HYBE somehow managed to lose a lawsuit, win a lawsuit, and get dragged into a brand-new lawsuit all within the same news cycle.
Just another Tuesday in HYBE.
The first case was actually a setback for HYBE and BELIFT LAB.
A Korean court rejected HYBE’s damages claim against FASTVIEW, the media company behind several controversial YouTube channels tied to the ILLIT versus NewJeans plagiarism discourse.
HYBE had argued that videos comparing ILLIT to other artists damaged the company and its artists financially. But the court reportedly ruled that many of the comparisons and commentary qualified as opinion rather than factual claims. The court also said HYBE failed to sufficiently prove direct financial damages. HYBE says it plans to appeal and may pursue additional legal action.
Defamation law in Korea often turns on whether a statement is presented as verifiable fact or subjective opinion. Saying “these concepts feel similar” is legally very different from presenting fabricated claims as established truth.
But HYBE also secured a win the same day.
In a separate case, the company and BELIFT LAB won a lawsuit against the YouTube cyber-wrecker channel “Anything,” sometimes translated as “Anitin.” A Seoul court ruled that around 30 videos targeting ILLIT crossed the line into defamation.
Those videos allegedly pushed unverified claims that ILLIT plagiarized NewJeans and repeated accusations surrounding the incident where Hanni claimed she was ignored by a BELIFT employee. The court found the claims lacked proper verification and harmed the artists’ reputations.
And then came lawsuit number three.
Billboard reported that four songwriters — Audrey Armacost, Aidan Rodriguez, Adam Gokcebay, and Michael Campanelli — filed a copyright lawsuit in the United States against NewJeans, ADOR, and HYBE over the 2024 song “How Sweet.”
According to the lawsuit, the writers were sent an instrumental track in January 2024 and invited to create topline melodies and lyrics for possible use by NewJeans. They submitted a demo called “One of a Kind” but were later told it was not selected.
Months later, after “How Sweet” was released, they believed parts of the melody — particularly the first verse — were substantially similar to their demo. The lawsuit specifically points to an approximately eight-bar, 31-note melodic sequence that allegedly appears in both songs.
ADOR responded by saying it consulted with BANA, the production company involved in creating the track, and BANA denied plagiarism allegations. ADOR said both the company and the members would respond according to BANA’s position.
At the time “How Sweet” was being developed, Min Hee-jin was still CEO of ADOR and deeply involved in NewJeans’ creative direction. BANA also worked closely with her on production and songwriting processes. So if this lawsuit escalates and if any wrongdoing were hypothetically established later, there is a real possibility HYBE could argue internally that responsibility falls on the management and production structure operating under ADOR leadership at the time.
That does not automatically mean Min Hee-jin personally committed wrongdoing. Copyright cases are extremely technical and similarity alone is often not enough to prove infringement. But from a corporate governance standpoint, HYBE could potentially claim that ADOR leadership failed in oversight, clearance procedures, or duty of care during the production process.
Especially because HYBE and Min Hee-jin are already in multiple legal battles, this lawsuit creates another layer of risk regarding accountability, indemnification, and management responsibility.
So within a span of days, HYBE ended up defending artistic integrity, losing a damages claim tied to online commentary, winning a defamation case against cyber-wrecker content, and facing a U.S. copyright lawsuit tied to one of the biggest songs in the NewJeans catalog.
