HYBE: "No Issues with NewJeans Contract... Min Hee-jin Coordinated the Terms"

Rebuts NYT report alleging unfair terms in minors' exclusive contracts
HYBE: "Signed supplementary agreement to protect young people"
"Individual consent required to use likenesses and voices in AI content"
"Contracts and litigation materials hel

NewJeans. Yonhap News.

HYBE pushed back against a New York Times (NYT) report that exclusive contracts with the group NewJeans contained unfair provisions, saying it had signed a separate agreement to protect minors and had fully discussed the contract terms.

In a statement on Nov. 6, HYBE and ADOR said, "Labels under HYBE sign the national standard youth addendum with trainees at each label. The addendum includes protections for personal rights, the right to sleep, the right to education and the right to rest, and remains in effect until the trainee reaches adulthood." They added that the NewJeans exclusive contract also included basic human rights protections.

On Nov. 5 local time, the NYT reported on key provisions of an exclusive contract that ADOR signed with the five NewJeans members in 2022, when they were minors. The newspaper said the contract lacked provisions to protect minors' right to education and right to sleep, among other things, and required the members to cover expenses for cosmetic procedures and skin care. It also raised concerns about restrictions on dating and public statements, how penalties for breach were calculated, and rights to use the members' images and voices after the contract ended.

According to HYBE, a draft of the NewJeans exclusive contract was shared on Jan. 7, 2022, and the contract was signed that April after about three months of email exchanges answering questions and review by the members' legal counsel. HYBE said, "The fact that the contract was signed after sufficient discussion between both sides was also recognized in a court decision."

HYBE said its legal team provides each label with a standard template for exclusive contracts, and the label then negotiates key terms, including the settlement method, with the artist. It said that when the NewJeans contract was being negotiated, Min Hee-jin, then ADOR's CEO, a vice president she had appointed, the members and their parents, and the legal representatives of some members coordinated the wording and signed the final agreement.

HYBE said it sent the information, along with supporting materials, to the NYT. It added, "We asked the newspaper to state in its article that Min Hee-jin was the party responsible for the contract, but our request was not accepted."

According to HYBE, the mother of one member currently in a dispute with ADOR asked during contract negotiations to revise a clause requiring the members to "immediately inform the company of any attempt at tampering." HYBE said it did not accept the request, but after hearing the company's explanation, the mother replied, "Thank you for your thoughtful response. I would like to let you know that I have no further comments on your response." 

HYBE also disclosed details of discussions about sharing expenses during contract negotiations. HYBE said, "Regarding the actual sharing of expenses, one mother asked whether the artist's share of the costs could be reduced. HYBE's legal team prepared several options to reflect this request and presented them to ADOR, but ADOR's vice president at the time rejected them, and the contract was signed under the current terms."

The group NewJeans. ADOR.

HYBE also maintained that the method for calculating penalties for breach was appropriate. The NewJeans contract stipulates that the penalty is calculated based on average monthly revenue over the period in which actual revenue was generated. HYBE said that although the wording differs from the government's standard contract, "the economic effect is the same, and the provision was not changed to the artist's disadvantage."

According to HYBE, the government's standard contract also uses the period in which actual revenue was generated to calculate penalties for singers who have been active for less than two years since their debut. HYBE argued that the two methods produce the same result because NewJeans began generating revenue shortly after its debut and continues to earn income from music streaming, among other sources. HYBE said, "The penalty in the lawsuit involving Danielle was calculated using exactly the same formula as in the standard contract."

HYBE said, "During the dispute over the NewJeans exclusive contract, the Seoul High Court also reviewed the provision in detail and explicitly ruled that it was not problematic." It explained that the penalty applies only when a singer unilaterally terminates the contract despite the company fulfilling its contractual obligations, or breaches a material obligation with the aim of terminating the contract.

HYBE also disputed claims concerning rights to use the members' images and voices after the contract ends. It said, "AI content can only be created using an artist's likeness or voice with the artist's individual consent." HYBE explained that if a former agency uses a singer's name, face or voice without permission after the singer has moved to another agency, it could violate the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, among other laws. HYBE said, "We have neither reason nor intention to use an artist's intellectual property without authorization, much less in violation of the law."

HYBE also said, "CCTV cameras are installed only in shared spaces such as practice rooms," explaining that they are a measure to prevent crimes such as break-ins and theft. It said that the educational pursuits of artists and trainees are guided by respect for the wishes of the individuals and their parents, and that it has supported artists under its management who wanted to attend university.

HYBE argued that provisions prohibiting defamation and restricting inappropriate romantic relationships were intended to protect singers. It said the prohibition on defamation means that singers must not commit criminal acts under the Criminal Act, and that contracts with overseas brands may also include broader obligations to maintain standards of conduct. It added, "Preventing unhealthy romantic relationships that could cause public controversy is also necessary to protect artists," and said the members' parents had agreed to the provision.

HYBE and ADOR said, "As contracts and litigation materials held only by the parties involved have been leaked to foreign media and are being used as a tool to attack K-pop, we have had no choice but to provide the explanation above."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.