NewJeans contract report shifts spotlight from courts to public opinion

Ador and former NewJeans member Danielle, her mother, and former CEO Min Hee-jin remained at odds Thursday over financial records needed to assess the agency‘s alleged losses in the seventh hearing of its 33.1 billion won ($24.8 million) damages lawsuit.

The defendants again questioned Ador‘s failure to submit advertising contracts, arguing that the missing documents were prolonging the proceedings and potentially delaying Danielle’s return to entertainment activities. Ador cited confidentiality restrictions, but the court ordered the agency to submit the documents without delaying the damages appraisal, with hearings expected to conclude in January.

The dispute comes ahead of Friday‘s first-instance ruling in a separate 2 billion won damages lawsuit filed by fellow Hybe subsidiary, Belift Lab, against Min over her allegations that its girl group Illit copied NewJeans. Belift Lab claims the accusations damaged its reputation, while Min maintains that she raised legitimate concerns about creative similarities.

Both cases have drawn renewed attention after a Nov. 5 New York Times report examined NewJeans‘ exclusive contracts, signed when all five members were minors.

The report raised questions about protections for young artists, financial penalties and provisions governing the use of their voices and likenesses, bringing renewed scrutiny to Hybe‘s artist management as the legal proceedings continue.

A battle for public opinion

The report could nevertheless benefit Min by shifting public attention away from alleged contractual violations and financial losses toward broader questions about Hybe‘s treatment of artists.

For Danielle, the stakes extend beyond potential financial liability. Her side has argued that prolonged litigation leaves her career in limbo, raising concerns that delays could effectively postpone her return to the entertainment industry.

That concern helps explain why the defendants have pressed for a swift conclusion. The suggestion that Ador is deliberately prolonging the case remains disputed, as Danielle‘s contract has been terminated and the legal proceedings do not explicitly prevent her from resuming her career.

The contract provisions discussed in the report appear to have limited immediate legal significance in either case.

In Ador‘s lawsuit, the central questions concern responsibility for NewJeans’ interrupted activities and the financial losses allegedly resulting from the group‘s months of inactivity after the members unilaterally terminated their contracts in November 2024.

A court upheld the validity of the members‘ exclusive contracts with Ador in October 2025, and the ruling became final after they declined to appeal. The latest report does not alter that judgment.

The contract provisions cited by the Times could become relevant if the defendants establish that particular terms affect the damages sought or the allocation of responsibility. Thursday‘s hearing, however, focused on evidence supporting Ador’s damages calculation rather than the fairness of the original agreements.

The connection is even more limited in Friday‘s Belift Lab case, which concerns whether Min’s plagiarism allegations unlawfully damaged the label‘s reputation. Questions about NewJeans’ contracts do not directly establish whether those allegations were justified.

Hybe has defended the agreements, saying their penalty provisions follow government standards and a supplemental agreement included protections for minors. It also claimed the contracts were negotiated between Hybe, the members and their families, Min as the CEO of Ador, and lawyers prior to signing.

Min has disputed Hybe‘s account of her role in negotiating the contracts, maintaining that the parent company’s legal team drafted and revised the agreements and retained final approval authority.