NewJeans and the creative team behind the group are now facing multiple copyright disputes, with a newly filed lawsuit over the group’s 2023 hit “ETA” becoming the latest legal challenge.
The complaint, first reported by Billboard, alleges that “ETA” copied protectable elements from a 2005 dance track, making it the second copyright lawsuit filed against NewJeans and ADOR and the third formal copyright complaint involving the group’s music.
Together, the cases have raised broader questions about how copyright law applies to pop music, why performers are frequently named alongside producers and labels, and whether former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin could eventually face legal exposure if the company loses.
The ‘ETA’ lawsuit
The newest complaint was filed on July 7 by All Surface Publishing, the rights holder of producer DJ Deon’s 2005 Baltimore club track “Samir’s Theme.”
According to the lawsuit, “ETA” copied a combination of original musical elements from the earlier work, including melodic horn lines, rhythmic structures, bass drum patterns and the overall arrangement. While musical genres themselves cannot be copyrighted, the plaintiffs argue that the specific combination of these elements constitutes protectable expression under U.S. copyright law.
The company previously filed a similar lawsuit against rapper Pitbull’s label over “I Feel Good,” a dispute that was later settled, demonstrating that the publisher has actively enforced its rights over the same composition.
The lawsuit remains ongoing, and ADOR has not yet publicly responded.
The Earlier ‘How Sweet’ Lawsuit
The latest complaint follows another copyright lawsuit filed in May 2026 over NewJeans’ single “How Sweet.”
Four American songwriters and producers allege that they submitted a demo titled “One of a Kind” after receiving a request to write for NewJeans. Although the demo was rejected, they claim that the melody used in the first verse of “How Sweet” is substantially similar to their work.
The complaint points to similarities in melody, rhythm, musical structure and phrasing while also arguing that producer BANA had direct access to the demo because the submission was acknowledged during the songwriting process.
ADOR denied the allegations, stating that it consulted BANA and concluded that no copyright infringement had occurred. The company said it intends to defend both itself and the members in court.
The case remains pending.
The Unresolved ‘Bubble Gum’ Dispute
Before either lawsuit, another dispute emerged over NewJeans’ “Bubble Gum.”
In 2024, British band Shack Attack and publisher Wise Music Group alleged that the song copied elements from their 1981 track “Easier Said Than Done,” citing similarities in melody, rhythm, tempo and instrumentation. They demanded that ADOR stop exploiting the song, account for profits and revise songwriting credits.
ADOR strongly denied the allegations, arguing that the claim lacked sufficient musicological evidence and stating that the composers had never heard the earlier song before the dispute surfaced.
Unlike the “ETA” and “How Sweet” cases, the dispute has not yet escalated into formal court litigation.
Why Are the Members Named in the Lawsuits?
One question repeatedly raised by fans is why the NewJeans members themselves are defendants even though they did not compose the songs.
Under U.S. copyright litigation, plaintiffs often sue everyone they believe participated in commercially exploiting the allegedly infringing work. That frequently includes labels, publishers, producers, distributors, songwriters and performing artists.
Naming performers does not necessarily mean plaintiffs believe the artists personally copied anyone’s work. Rather, courts later determine whether any defendant bears legal responsibility and, if so, who would ultimately be liable for damages.
Could Ador Pursue Min Hee-Jin?
If ADOR were ultimately found liable in one or more of these copyright disputes, another legal question could emerge: whether the company could seek damages from former CEO Min Hee-jin.
Simply serving as CEO would not automatically make her personally liable. However, the company could potentially argue that she failed to exercise appropriate oversight over the creative process, thereby exposing ADOR to copyright liability.
That possibility becomes more legally interesting because ADOR has repeatedly argued in separate litigation that Min exercised extraordinary control over NewJeans’ creative direction, production decisions and overall strategy.
If ADOR later sought to recover damages from its former CEO, that same argument—that she exercised extensive creative authority—could potentially strengthen a claim that she also bore significant responsibility for the creative process that produced the disputed works.
Whether such an argument would ultimately succeed would depend on evidence showing not only her influence but also specific failures in management or oversight.
Multiple disputes could strengthen a pattern argument
Each lawsuit will ultimately be decided on its own facts.
However, if ADOR were to lose multiple copyright cases involving songs released during Min Hee-jin’s tenure, the company could argue that the disputes were not isolated incidents but reflected broader failures in supervision over the music production process.
Legal experts generally distinguish between a single mistake and repeated conduct when evaluating claims involving corporate governance and fiduciary duties.
Whether courts would accept such an argument remains uncertain.
An Ironic Turn in One Of K-Pop’s Biggest Creative Debates
The lawsuits also carry an undeniable irony.
For much of the past two years, Min Hee-jin publicly accused other K-pop groups of copying concepts, visuals and creative ideas. Those accusations fueled one of the industry’s most polarizing debates, with many NewJeans supporters frequently describing similarities involving other artists as “plagiarism.”
Now, it is NewJeans’ own catalog that has become the subject of multiple copyright disputes. More fans of other groups are also coming forward with videos and photos proving that the team of Min Hee-jin took even more liberty taking inspirations, of by Min’s own definition, plagiarizing, choreographies, music video concepts and scenes, and looks.
The video below shows some of those videos (starts at 21:38).
That distinction is important. Copyright infringement is a legal claim decided by courts, while creative inspiration is an inevitable part of artistic development. The accompanying video examines numerous examples in which NewJeans’ creative team appeared to draw inspiration from earlier choreography, visual styles and production techniques—examples that many fans who once labeled other artists “plagiarists” often did not acknowledge when discussing NewJeans.
Regardless of how the lawsuits are ultimately resolved, the cases have shifted the conversation. Instead of asking only whether other artists borrowed from NewJeans, the industry’s attention is now focused on whether NewJeans’ own creative process crossed the legal line from inspiration into copyright infringement.
