Court orders NJZ to stop independent activities amid legal battles
- On March 21, 2025, the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of ADOR.
- NewJeans, now referred to as NJZ, had attempted to pursue independent activities after ending relations with ADOR.
- The court's decision has significant implications for NJZ's future as independent performers.
On March 21, 2025, the Seoul Central District Court delivered a significant ruling ordering the members of NewJeans, who are now calling themselves NJZ, to cease their independent activities. This decision came in the aftermath of a series of legal conflicts that followed the group's announcement of their departure from ADOR in November 2024. The group cited a breach of contract and failure to resolve disputes with the agency as reasons for their exit, claiming that they needed to pursue independent careers. After terminating their contracts effective November 29, 2024, the members launched separate promotional efforts and planned to release new music under the name NJZ. However, ADOR quickly retaliated by filing injunctions in January and February of 2025, asserting that the contracts were still valid and that the members’ unilateral severance was unjustified. During the initial hearing on March 7, ADOR alleged that NJZ's actions breached their contractual obligations and accused them of attempting to sign with other entities while promoting their new name. The court's ruling, which prevented NJZ from engaging in solo promotions, signing advertising contracts, or participating in any events independently, was a significant setback for the group. Social media erupted with reactions from K-pop fans, many of whom criticized NJZ, labeling them as 'mean girls.' This backlash was compounded by NJZ's previous comments about other groups, which seemed to have added fuel to their troubles. Despite this ruling, NJZ is still scheduled to perform at ComplexCon Hong Kong 2025, although the outcome of this court ruling raises questions about whether they will be able to participate as planned. The court's decision reflects the complexities of contract law in the K-pop industry, where disputes regarding artist rights and agency control often come to the forefront. The case raises broader concerns about how K-pop artists navigate their careers and contractual agreements with their agencies, signaling potential repercussions for both the artists and management companies involved.