𓃹blackmilk🏁

Former CEO Min Hee-jin also issued a statement through her company, OOAK Records, emphasizing: "The essence of this trial is that the excessive claims brought by BELIFT LAB and SOURCE MUSIC, seeking ₩2 billion and ₩500 million respectively, were entirely dismissed by the court.The counterclaim was a secondary procedural measure brought in the course of responding to the opposing party's unjustified legal offensive. The key point of this ruling is the undeniable fact that all claims brought by the plaintiffs were dismissed as without merit." Min's side also stated: "Through repeated delays in court proceedings and changes to the grounds for their claims, the plaintiffs repeatedly engaged in improper conduct, demonstrating that they had no intention of expediting the lawsuit from the outset.We view this as the judiciary delivering a common-sense judgment in response to excessive legal attacks and attempts to shift responsibility." They further added: "The so-called 'Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation' (SLAPP), filed on such outrageous grounds, should no longer be allowed to gain a foothold in the industry.We will use this ruling as an opportunity to put an end to these wasteful controversies and respond firmly and in accordance with principle to help create a healthy industry environment."

How Should We View the ‘NewJeans Exclusive Contract’ Through the Lens of Fair Trade? Rather than invoking the ‘uniqueness’ of K-pop, it should align with global standards. bizhankook.com/articles/newj… Kim Heon-sik, Popular Culture Critic [Biz Hankook] The New York Times in the United States published an article analyzing NewJeans' exclusive contract. The article sought to frame the NewJeans case as a problem affecting the entire K-pop industry. In fact, it suggested that other idols were likely facing even worse conditions. Its reasoning was that if the contract of a globally popular group like NewJeans was already this problematic, the contracts of idol groups under other entertainment agencies must be even more unfavorable. At the time the contract was signed, NewJeans was not yet a globally recognized group. Nevertheless, the article brings to mind the reality faced by K-pop idols. This is because contractual issues involving K-pop entertainment agencies are not problems that suddenly emerged overnight. The article did not include testimony from the NewJeans members themselves, who are parties to the contract. Consequently, it was unable to verify that the provisions concerning the protection of minors, which HYBE disputed, were included in separate special agreements or supplementary clauses. There is also the possibility of a fallacy of overgeneralization. Taking the contract between one particular entertainment agency and one idol group and interpreting it as representative of the entire K-pop industry may not be a sound approach to argumentation. However, the agency itself has also failed to explain specifically how it guaranteed the members' rights to education, health, and rest. NewJeans' agency, along with K-pop industry organizations primarily composed of domestic record producers and distributors, strongly opposed the New York Times report. In particular, they argued that characterizing the system as oppressive control disregards the K-pop talent development system. Their position is that K-pop has unique characteristics that should place it outside the scope of such criticism. However, something cannot be exempted from ethical evaluation simply because it is a unique case within a particular country. Practices such as dating bans, restrictions on cosmetic surgery, and prohibitions against criticizing the agency involve potential violations of human rights, including the right to self-determination and freedom of conscience. This remains true even when consent has been obtained from the individuals concerned or their guardians. We should also consider Korea's position in a global environment where universal human rights awareness and international standards are increasingly important. There is a saying that K-content is an export industry. Given that it generates foreign currency through exports, K-pop can also be considered an export product. As such, it must comply with global trade standards. It is widely recognized that the global emphasis on Fair Trade is growing stronger. Unlike conventional trade, which has largely tolerated the maximization of corporate profits, Fair Trade places importance on mutual respect, fairness, and the protection of rights. Corporate ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) performance is evaluated across areas that include human rights, labor conditions, occupational safety and health, and ethical and legal compliance. These factors are examined to assess a company's ability to manage long-term risks and maintain sustainability. Specifically, the United States, the world's leading country in the popular entertainment industry, withholds customs clearance for certain goods and products suspected of being made through forced labor. In fact, Korean sea salt was banned from import after being assessed as having been produced through forced labor. In 2022, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) came into effect. Under this law, products containing even trace amounts of components or raw materials produced by companies connected to China's Xinjiang Uyghur region are subject to a blanket import ban. Furthermore, under Section 301 of the Trade Act, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) imposes additional tariffs on countries that do not implement or enforce measures prohibiting the import of products made through forced labor. As a result, forced-labor-related tariffs of 10–12.5% were imposed on 60 countries, including South Korea and Japan. The European Union has even stricter regulations. In November 2024, it adopted a comprehensive ban on the distribution of products made through forced labor. Following a three-year transitional period, the ban will come into full effect on December 14, 2027. Any product involving forced labor will be prohibited not only from being imported into the EU but also from being sold within the bloc, both online and offline. Earlier, on July 25, 2024, the EU brought its Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) into force. This directive makes it mandatory for companies to investigate, prevent, mitigate, and remedy adverse human rights impacts throughout their product manufacturing and supply chains. The due diligence requirements include examining child labor, forced labor, and violations of freedom of association. These developments may not be limited to manufactured goods. In other words, there is no guarantee that K-pop content will remain outside their scope. Although idols and trainees are getting younger, the actual conditions they face remain largely unknown. This is because the issue is approached from the perspective of the cultural industry rather than from a human rights perspective. This creates a situation in which the United States or Europe could, at any time, classify K-pop content as products associated with human rights abuses. Emphasizing the unique characteristics of the K-pop system or pointing to confidentiality clauses only serves to make its lack of transparency more apparent. Before arguing that K-pop is exceptional, it is necessary to evaluate it objectively from a universal perspective. K-culture has gained widespread support and built a global fandom because it has been able to connect with people around the world and keep pace with them. Yet everything achieved through this success could suddenly be lost one day. This report should serve as an opportunity to address and correct any potential human rights violations, however unlikely they may seem. Doing so would not only help the industry adapt to the increasingly prominent Fair Trade movement but also allow it to internalize the values of human rights and democracy. Isn't that precisely what the K-pop worldview aspires to represent? Rather than immediately dismissing the criticism as a fallacy of overgeneralization, this is a time for introspection within the industry to eliminate cases that could justifiably be generalized in the first place. It is time for relevant government ministries and agencies, including the Ministry of Employment and Labor, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, to investigate the actual conditions of the K-pop industry, ensure transparency, and work toward finding solutions.

STATEMENT FROM BUNNIES The rights and freedom of all five NewJeans members must come before any content. On November 5, The New York Times published an in-depth investigation into the exclusive contracts the NewJeans members were required to sign before their debut, exposing serious concerns about their terms. Through this report, we learned what kind of contracts the members we love had been made to sign. The contracts did not adequately guarantee the members' rights to education and continued learning, nor did they appear to provide sufficient protections for their physical and mental health. They even contained provisions that could allow the agency to retain rights to use the members' images and voices after their exclusive contracts had ended. How could contracts supposedly based on the standard exclusive contract developed by the South Korean government to protect artists' rights contain terms so heavily stacked against the artists themselves? This is not simply a matter of a few unreasonable clauses. It is a fundamental imbalance of power: one that grants the agency sweeping authority and discretion while failing to adequately protect even the basic rights and freedom of choice of the artists who are parties to the contract. Even more troubling, in December of last year, ADOR, NewJeans' agency, singled out Danielle from among the five members, terminating her exclusive contract and seeking enormous contractual penalties and damages. The agency maintains that these actions are justified under the very exclusive contracts that all five members signed. Yet fans who have followed the subsequent legal proceedings have still not been presented with clear explanations or sufficient evidence establishing what specific wrongdoing Danielle herself is alleged to have committed, or how the enormous damages claimed by the agency were actually incurred. We cannot help but ask: Can such contracts, and the series of actions taken on their basis, truly be considered fair and just to the artists? NewJeans is five. Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin, and Hyein. No more, no less. This is a principle on which we will never compromise. For the past two years, all five members have stood up to a corporate giant, demanding their rights and fair treatment. The recent New York Times report has once again drawn attention to the very rights and dignity the members have fought to defend, as well as the unfair contractual practices that have long existed within the K-pop industry. As Bunnies who love NewJeans and believe in basic fairness and common sense, we must stand with the members in the courage they have shown and the rights they have fought to protect. Our goal is not simply to consume more NewJeans content. Nor should we unquestioningly wait for new activities produced under conditions where the members' rights and dignity are not protected. What matters above all is the well-being and protection of all five members, their rights, and their freedom to make their own decisions about their lives and futures. The members of NewJeans are human beings, not products. Our desire to consume content featuring the artists we love must never take precedence over their well-being and human rights. If we turn a blind eye to violations of their rights while demanding more content, can we truly call that support? If we truly call ourselves Bunnies, we must speak out against unfair contracts that undermine the members' rights, as well as the system of content production and consumption built upon those contracts. When necessary, we must be willing to express our opposition by boycotting such content, and we must raise our voices to help create an environment in which artists are guaranteed the rights they deserve. What we want is not simply more NewJeans content. What we want is for all five members to have their rights fully protected, to be free from undue control or pressure, and to be able to choose their own futures and pursue their careers in an environment that is free and fair. The rights, dignity, fair contractual terms, and freedom of all five NewJeans members must come before any new content. We, as Bunnies, will stand together and continue to speak out in defense of these principles. We will stand by all five members until the day they can once again pursue their dreams, with their rightful protections secured, under fair contracts, and in an environment where they are free to make their own choices. NewJeans is five. We stand with all five members of NewJeans. November 10, 2026 The Bunnies, Fans of NewJeans #Justice_For_NewJeans #Save_MHDHH