NewJeans, one of the most successful K-pop groups of recent years, signed record label contracts with Ador that contained restrictive provisions when band members ranged from 14 to 17 years old, according to reporting by the New York Times. The contracts explicitly waived the performers’ rights to “sleep, rest and free choice” and included language prohibiting “insincere attitude” and “inappropriate romantic relationships.” The agreements also removed standard child protection provisions that safeguard basic human rights and education.
The contracts with Ador, a subsidiary of entertainment company Hybe, further excluded portions of the South Korean government’s K-pop contract template that protect minors from excessive physical exposure and sexually suggestive performance requirements. Additionally, the agreements granted the label perpetual rights to use the band members’ names, images, voices, and likenesses, extending beyond typical industry standards. The contracts also permitted Ador to use the members as artificial intelligence chatbots or digital clones. Notably, the agreements required band members to repay a significant portion of cosmetic surgery costs.
Hybe representatives stated in response that the company operates in compliance with child protection laws and maintains safe working conditions for its artists. The label characterized its contracts as legal and negotiated in good faith, with protections for both performers and the label’s investments. Hybe also denied recommending cosmetic procedures against individuals’ wishes.
NewJeans has faced ongoing disputes with the label. In November 2024, the five-member group announced their decision to leave Ador amid contract disagreements. Band member Hanni previously alleged mistreatment and accused the label of “deliberate miscommunications and manipulation.” Ador filed a lawsuit in December 2025 against band member Danielle and others for approximately $30 million in damages and contract-break penalties. The label maintains it has not violated its obligations and that unilateral claims do not constitute valid grounds for contract termination.
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
Article summary produced by Claude AI