The Legal Drama Between NewJeans, ADOR, and HYBE: A Comprehensive Analysis
Disclaimer: This article is an opinion piece and does not constitute legal advice. It is based on publicly available information and interpretations of South Korean contract law. Laws and legal outcomes can vary depending on specific circumstances and jurisdiction.
The Core of the Conflict
The legal battle between K-pop group NewJeans (now performing as NJZ), their label ADOR, and its parent company HYBE has become one of the most high-profile disputes in the entertainment industry. At its core, this case is about power, fairness, and the future of one of K-pop’s most beloved groups. To fully understand the complexities of this conflict, we need to examine the legal framework governing contracts in South Korea, the allegations of mistreatment, and the role of former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin.
The dispute began when NewJeans attempted to terminate their exclusive contract with ADOR, a subsidiary of HYBE. The group alleges that the contract terms are exploitative and that ADOR and HYBE have failed to uphold their obligations, creating a toxic work environment. ADOR, on the other hand, is seeking a court injunction to enforce the contract, arguing that HYBE’s significant investments in the group justify their control over NewJeans’ activities.
This case raises critical questions about unconscionable contracts, good faith obligations, and the balance of power between entertainment companies and artists. Let’s break down the legal principles at play and the specific grievances raised by NewJeans.
Key Legal Principles in South Korean Contract Law
1. Unconscionability
In South Korean law, a contract can be deemed unconscionable if its terms are excessively unfair or oppressive, particularly when one party holds significantly more power than the other. This principle is often invoked in cases involving “slave contracts,” where artists are bound by long-term, restrictive agreements with little room for negotiation.
NewJeans’ claim that their contract is akin to a “slave contract” hinges on proving that the terms are unconscionable. For example, if the contract imposes unreasonable restrictions on their activities or fails to provide fair compensation, a court could rule in their favor.
2. Continuous Contracts and the Duty of Good Faith
A continuous contract is a type of agreement where the content and performance are determined and influenced by the passage of time. Examples include partnership, lease, and employment contracts. Unlike one-time contracts, continuous contracts are based on a mutual trust relationship between the parties, which is underpinned by the principle of good faith (신의성실).
Under South Korean law, the duty of good faith requires both parties to act honestly and fairly in fulfilling their contractual obligations. This is especially critical in continuous contracts, where the relationship between the parties evolves over time. If one party engages in inappropriate acts—even if they do not constitute a breach of contract—it can lead to a breakdown in trust, rendering the contract meaningless.
The Supreme Court of Korea has ruled that a continuous contract can be terminated without breach if there is a grave breakdown in trust due to inappropriate acts by the other party. For example, in cases where one party fails to act in good faith—such as neglecting their obligations, fostering a toxic environment, or prioritizing other interests—the counterparty may terminate the contract ex tunc (with prospective effect).
In the context of NewJeans’ case, the group could argue that HYBE and ADOR failed to act in good faith by:
Creating a toxic work environment.
Prioritizing other groups like ILLIT and LE SSERAFIM over NewJeans.
Failing to address leaks of personal information and medical records.
If NewJeans can demonstrate that the trust relationship has irreparably broken down, they may have grounds to terminate the contract under the doctrine of continuous contracts.
3. Reasonable Duration
South Korea’s Fair Contracts Initiative, introduced in 2009, aims to protect entertainers from excessively long contracts. Under this framework, contracts that last longer than seven years are often scrutinized for fairness. While NewJeans’ contract duration hasn’t been publicly disclosed, any evidence of an overly long or restrictive term could strengthen their case.
4. Fair Compensation
Courts also examine whether contracts provide fair compensation to artists. This includes profit splits, payment schedules, and other financial terms. If NewJeans can demonstrate that their compensation is disproportionately low compared to the revenue they generate, this could support their claim of an unfair contract.
NewJeans’ Grievances
NewJeans has been vocal about their dissatisfaction with ADOR and HYBE, citing several specific issues:
1. Mistreatment and Toxic Work Environment
The group has accused HYBE and ADOR of fostering a toxic work environment. In a since-deleted YouTube video titled “What NewJeans Wanted to Say,” the members detailed instances of mistreatment, including:
A manager from another HYBE group instructing members to ignore NewJeans’ Hanni during a shared schedule.
Leaks of their personal information and medical records, which HYBE allegedly failed to address despite repeated complaints.
These allegations, if proven, could demonstrate a breakdown in trust and support their claim for contract termination.
2. Prioritization of Other Groups
NewJeans has accused HYBE of prioritizing other groups, such as ILLIT and LE SSERAFIM, over them. They claim that HYBE’s focus on these groups has led to neglect and a lack of support for NewJeans’ activities. This alleged favoritism could be seen as a failure to act in the group’s best interests, further supporting their case.
3. Plagiarism Allegations
Former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin has accused HYBE of allowing its new girl group, ILLIT, to plagiarize NewJeans’ concept, styling, and choreography. These allegations have sparked significant controversy, with fans and industry observers noting the similarities between the two groups.
While plagiarism is primarily a creative issue, it also ties into the broader dispute over HYBE’s treatment of NewJeans. If HYBE is found to have intentionally copied NewJeans’ concept, it could undermine their claim of acting in good faith.
NewJeans’ Grievances
NewJeans has been vocal about their dissatisfaction with ADOR and HYBE, citing several specific issues:
1. Mistreatment and Toxic Work Environment
The group has accused HYBE and ADOR of fostering a toxic work environment. In a since-deleted YouTube video titled “What NewJeans Wanted to Say,” the members detailed instances of mistreatment, including:
A manager from another HYBE group instructing members to ignore NewJeans’ Hanni during a shared schedule.
Leaks of their personal information and medical records, which HYBE allegedly failed to address despite repeated complaints.
These allegations, if proven, could demonstrate a breach of the duty of good faith and support their claim of an unconscionable contract.
2. Prioritization of Other Groups
NewJeans has accused HYBE of prioritizing other groups, such as ILLIT and LE SSERAFIM, over them. They claim that HYBE’s focus on these groups has led to neglect and a lack of support for NewJeans’ activities. This alleged favoritism could be seen as a failure to act in the group’s best interests, further supporting their case.
3. Plagiarism Allegations
Former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin has accused HYBE of allowing its new girl group, ILLIT, to plagiarize NewJeans’ concept, styling, and choreography. These allegations have sparked significant controversy, with fans and industry observers noting the similarities between the two groups.
While plagiarism is primarily a creative issue, it also ties into the broader dispute over HYBE’s treatment of NewJeans. If HYBE is found to have intentionally copied NewJeans’ concept, it could undermine their claim of acting in good faith.
Min Hee-jin’s Role in the Conflict
Min Hee-jin, the former CEO of ADOR and a legendary creative director in K-pop, has been a central figure in this dispute. She founded ADOR in 2021 and is credited with shaping NewJeans’ unique identity and success. However, her relationship with HYBE has been fraught with tension.
1. Allegations of a Power Struggle
HYBE has accused Min of plotting to seize control of ADOR and break away from the company. They claim she attempted to pressure HYBE into selling ADOR’s shares and contacted external investors to help her gain independence. Min has denied these allegations, arguing that she was fighting to protect NewJeans’ future.
2. Legal Battles
HYBE reported Min to the police for breach of trust and launched an audit of ADOR. In response, Min held a tearful press conference, denying the allegations and accusing HYBE of plagiarism and mistreatment. She has also faced lawsuits from HYBE subsidiaries BELIFT LAB and Source Music for defamation over her plagiarism claims.
3. NewJeans’ Support for Min
NewJeans has publicly supported Min, calling her “irreplaceable” and demanding her reinstatement as CEO. In their YouTube video, the members described Min as integral to their identity and success, further complicating the legal and emotional dynamics of the case.
The Injunction Request
ADOR is seeking a court injunction to prevent NewJeans from engaging in new activities—such as brand deals or music releases—without their approval. This move is intended to enforce the existing contract and protect ADOR’s investments in the group.
However, NewJeans has argued that this injunction would effectively trap them in a “slave contract,” limiting their ability to pursue opportunities and maintain their careers. The court’s decision will likely hinge on whether the contract terms are deemed fair and whether ADOR has fulfilled its obligations under the agreement.
Conclusion
The legal battle between NewJeans, ADOR, and HYBE is more than just a corporate dispute—it’s a test of South Korea’s commitment to protecting artists from exploitative practices. By invoking principles like unconscionability, good faith, and fair compensation, NewJeans is challenging the power dynamics that have long defined the K-pop industry.
As the case unfolds, it will be fascinating to see how the courts balance the interests of the artists with those of the companies that invest in them. One thing is clear: this case could have far-reaching implications for the future of K-pop and the rights of entertainers in South Korea.
Citations:
Kwon, S. H., & Kim, J. (2013). The cultural industry policies of the Korean government and the Korean Wave. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 20(4), 422–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2013.829052
Kwon, Y. (2023). Understanding Contract Law in Korea. Journal of Korean Law, 22(1), 149-177. Retrieved from http://jkl.snu.ac.kr/Archive/?bmode=view&idx=127481225
Yoon, S. (2024, September 11). NewJeans demands HYBE reinstate Min Hee-jin as CEO in YouTube livestream. Korea JoongAng Daily. Retrieved from https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2024-09-11/entertainment/kpop/NewJeans-demands-HYBE-reinstate-Min-Heejin-as-CEO-in-YouTube-livestream/2133099
Chin, C. (2025, March 10). NewJeans vs HYBE: A comprehensive timeline of events. NME. Retrieved from https://www.nme.com/news/music/ador-hybe-feud-timeline-story-3754759
Daluydug, M. (2025, March 10). HYBE says it poured 14.4MintoNewJeans,claimseachmemberreceived14.4MintoNewJeans,claimseachmemberreceived3.4M in settlement. Music Business Worldwide. Retrieved from https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/hybe-says-it-poured-14-4m-into-newjeans-claims-each-member-received-3-4m-in-settlement/
https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=4&idx=28731 (Unfair contracts)
Wang, F. (2024, November 20). Are K-pop stars workers? South Korea says no. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jyvmew0njo
5 Asian Bus. Law. 123 (2010) A Case of Slavery Contract between Singers and Agency in Korea: 2009KaHap2869