This is The Legal Beat, a weekly music law newsletter from Billboard Pro, bringing you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, landmark decisions and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: A judge denies Lizzo's request to dismiss a bombshell harassment lawsuit filed by her backup dancers. A nasty flood of Taylor Swift Deepfakes highlights a growing problem. an update on Earth Wind & Fire's trademark lawsuit against a tribute band. and many more.
THE BIG STORY: Lizzo's harassment case moves forward
Two days before Lizzo appeared to present an award at the Grammys on Sunday night, a Los Angeles judge ruled that the singer's legal troubles won't be resolved anytime soon.
In a ruling Friday, Judge Mark H. Epstein rejected Lizzo's motion to drop a bombshell sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit filed by three of her former dancers last year. Although he dismissed some charges – including a particularly charged allegation that Lizzo body-shamed one of her dancers – the judge ruled that the rest of the case could go forward.
Lizzo argued in October that this case should be dismissed under California's so-called anti-SLAPP statute — a special law that makes it easier to quickly end unfair lawsuits that threaten free speech, known as “strategic anti-public participation lawsuits.” . Her lawyers said the dancers' case was a “hilarious attempt to silence the creative voices of the accused”.
As I said then, this argument was unusual. Anti-SLAPP motions are used quite often in defamation lawsuits filed by powerful people against their critics. I don't ever remember seeing one used by one employer who have been sued by their employees for violating labor laws.
In his ruling last week, Judge Epstein largely agreed. While he said striking the balance — between free speech and illegal workplace behavior — was “not an easy job,” he ultimately decided that many of the allegations against Lizzo did not fit the protections of the anti-SLAPP law.
Read why in our full story on the Lizzo decision, including a detailed breakdown of the decision and access to the actual decision handed down by the judge.
Other top stories this week…
TAYLOR SWIFT DEEPFAKES – After X was flooded with fake, sexually explicit images of Taylor Swift, I dove deep and tried to understand the country's legal basis. Were these deeply fake images illegal? Should new laws be passed to stop them? Are social networking sites doing enough to stop them? As it turns out, legal experts say the ugly incident is a sign of things to come, as artificial intelligence tools make it easier to create deepfakes and tech companies clamp down on content retention. Go read the full story here.
“GEORGE & TAMMY” CASE. – Showtime has been hit with a lawsuit over its 2022 TV series centering on country music legends George Jones and Tammy Wynette, filed by the estate of Wynette's late husband George Ritchie. The lawsuit alleges that the producers presented a “derogatory” portrayal of Richey that made him the “villain” of the show. But it is not an action for defamation…
RAP ON TEST? NOT IN BK – A federal judge overseeing the Brooklyn murder trial of Jam Master Jay ruled that prosecutors could not introduce rap lyrics written by the rapper's alleged killer into evidence against him – in the process, entering one of the thorniest issues of music law. After offering a sweeping historical overview of hip-hop's past, the judge warned that the overarching themes of violence and crime have become “so prevalent in the genre that they have little, if any, probative value at trial.” As a result, he said they should only be accepted if they have a clear, direct connection to the facts of the case: “Musical artists should be free to create without fear that their lyrics could be unfairly used against them.”
TRADEMARK TRIBUTE – A tribute band sued by Earth, Wind & Fire last year for using the name “Earth Wind & Fire Legacy Reunion” has won a small settlement in their ongoing trademark infringement case, allowing them to continue pursuing their eyebrow-raising counterargument : the legendary R&B group somehow gave up the copyright to its name.
SUBLIME SALPRACTICE SUIT – The '90s rock band has filed a lawsuit against prominent music law firm King Holmes Paterno & Soriano LLP, accusing its former lawyers of a “self-serving pattern.” Surviving members of Sublime say the company's lawyers — including legendary music lawyers Howard King and Peter Paterno — had undisclosed conflicts of interest on several matters, including brokering a commercial deal with one of the company's other clients that the band claims that it cost her millions of dollars. When asked to comment on the allegations, King said Advertising sign simply: “Welcome to Fantasyland. Please enjoy the ride.”
NIRVANA SMILING FACE COMPETITION – A years-long legal battle over the grunge band's famous smiley face logo could lead to a major showdown, sparked by a former record label art designer named Robert Fisher, who says he, not Kurt Cobain, created the famous design .
