Court bars NewJeans from independent activities until ruling on Ador dispute

NewJeans. Image: Ador via The Korea Herald

The Seoul Central District Court ruled Friday, March 21, in favor of Ador in its legal dispute with girl group NewJeans, temporarily barring the group from pursuing independent activities under its new name, NJZ.

NewJeans began independent activities after ending their contracts with Ador in November, citing a breach of exclusivity. In January, Ador filed an injunction to block the group’s solo activities and assert its role as their management agency.

The court granted Ador’s request for an injunction to prohibit the five members of NewJeans from entering into advertising contracts or conducting promotions independently, acknowledging the K-pop agency’s continued status as the group’s legal agency.

“In cases where mutual trust between the parties breaks down, an exclusive contract may be terminated by the artist,” the court ruled. “However, it is the responsibility of the party claiming such a breakdown to prove that the circumstances have reached a point where maintaining the contractual relationship is no longer viable.”

The court found that NewJeans’ side had failed to sufficiently prove such circumstances.

During the court hearing on March 7, Ador argued that the five members had unilaterally notified the company of their contract termination without valid justification. It stressed that NewJeans’ success was made possible through the company’s full support and resources.

Ador also argued that the members’ recent announcement of a new team name and plans to sign with a different agency while the contract remains valid constitutes a breach of contract.

In response, NewJeans’ legal team argued that Ador’s parent company Hybe repeatedly discriminated against the group and failed to provide support equal to that received by other affiliated artists. They claimed Ador, which is 75 percent owned by Hybe, is not capable of making independent decisions and therefore shares responsibility for Hybe’s actions.

However, the court rejected this argument, stating, “Based on the claims and evidence submitted so far, it is difficult to conclude that Ador violated a key obligation under the exclusive contract or that the trust between the parties has broken down to an irreparable extent.”