On January 22, the members of NewJeans—Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin, and Hyein—offered fans a detailed update on their legal battle with their former agency, ADOR, through a heartfelt letter shared on their new Instagram account, jeanzforfree.
The letter alleged that ADOR and HYBE engaged in underhanded tactics to divide the group, including private meetings with some members’ parents and spreading unsubstantiated rumors through the media. They also reiterated their unwavering decision not to return to ADOR, citing a lack of trust and proper support from the agency.
In addition, NewJeans announced a contest for fans to come up with a temporary new group name, to which ADOR responded “We are diligently following the legal procedures to verify this position. It can be considered a severe breach of contract for the members to carry out independent entertainment activities by asking for submissions of a new group name, and we find this very unfortunate.”
Amid the ongoing conflict between NewJeans and ADOR, attention has shifted to the legal implications and their potential outcomes. Various lawyers from top law firms from Korea have weighed in on the ongoing legal battle between NewJeans and ADOR.
Attorney Ko Sang Rok from Phil Law Firm highlighted that “the key issue is whether the grievances raised by NewJeans—such as alleged neglect and inappropriate behavior by ADOR—can be proven as breaches of their exclusive contract.” He also pointed out that NewJeans’ move to terminate their contract may have been premature, potentially putting them at a disadvantage in legal proceedings.
Attorney Kim Kyung Nam from Foryou Law Office was skeptical about NewJeans’ claims serving as sufficient grounds for contract termination. He argued that minor contract violations, even if proven, rarely justify unilateral termination, and the group may even face counterclaims for damages. He explained, “The termination’s validity depends on whether there is a material breach of the contract. Courts typically interpret such cases strictly, and termination is only allowed for significant breaches, such as financial insolvency making it impossible to support artists. None of NewJeans’ claims appear to meet these criteria. The demands made by NewJeans lack substantial evidence, and even if true, they are unlikely to hold up legally. Instead, NewJeans may end up being liable for damages to ADOR. Most lawyers agree that termination is unlikely, and I share this view.”
On the other hand, Roh Jong Eon an attorney from Jonjae Law Firm argued that ADOR’s alleged actions, such as attempts to divide members and undermine their trust, could constitute a breach of the company’s obligation to protect the artists. He noted that the case’s outcome would hinge on whether the court finds that the trust between NewJeans and ADOR has been irreparably broken. He explained, “In cases of irrevocable trust breakdowns, even if both parties share blame, courts have ruled that forcing a relationship to continue is unreasonable. This means NewJeans’ termination notice might hold legal weight. If mutual blame is established, termination penalties for both parties could be reduced to zero. NewJeans’ actions were strategic and decisive.”
Attorney Kim Tae Yeon from Taeyeon Law Office also speculated that while NewJeans may face challenges in escaping liability for termination, the group could reduce or avoid significant penalties if the court acknowledges ADOR’s failure to fulfill its managerial duties.
Other legal expert opinions include:
Park Sung Bae / Law Firm Hyemyung
“While terminating an exclusive contract is relatively free in Korea, it would be difficult for NewJeans to completely avoid liability for damages. Termination is typically justified by extreme situations like verbal abuse, physical assault, or failure to provide timely settlements—none of which seem evident here. Intellectual property disputes over imitating their work are unlikely to justify contract termination either. Courts rarely grant full damages in such cases, often significantly reducing the amounts owed.”
Park Sung Woo / Wooree Law Firm
“While the specifics of the contract need to be reviewed, NewJeans’ claim of zero penalties will need legal validation. If this goes to trial, the outcome may not favor NewJeans. They may have chosen this strategy to pressure ADOR into filing a lawsuit, which could tarnish ADOR’s image in the process.”
Baek Soo Woong / Us Law Office
“Immigration authorities are unlikely to decide on the validity of the visa based on the legal dispute. Until there is a final ruling confirming the legality of NewJeans’ termination, the visa issued by ADOR is likely to remain valid.”
Seon Jong Moon / GY Law Firm
“Courts will first examine whether there were any breaches of the exclusive contract. Common cases include delayed settlements or insufficient management. If NewJeans is actively promoting and ADOR is fulfilling its duties, it will be hard to justify termination. Termination penalties listed in the contract may be reduced at the judge’s discretion.”
Son Soo Ho / Son & Partners
“Both parties have valid arguments, so it is too early to judge. The key issue lies in whether there is evidence of ADOR violating the terms of the exclusive contract. Objectively speaking, if the legal dispute continues in the current situation, there is a greater likelihood of NewJeans losing rather than winning. If ADOR takes the first legal action, it could create a perception of pressure on NewJeans, potentially leading to public sentiment that the contract relationship has irreparably broken down.”
Song Hye Mi / Opes Law Firm
“If this case proceeds to formal litigation, NewJeans will need to prove the reasons for termination. Currently, there does not appear to be any significant fault on ADOR’s part, and courts typically recognize the substantial financial investments made by agencies in their artists. Based on the reasons NewJeans has stated so far, it seems unlikely that they will entirely avoid termination penalties. If NewJeans continues their activities after declaring the termination of their exclusive contract, copyright-related disputes could arise. Determining how to settle the compensation for their activities would also be a complex matter.”
Heo Joo Yeon / New Wave Law Firm
“NewJeans’ six stated reasons for termination are challenging to prove. Many of their claims involve third parties, such as Min Hee Jin’s reinstatement and resolving disputes with the director of Dolphiners Films, which are not directly related to the contract. Even NewJeans’ claims about mistreatment within HYBE or allegations of being sidelined must be backed by solid evidence proving such actions caused harm. Without clear proof, it will be hard to argue that these constitute breaches of contract. Even if this case proceeds to litigation, it seems unlikely that NewJeans will win or completely avoid termination penalties.”
SEE ALSO: