NewJeans and Ador Engage in Legal Battle Over Contract Validity

The K-pop group NewJeans and their agency Ador have entered into a legal dispute regarding the validity of their exclusive contract. On December 5, Ador announced that they filed a lawsuit at the Seoul Central District Court to confirm the legal standing of their contract with NewJeans, which they assert remains valid as of December 3.

Ador expressed regret that the issue with their artists had to be resolved through legal means, emphasizing that a contract cannot be unilaterally terminated based on one party's claims. They stated, "We felt it was necessary to clarify this for the artists and other stakeholders involved."

The agency further highlighted the importance of maintaining a healthy trust relationship within the K-pop industry, aiming to protect the foundation of Korean pop culture. They are concerned that misunderstandings regarding the contract's validity could lead to unexpected damages and confusion in the industry.

Ador warned that if basic agreements are not upheld, their efforts could become futile, jeopardizing systematic support, investment, and the overall growth of the K-pop industry. They reiterated their commitment to working with NewJeans and resolving any misunderstandings with the members.

On November 29, NewJeans notified Ador of their decision to terminate the exclusive contract, citing breaches by the agency. The members argued that they should not be liable for any legal actions or penalties, including a request for a suspension of the contract's validity, and they affirmed their intention to retain the NewJeans name.

Contrary to the members' expectations, Ador has asserted the contract's validity and initiated legal proceedings, leaving the matter in the hands of the court. Currently, the members are in Japan fulfilling their schedule, including participation in the FNS Music Festival. There is growing anticipation regarding whether the members will provide further comments on Ador's legal actions, especially after previously expressing that maintaining the contract was a source of significant mental distress.