In recent months, NewJeans have held an emergency press conference, gone live to address the public, and even sat down for an interview with the BBC. Yet, despite this extensive media presence, the group has struggled to substantiate their claims in court. Even industry bodies such as the Korea Management Federation (KMF) and the Korea Entertainment Producers’ Association (KEPA) have criticized their actions, describing them as “childish” and urging the group to withdraw their allegations.
Please note that this article draws on multiple credible sources, including legal commentary from Jiwon Lee, a criminal defense attorney at Lawfirm Siwoo in Korea. The legal perspective provided offers insight into why NewJeans’ arguments may not stand in a court of law.
More importantly, this article aims to address a growing concern among a minority of NewJeans’ fanbase—a segment that has been engaging in toxic behavior online. These individuals have directed hate and baseless accusations toward other HYBE labelmates such as LE SSERAFIM, ILLIT, and BTS—groups entirely uninvolved in this legal dispute.
It is crucial to recognize that shareholders and board members have the right to promote and invest in whichever artists they choose. Preferring LE SSERAFIM over NewJeans, for example, is a business decision—not sabotage.
Furthermore, accusations that ILLIT “stole” the Y2K aesthetic are unfounded. Y2K is a widely used visual trend that dates back to the early 2000s; it is not owned or invented by any single group, including NewJeans.
NewJeans dropped a bombshell, claiming they’re cutting ties with ADOR over eight serious violations. Fans were quick to rally behind them, but things aren’t as clear-cut as they seem. Upon closer inspection, the accusations fall apart. Legal experts and industry insiders are raising their eyebrows. Could this be a case of mistreatment—or simply a group trying to… play the victim?
8 Reasons Why NewJeans Is Not the Victim
Let’s take a look at each of Newjeans’ accusations and why it doesn’t add up.
1. The “Scrap and Start Fresh” Comment
NewJeans’ Argument: HYBE was allegedly considering replacing or disbanding the group.
Why It Doesn’t Hold Up:
- The phrase is vague and open to interpretation.
- No concrete evidence proves HYBE intended to disband the group.
- NewJeans continues to promote successfully—clearly, they weren’t “scrapped.”
2. A Manager Told Hanni to “Ignore Her”
NewJeans’ Argument: ADOR failed to protect a member from verbal disrespect.
Why It Doesn’t Hold Up:
- The comment came from a manager at a different label.
- ADOR has no control over employees from other companies.
- There is no verified proof the incident even happened.
3. PR Team Downplaying Achievements
NewJeans’ Argument: HYBE’s PR team disrespected the group.
Why It Doesn’t Hold Up:
- ADOR and HYBE took corrective action against the individuals involved.
- One PR misstep doesn’t justify breaching a multimillion-dollar contract.
4. Leaked Pre-Debut Training Footage
NewJeans’ Argument: Unauthorized videos were released.
Why It Doesn’t Hold Up:
- The leak originated from media outlets, not HYBE or ADOR.
- HYBE acted swiftly by requesting takedowns—fulfilling their responsibility.
5. “Pushout” Allegations in Favor of Other Groups
NewJeans’ Argument: HYBE was sidelining them in favor of newer groups.
Why It Doesn’t Hold Up:
- “Pushout” is not a legally defined or actionable term.
- NewJeans remains one of HYBE’s most successful and visible acts.
6. Creative Disputes Over Music Video Production
NewJeans’ Argument: Their input was ignored, and their ideas deleted.
Why It Doesn’t Hold Up:
- Creative decisions—like hiring directors—are typically made by the company.
- Disappointment or disagreement doesn’t equal breach of contract.
7. Failure to Protect the Group’s “Identity”
NewJeans’ Argument: Their artistic vision wasn’t respected.
Why It Doesn’t Hold Up:
- “Identity” is subjective and difficult to measure in legal terms.
- NewJeans continues to release music consistent with their brand.
8. Demanding CEO Min Hee-jin Be Reinstated
NewJeans’ Argument: They want ADOR’s CEO back.
Why It Doesn’t Hold Up:
- Artists don’t get to decide who runs the company.
- CEO appointments are handled by shareholders and boards—not idols.
What Happens If NewJeans Loses?
If the lawsuit fails, NewJeans could be liable for up to ₩600 billion KRW (approx. $450 million USD) in damages. Why?
1. Unfulfilled Contract Obligations
- The group signed a 7-year exclusive contract in 2022.
- With five years remaining, HYBE can sue for lost revenue.
- NewJeans would be legally prohibited from being promoted elsewhere.
2. HYBE’s Projected Profits
- Estimated annual revenue from NewJeans: ₩100 billion.
- Over five years, that’s ₩500 billion in expected earnings.
3. Penalty Clauses & Development Costs
- K-pop contracts often include severe penalties for early termination.
- HYBE has spent tens of billions in training, marketing, and branding.
- Additional damages could exceed ₩100 billion.
Passion for a group should never cross into harassment or misinformation. Support your idols—but do so with maturity, respect, and an understanding of the industry they’re a part of.
Muhammad Hariz