HYBE denied New York Times claims about NewJeans’ contract, saying the agreement included standard protections and was negotiated with parents.

HYBE rebutted a report by the U.S. New York Times that raised issues with part of NewJeans’ contract. HYBE said today (the 6th), “We will clarify the facts regarding the report on NewJeans’ exclusive contract published by the New York Times on November 5.” Previously, the New York Times obtained the exclusive contract that NewJeans members, who were between the ages of 14 and 17 at the time, signed with ADOR in 2022, and reported on its main contents. It raised issues such as the absence of clauses protecting minors, the burden of cosmetic surgery costs, restrictions on behavior, and the method of calculating penalty fees. It reported that rehearsals often continued until 2 a.m., that four of the five members had left school, and in particular that there was a clause requiring the members to bear most of the costs for procedures such as cosmetic surgery, and that the agency had also recommended some procedures to certain members before their debut. In response, HYBE stated, “HYBE-affiliated labels sign the national standard youth addendum agreement with trainees at each label,” and “the addendum agreement includes all protective clauses such as rights of personality, the right to sleep, the right to education, and the right to rest, and the agreement remains valid until the person becomes an adult.” It continued, “NewJeans’ exclusive contract includes clauses protecting basic human rights and encompasses the contents guaranteed by the national standard youth addendum agreement.” It also explained the process of concluding the contract, saying, “At the time, the contract was concluded in April after a draft was shared on January 7, 2022,” and “There were long discussions over three months, including Q&A sessions, email exchanges, and revision negotiations after review by the artist side’s lawyer.” In particular, it claimed, “Regarding the actual cost-sharing, an opinion was raised by one mother asking whether the burden on the artist side could be reduced. At the time, HYBE’s legal team prepared several proposals that could reflect this opinion and presented them to ADOR, but the then-ADOR vice president rejected them, so the contract was concluded under the current terms.” Regarding the penalty clause, it countered, “Although it may appear different in wording from the standard contract, its economic effect is the same, and it was not changed to content unfavorable to the artist.” HYBE explained that NewJeans began generating revenue immediately after debut and continues to earn revenue through streaming and other means to this day, so the actual effect is completely identical to the standard contract. It also emphasized, “In Danielle’s lawsuit as well, the penalty was calculated based on exactly the same formula as the standard contract. During the NewJeans exclusive contract dispute, the Seoul High Court also examined the relevant clause in detail and explicitly ruled that there was no problem.” HYBE also made clear its position on the use of the members’ images and voices. It said, “NewJeans’ exclusive contract contains a clause protecting personality rights, and the use of AI content can of course proceed only after obtaining each artist’s individual consent,” and “We have absolutely no reason or plan to arbitrarily use an artist’s IP in violation of the law.” It explained the defamation prohibition clause as meaning “that one must not commit a crime that constitutes defamation.” On the clause restricting unhealthy relationships with the opposite sex, it said, “Preventing unhealthy relationships with the opposite sex that could cause social controversy is also necessary to protect artists.” Finally, HYBE said, “We explained to the New York Times, with supporting materials, that NewJeans’ contract was ultimately signed after the then-CEO Min Hee-jin, the vice president appointed by Min Hee-jin, each member and their parents, and the legal representative of some members adjusted the wording together.” It added that it had asked the article to clearly state that Min Hee-jin was the party responsible for the contract, but that request was not accepted. It further added, “Because contract documents and litigation materials possessed only by the parties involved have been leaked to overseas media and used as a tool to attack K-pop, we are reluctantly providing the above explanation.”