HYBE·ADOR deny 'unfair contract' reports, suspect intentional leaks

Refuting all issues raised by The New York TimesRegret over the leak of contracts held only by the parties involvedADOR, a label under entertainment agency HYBE, has released a statement refuting The New York Times' claims of 'NewJeans unfair contracts.' The photo shows NewJeans's HANNI MINJI HYEIN HAERIN Danielle (from left) speaking after attending the 'Hearing on ADOR's preservation of agency status and prohibition of advertising contract conclusion' at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on March 7, 2025. / THE FACTDB[THE FACT|Reporter Choi Hyun-jung] ADOR, a label under entertainment agency HYBE, has responded to The New York Times' 'disclosure of NewJeans exclusive contracts.'ADOR distributed a statement on the 6th, stating, "We will clarify the facts regarding the report on NewJeans exclusive contracts published by The New York Times on November 5th, Korean time." The statement included refutations of the contract terms that The New York Times had pointed out as 'unusual.'First, regarding the claim that 'artist protection clauses in the government's standard contract were omitted,' they refuted, "HYBE's subsidiary labels have all signed supplementary agreements with their trainees regarding the national standard for youth. These supplementary agreements include protection clauses for personality rights, sleep rights, educational rights, and rest rights."They added, "We have also designated a youth protection officer, and the NewJeans exclusive contract includes basic human rights protection clauses that encompass the provisions guaranteed by the national standard youth supplementary agreement."Regarding the reflection of artist opinions at the time of contract signing, they dismissed it by saying, "The contract was signed after sufficient discussion between both parties for three months following the drafting of the initial proposal on January 7, 2022. This was also recognized by the court's decision."Furthermore, concerning the settlement method, they explained, "Regarding cost sharing, one mother expressed her opinion that the artist's cost burden could be reduced. HYBE's legal team prepared multiple options and presented them to ADOR, but the then-vice president of ADOR rejected them, leading to the contract being signed under the current terms."ADOR also explained that the penalty clause, which they claim is disadvantageous to artists by excluding periods without revenue, is no different from the standard contract.They stated, "The standard contract also stipulates that for artists who have been debuting for less than two years, only the period with actual revenue, i.e., the period after debut, is reflected in the calculation of the penalty. While NewJeans stipulates that only the period with revenue is reflected without considering the period of entertainment activities, the effect is completely the same as the standard contract because the period without revenue is only before debut."ADOR further added, "Moreover, the penalty clause is an extremely exceptional provision that applies only 'when the company is faithfully fulfilling its obligations, but the individual unilaterally terminates the contract during the contract period or violates important terms with the intent to terminate.'"Regarding the rights to use the voices and faces of NewJeans members, which has become another controversy, they stated, "If the previous agency arbitrarily utilizes the artist's IP after the termination of the exclusive contract, it may violate other Korean laws. We have no reason or plan to arbitrarily utilize the artist's IP in violation of the law." They added, "Furthermore, the contract includes personality rights protection clauses, and the use of AI content also naturally requires the individual consent of the artist."Other issues such as the installation of CCTV in practice rooms, infringement of artist learning rights, prohibition of defamation, and prohibition of unhealthy heterosexual relationships were dismissed as "all contrary to the facts or merely measures for safety and crime prevention, and were content that the artists' parents also agreed to at the time of the contract."In particular, ADOR emphasized, "We explained to The New York Times, with supporting evidence, that the NewJeans contract was coordinated and finally signed by the then-CEO Min Hee-jin, the vice president appointed by Min Hee-jin, each member and their parents, and the legal representatives of some members." They added, "We also requested that Min Hee-jin be specified as the subject of the contract, but this was not accepted. The contracts and litigation materials held only by the parties involved are being leaked to overseas media and used as a tool to attack K-pop, so we are unavoidably explaining (the controversial issues)."Previously, The New York Times, on the 5th Korean time, had published the exclusive contracts of ADOR and the five members of NewJeans, claiming that clauses guaranteeing the basic rights of the members, who were minors at the time, were deleted and that the content excessively restricted the artists' intentions.laugardagr@tf.co.kr[Entertainment Department | ssent@tf.co.kr]