NJZ Vs ADOR First Hearing: NJZ Presents Case, Label Says NewJeans Was Referred ‘Younger Sibling Of BTS’ On Min He-Jin’s Request
NJZ, formerly called NewJeans has stepped up its case against ADOR as the ongoing feud between the two sides reached the corridors of the court. In the first round of legal proceedings, NJZ members Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin, and Hyein on March 7 appeared at the Seoul Central District Court along with the representatives of ADOR.
The hearing mainly involved the injunction request filed by the label in January 2025, requesting the verification of its status to manage NewJeans. It also requested a ban on its members from signing independent advertisement contracts.
NJZ calls out HYBE for unfair treatment
NJZ, on its part, alleged that ADOR’s parent company HYBE tried to interfere with its Jeju Air Memorial Tribute. The K-pop group also claimed intellectual property infringement by the ILLIT group. Further calling out HYBE’s unfair treatment that included biased media play and preferring ILLIT over NJZ’s priority promotional activities, the girl group stated, as per Korean media, “HYBE’s large-scale media play, ILLIT plagiarism controversy, restructuring of New Berry and the destruction of cooperation with the ‘Dolphin Kidnapping’ group are all things that happened from 2023 to 2024. Except for debtors (NewJeans), none of the artists belonging to HYBE have experienced this.”
In their argument, NJZ’s five members stressed on how HYBE tried to took over their debut plan and give it to newly launched ILLIT in an attempt to replace it with the new group. This included the plan of their launch, team structure, choreography, styling, packaging and presentation.
ILLIT plagiarised NJZ’s model
“From 2023 through 2024, the defendants were involved in a number of controversial issues caused by HYBE Labels, including biased media play, ‘laying out a new game board after discarding New[Jeans]’, ILLIT’s plagiarism controversy, conflict with the video production team Dolphiners Films, and more,” NJZ opined. “No other artists under HYBE Labels experienced any kind of treatment resembling the above,” it added, as per an Allkpop report.
NJZ also argued how HYBE tried to suppress the members from honouring the Jeju airplane crash victims and wearing black ribbons. “At the time, the members wanted to wear the ribbon on stage in Japan, but HYBE prevented them from doing so, saying that ‘the Japanese station might have a problem with it,’ but after checking, they were told by the Japanese station that they had no problem with it,” the group said.
For the unversed, newly launched group ILLIT found itself under fire after allegations arose that it was modelled on NewJeans. Even the choreography of its Lucky Girl Syndrome felt similar with an advertisement of NJZ.
Min Hee-Jin against HYBE
Reiterating on ADOR former CEO Min Hee-Jin’s fight in support of the group, it argued she was allegedly forced to resign when she tried to stand against HYBE opposing it for damaging NewJeans’ reputation.
ADOR’s argument
ADOR in its argument, stressed on how NewJeans going independent and breaking away from the exclusive contract constituted legal implications. According to Allkpop, ADOR stated, “The success of NewJeans cannot be explained solely by the talents and the efforts of the group’s members. Behind their success is the effort of approximately 50 employees at ADOR.”
The label continued, “NewJeans also took advantage of various intangible assets available to them through their association with HYBE Labels. Prior to their debut, NewJeans appeared in BTS’s music video. Their songs received continued promotions through challenges filmed with HYBE Labels artists. Since their debut, NewJeans was frequently referred to as the ‘younger sibling group of BTS’, per Min Hee Jin’s request.”
ADOR claimed that “The requests forwarded by the members of NewJeans cannot justify the unilateral termination of their exclusive contracts. In short, the defendants (NewJeans) are merely arguing, ‘HYBE does not like us,’ citing this as a valid reason for the termination of their contracts. They have not mentioned any of the common issues typically considered valid reasons for contractual terminations by artists, such as unfair treatment, unfulfilled payments, or restrictions on promotions. Simply claiming that they have lost trust in the company cannot be a legally acceptable reason for the termination of an exclusive contract.”