How legal experts assess NewJeans' prospects regarding battle with Ador
NewJeans attends a press conference regarding its contract termination at Space Share Samsung Center in Gangnam District, Seoul, Thursday. From left are Haerin, Danielle, Minji, Hanni and Hyein. Yonhap
By KTimes
Contract termination remains uncertain; large financial penalties could be reduced; even with a win, group may lose name
Girl group NewJeans shocked the K-pop world by holding a late-night press conference on Thursday to unilaterally announce the termination of its exclusive contract with its agency, Ador.
The move, described by the group as unprecedented, left the industry reeling. Observers had anticipated a simpler course of action, such as filing an injunction to suspend the contract’s validity.
Ador, a sublabel of HYBE, countered with a firm stance, saying, “We have not violated the contract, and the exclusive agreement remains valid until July 31, 2029, as stated in the original documents.”
NewJeans says that Ador’s contract breaches have already nullified the agreement, meaning there is no need for legal injunctions or penalty payments.
Regarding the trademark for the group name “NewJeans,” owned by Ador, the group declared, “We have no intention of abandoning this name, which holds all the meaning we’ve built since we first came together. We will fight to secure our rights to it.”
The matter is now expected to be decided in court following Ador’s legal actions.
K-pop girl group NewJeans' members at a press conference, Thursday / Yonhap
Why did NewJeans hold a late-night press conference?
NewJeans chose to announce the termination of its contract instead of filing an injunction. Legal experts suggest this strategy allows the group to continue working while legal proceedings continue, as opposed to the operational freeze typically imposed during injunction cases.
In the Thursday press conference, the group said, “As of the 29th, we are no longer part of Ador and will act freely moving forward.”
Critics have questioned whether a group can unilaterally terminate a contract with the agency that nurtured and supported them.
Legal experts generally agree that artists can notify their agencies of contract termination, even if it is uncommon.
Lee Hyun-gon, an attorney at Saeol Law Office, said, “While it is rare for the ‘weaker’ party in a hierarchical relationship to initiate termination, there is no legal basis that limits this right to the ‘stronger’ party.”
Roh Jong-eon, an attorney at Jone Law Firm, said that the termination takes effect from the moment it is notified and applies retroactively depending on the lawsuit's outcome.
“Choosing not to file for an injunction indicates confidence in winning any potential lawsuit ADOR might file to confirm the validity of the contract,” Roh said.
Some in the industry interpret the timing of the press conference — before Ador’s deadline to respond to a notice of correction — as a move to immediately destabilize the contract’s validity and prevent the agency from exercising its authority over activities like advertising and broadcasting.
Hanni of girl group NewJeans speaks during a press conference regarding its contract termination at Space Share Samsung Center in Gangnam District, Seoul, Thursday. Yonhap
Can NewJeans truly free themselves from Ador?
Exclusive contracts between agencies and artists can only be terminated under specific circumstances.
Lawyer Roh says, “If the relationship of trust is irreparably broken, the contract can be terminated regardless of who is at fault. Based on current information, there’s a strong case for termination.”
NewJeans claims it faced unfair treatment from Ador, citing a HYBE internal document allegedly referring to plans to “abandon NewJeans and start fresh.”
Roh suggests that such language could be deemed a severe breach of the agency’s duty to protect its artists.
Others believe proving Ador’s breach will be challenging.
Ko Sang-rok, an attorney at PIL Law Firm, said, “The six demands NewJeans made, including the reinstatement of former Ador CEO Min Hee-jin and an apology for disrespecting member Hanni, may not constitute sufficient grounds for termination unless evidence clearly establishes Ador’s responsibility.”
NewJeans argues that Ador’s alleged contract breaches have nullified the agreement, meaning there is no need for penalty payments. Yonhap
Are penalty payments and the NewJeans name at stake?
NewJeans asserts that it owes no penalties due to Ador’s alleged breaches. Legal experts agree this depends on proving Ador’s culpability.
Even if NewJeans is found liable for breaking the contract, the reported penalty range of 400 billion to 600 billion won ($300 million to $450 million) may not be fully enforced.
Lawyer Roh said, “Courts often reduce penalties deemed excessive.”
As for the group name, it likely belongs to Ador unless the contract specifies otherwise. Lawyer Ko said, “Even if NewJeans wins the case, it would find it difficult to secure trademark rights unless a specific clause grants them ownership.”
Reporters crowd a press conference held by NewJeans in Seoul, Friday. Yonhap
How might Ador respond, what could this mean for K-pop?
Ador has refrained from commenting on its next steps. Industry insiders speculate that Ador may pursue a confirmation lawsuit regarding the contract or seek injunctions to prohibit NewJeans from engaging in independent activities.
Given previous allegations of Ador's power struggle with former CEO Min, there is speculation that Ador will focus on proving her involvement in NewJeans’ decision.
HYBE has previously accused former CEO Min of attempting to seize control of Ador. This has fueled speculation that Min may have been involved in NewJeans' decision to terminate its contract.
Aware of these allegations, NewJeans clarified during its press conference, “We have not discussed the contract termination with former CEO Min.”
Legal experts suggest that if direct evidence emerges showing Min’s involvement in NewJeans’ activities after she departure from Ador, it could lead to a lawsuit for tampering, defined as third-party interference during a contract period.
However, attorney Roh said, “It would be difficult to prove tampering solely based on conversations between NewJeans and Min. Concrete evidence of plans and actions would be necessary.”
Conversely, lawyer Ko highlighted that even without direct evidence, the sequence of events — Min’s resignation from Ador and NewJeans' contract termination — could negatively influence the case.
“Such developments could be viewed unfavorably in court, even if tampering cannot be definitively proven,” Ko said.
The industry remains cautious, fearing NewJeans' unilateral contract termination claim could set a precedent for others to exploit and pursue independent careers.
An executive at a major K-pop agency said, “A favorable ruling for NewJeans would heighten risks for agencies investing heavily in artists, potentially discouraging future investments and altering the contractual dynamics between agencies and artists.”
An industry insider said that while the NewJeans situation is regrettable, a unilateral contract termination without going through legal procedures is hard to justify.
"Once a precedent is set, there is a concern that others might attempt to nullify legitimate exclusive contracts and engage in tampering to suit their own interests," he said.
This article from the Hankook Ilbo, the sister publication of The Korea Times, is translated by a generative AI system and edited by The Korea Times.