NewJeans' Contract Fight: HYBE Cites 3 Months of Talks, Min Cites Page One

HYBE and ADOR say NewJeans' exclusive contract was negotiated over three months and that Min Hee-jin was a party to it. Min says that's a dodge: HYBE's own legal team wrote the thing.

The fight started on November 5, when The New York Times reported on a copy of the contract the members signed as teenage trainees in 2022. The paper said it departed from the government's standard contract. HYBE and ADOR issued a rebuttal on the 6th. Min's side, which now runs OK Records, answered the same day.

What The New York Times reported

The Times said the contract lacked standard-contract language guaranteeing minors' education, sleep and rest, and barred young performers from working excessive hours. It cited people close to the group saying members often practiced until 2 a.m. and that training spaces were video-recorded. Four of the five members left school.

It also flagged that the standard contract ends the label's rights to a performer's name, image and voice when the deal ends, while NewJeans' version did not. The paper suggested that could allow AI voice clones or chatbots. Other points: bans on defamation (true or false statements that could harm the company), inappropriate dating and "fostering division" with the company; large penalties even when the company ends the contract; and cosmetic procedures suggested to some members, with costs partly repayable by them.

One parent reportedly asked for changes before signing. The ADOR vice president reportedly replied that if the draft was unacceptable, "the best course would be to reconsider the contract itself." Lawyer Noh Jong-eon, who reviewed it, said it restricts artist freedom to a degree rare in recent major-label deals.

HYBE and ADOR's rebuttal

The companies say HYBE labels sign a national standard youth supplementary agreement with minor trainees. It covers personal rights, sleep, education and rest, stays valid until adulthood, and comes with a designated minor-protection officer. They argue NewJeans' contract also contains basic human-rights protections that encompass it.

On process, they say a draft was shared on January 7, 2022 and the deal was finalized in April, with Q&A sessions, emails and revisions after review by the artists' lawyers. They say a court ruling (Seoul High Court Case No. 2025Ra2421) acknowledged sufficient discussion. They add that one member's mother, who is now in a dispute with ADOR, wrote that she had no further objections after the company explained a clause she questioned.

On expenses, they say HYBE's legal team offered ADOR several ways to ease the members' burden, but ADOR's then-vice president rejected them. CCTV, they say, covers shared spaces only, such as practice rooms. They also say artists who wanted university were supported, and that AI use of a member's face or voice needs individual consent.

On penalties, they concede the wording differs from the standard contract but say the financial effect is identical. The standard contract excludes revenue-free periods for artists active under two years, and NewJeans earned from debut, so only the pre-debut stretch is excluded. They say the Seoul High Court reviewed the clause and found no issue, and that it applies only when the company has met its obligations and the artist unilaterally terminates.

HYBE and ADOR also say they asked the Times to name Min, then ADOR's CEO, as a party responsible for the contract, and the paper declined. They object to contracts and litigation documents being leaked to foreign media and "used as tools to attack K-pop."

Min Hee-jin's reply

Min's side calls the rebuttal self-defeating. If the contract had no problems, it argues, HYBE wouldn't need a statement or someone to pass responsibility to. Being a signatory, it says, is different from having authority over the terms.

Its claims: ADOR had no independent legal team, because HYBE's shared-function system didn't allow labels to have one. HYBE's legal team drafted the contract and handled revisions, with ADOR relaying parents' questions. Approval ran through HYBE's legal team, CFO and CEO, plus a board of two HYBE appointees and one ADOR CEO.

Min's side also points to January 25, 2024, when she asked HYBE CEO Park Ji-won for authority over key contracts, and to a February 16 shareholder-agreement proposal that included it. HYBE, it says, later publicly said it refused. Why ask, it asks, if ADOR already had that power? It adds that when the members moved from Source Music to ADOR, Min's ADOR chose not to charge them earlier trainee costs.

The timing of all this, with NewJeans still not back on stage, is messy for everyone involved.

What theqoo users said

1. 1

   Free NewJeans.

2. 2

   Some people abroad seem truly bothered by Asian acts succeeding, and every fresh piece of "bait" feeds that. Koreans who defend those critics purely out of dislike for HYBE must look pathetic to outsiders.

3. 3

   I hate both New and Min.

4. 4

   What? There's more?

5. 5

   I don't follow all this complicated stuff. Can NewJeans just have a comeback already? It's been years, two or three now?

6. 6

   Min Hee-jin is the contract party, isn't she? Take it up with her.

7. 7

   Looks like Danielle leaked it, probably to sway public opinion.

8. 8

   Anyone can see Danielle leaked this. She's exposing everything because she can't perform with NewJeans anymore. American media loves it and is using it to bash K-pop. You're bashing HYBE, so why drag in HYBE?

9. 9

   From the BBC to the New York Times. She's latched onto that side while living off K-pop. Is she planning to renounce Korean nationality?

10. 10

    HYBE really put itself in a bad spot.