearing more than a year of testimony, an Atlanta jury handed down a verdict that largely acquitted the final two remaining co-defendants (Deamonte “Yak Gotti” Kendrick and Shannon Stillwell) in a sweeping racketeering trial over accusations that Young Thug ran a violent street gang under his YSL moniker. Coming a month after Thug himself escaped the case by pleading guilty and receiving a sentence of only probation, the verdict marks the end of criminal trial that has captivated the music industry for nearly than two years – and a major loss for the Fulton County District Attorney filed it.
TIKTOK BAN RULING – A federal appeals court ruled against TikTok and upheld a law that could ban the service from the country, handing a resounding defeat to the popular social media platform that has become a crucial music promotion tool in recent years. The Chinese-owned company argued that the statute ran afoul of the First Amendment and its protections for the freedom of speech, but the court was unswayed: “The government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.”
