(Official) HYBE and ADOR’s full statement on The New York Times’ reporting about NewJeans’ exclusive contracts

We would like to clarify the facts regarding The New York Times article published on November 5 about NewJeans’ exclusive contracts. [Omission of artist-protection provisions from the government standard contract]

All HYBE labels sign the national standard supplemental agreement for young artists with every trainee at their respective labels. The supplemental agreement includes all protective provisions covering personality rights, the right to sleep, the right to education, the right to rest, and more, and remains valid until the artist reaches adulthood. Youth-protection officers are also appointed in accordance with applicable laws. NewJeans’ exclusive contracts additionally include provisions protecting basic human rights, encompassing the protections guaranteed by the national standard supplemental agreement for young artists. [Whether the artists’ views were reflected when the contracts were signed]

Draft contracts were shared on January 7, 2022, and the contracts were ultimately signed in April. Over those 3 months, extensive discussions took place through Q&A sessions, email correspondence, and revisions reviewed by the artists’ attorneys. The court also recognized that the contracts were signed after sufficient discussion between both sides (Seoul High Court 2025Ra2421). The change requested at the time by the mother of one member who is currently in a dispute with ADOR concerned a provision stating, "If an attempted tampering occurs, the company must be notified immediately." Although the requested change was not incorporated, the mother thanked the company for its detailed and lengthy explanation, writing, "Thank you for the thoughtful response. I would like to let you know that I have no further objections to the answers you provided."

HYBE Legal provides each label with a basic exclusive-contract template for reference. Using that template, the label communicates with the artist, the other party to the contract, to determine key terms such as the settlement method. Regarding the actual allocation of expenses, one mother asked whether the artists’ share of the costs could be reduced. HYBE’s legal team prepared and presented ADOR with multiple ways to accommodate that request, but ADOR’s vice president at the time rejected them, so the contracts were signed under the current terms. [CCTV installation]

CCTV cameras are installed only in shared areas such as practice rooms. They are operated in compliance with applicable laws. This is a measure intended to protect the safety of trainees and artists by preventing unauthorized entry, theft, and other crimes. [Right to education]

HYBE and each of its labels have a firm policy of fully respecting and following the wishes of artists, trainees, and their parents regarding education. There have also been cases where artists who expressed a desire to attend university received the company’s full support. [Contractual penalty provision]

NewJeans’ contracts state that the contractual penalty is calculated using the average monthly revenue during the period when revenue was actually generated, regardless of the length of their entertainment activities. Although this wording may appear different from the standard contract, the economic effect is the same, and the provision was not changed to the artists’ disadvantage.

The standard contract also includes a provision intended to exclude periods when no revenue was generated from the contractual-penalty calculation. For artists who debuted less than 2 years ago, the standard contract specifies that only the period when revenue was actually generated—in other words, the period after debut—is reflected in the calculation.

NewJeans’ contracts likewise specify that only periods when revenue was generated are reflected, without considering the overall length of their entertainment activities. However, NewJeans generated substantial revenue immediately after debut and continues to generate significant revenue through streaming and other sources. Since the only period without revenue was before debut, the practical effect is completely identical to the standard contract.

Accordingly, the contractual penalty in Danielle Marsh’s lawsuit was calculated using exactly the same formula as the standard contract. During the NewJeans exclusive-contract dispute, the Seoul High Court also reviewed this provision in detail and expressly ruled that there was no issue with it.

For reference, this is a highly exceptional provision that applies only "when the company is faithfully fulfilling its obligations, but the artist unilaterally terminates the contract during the contract period or breaches a material term for the purpose of terminating it." [Rights to the members’ voices and faces]

NewJeans’ exclusive contracts contain provisions protecting personality rights, and any use of AI content can, of course, proceed only with each artist’s individual consent. One member’s mother was also given this explanation, stated that she had no objections, and signed the contract. Furthermore, if a former agency arbitrarily uses the IP of an artist who has signed with another agency after the exclusive contract ends to actively pursue additional business ventures, that could violate Korea’s Unfair Competition Prevention Act and other laws. The company is fully aware of these legal risks and has absolutely no reason or plan to use an artist’s IP arbitrarily in violation of the law. [Prohibitions on defamation, inappropriate romantic relationships, and other conduct]

Defamation is also prohibited under the Criminal Act of the Republic of Korea. This provision means that the artists must not commit a criminal act that constitutes defamation. Overseas brand-model contracts may impose even broader morality clauses than domestic contracts. Preventing inappropriate romantic relationships that could cause public controversy is also necessary to protect the artists. The artists’ parents agreed to this provision when the contracts were signed. We explained to The New York Times, with supporting evidence, that the NewJeans contracts were negotiated and ultimately signed by Min Hee-jin, who was CEO at the time; the vice president appointed by Min Hee-jin; each member and the members’ parents; and the legal representatives of some members. We also asked the article to clearly state that Min Hee-jin was one of the parties responsible for the contracts, but this request was not accepted.

Contract documents and litigation materials available only to the parties involved have been leaked to foreign media and are being used as a tool to attack K-pop, leaving us no choice but to provide the explanation above.

HYBE · ADOR

TheQoo · View original source·Request removal