After a four-year hiatus, Kesha is finally back to belting out pop hits, but that doesn’t mean her legal saga with music producer Dr. Luke is anywhere close to being over. In fact, the contentious court battle has managed to entangle another female pop star: Lady Gaga.

In the latest series of events, Luke’s legal team subpoenaed Gaga to testify in his defamation lawsuit against his former protégée, after several unsuccessful attempts to get her testimony on the record.

Gaga was subpoenaed in relation to a text message conversation between her and Kesha that was submitted into evidence last year, in which Kesha allegedly asked “The Cure” singer to join a “smear campaign” against him. Luke’s lawyers claim Gaga even spread a statement urging Sony Music to cut ties with Luke, according to court documents.

“Dr. Luke’s counsel served a subpoena on Lady Gaga because she has relevant information regarding, among other things, false statements about Dr. Luke made to her by Kesha,” Luke’s lawyer said in a statement on Saturday. “This motion has become necessary because Dr. Luke’s counsel has not been able to obtain, despite repeated request, a deposition date from Lady Gaga.”

Dr. Luke, real name Lukasz Gottwald, sued Kesha for defamation after she claimed he drugged, raped, and emotionally abused her. Gaga showed public support for Kesha throughout her years-long sexual assault case against Luke–including tweeting the popular hashtag #FreeKesha.

There are people all over the world who love you @KeshaRose. And I can say truly I am in awe of your bravery.

— xoxo, Gaga (@ladygaga) February 19, 2016

Gaga’s legal team responded to the subpoena with the following statement to Variety over the weekend:

As Lady Gaga‘s legal team will present to the court, she has provided all of the relevant information in her possession and is at most an ancillary witness in this process. Dr. Luke’s team is attempting to manipulate the truth and draw press attention to their case by exaggerating Lady Gaga‘s role and falsely accusing her of dodging reasonable requests.

Unfortunately, we can’t look at the text exchange for ourselves, because the judge sealed the messages between Gaga and Kesha, making the content confidential.

Now that the subpoena has been issued, Gaga will be required to set a date to appear in-person for a three-hour deposition. Many other celebrities are expected to provide testimony as well in the case.

In July, Kesha made a triumphant return to music with her emotional first single “Praying,” which appears to be inspired by her conflict with Luke. The track will appear on her brand new album “Rainbow”–her first in five years–which is expected to be released in August.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lady Gaga Dodges Dr. Luke Subpoena in Kesha Defamation Case appeared first on Law Street.

After a four-year hiatus and seemingly endless teases of new music, Frank Ocean delivered a cryptic gift to fans on August 18 in the form of a mysterious visual album titled “Endless” on Apple Music. While lovers of “Nostalgia Ultra” and “Channel Orange” didn’t hesitate to stream the 45-minute musical project, many audiophiles couldn’t help but wonder if Frank was still yanking our chains with what appeared to be his version of a woodworking performance art piece. But their suspicions were quickly answered.

Two days later Ocean dropped his album “Blonde” via his independent label Boys Don’t Cry. Equipped with genre-bending sounds, famous collaborations, and accompanied by a striking music video for the song “Nikes,” this was the album fans had been waiting for. But why two albums?

As it turns out the double debut was actually part of a well-calculated move on Ocean’s part that allowed him to independently release his album “Blonde” sans the involvement of former label Def Jam and its parent company Universal Music Group (UMG). By dropping “Endless” a few days prior, Ocean effectively fulfilled his contractual obligations, freeing him from the label.

Not only was this strategy lucrative (it’s estimated that Ocean has already earned over $1 million from the album in its first week), but it was essentially a big f**k you to the industry execs who were left what amounts to a very long music video.

According to Billboard, “UMG chairman/CEO Lucian Grainge reacted swiftly by informing the heads of his labels that Universal was done with streaming exclusives on one platform and on a global basis, which has been at the center of the streaming services’ arms race in the last 18 months.”

But is Ocean completely off the hook after staging his grand coup?

Well, it’s hard to say. In July, Billboard reported that Def Jam had spent $2 million on recording costs for Ocean’s album, at the time thought to be called “Boys Don’t Cry.” It’s speculated that Ocean payed this advance back with money from his new deal with Apple, effectively releasing him from any recoupable claims from Def Jam. But if Ocean’s “Endless” failed to meet the label’s quality standards, or if “Blonde’s” release violated contractual time stipulations, Def Jam could have grounds to sue.

UGM hasn’t announced if it is planning to file a lawsuit, so most of this is pure speculation, but if I were Frank, I’d have my legal team keep an eye out over the next couple months.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could Frank Ocean Be Sued Over ‘Blonde’ Album Switcheroo? appeared first on Law Street.

The hit TV show “Love it or List it” is getting sued for shoddy work, breach of contract, unfair trade practices, and other allegations. Deena Murphy and Timothy Sullivan, who live in Chatham County, North Carolina are suing the home renovations show, which airs on HGTV, as well as the production company Big Coat TV, and the local contractor used for the renovations, Aaron Fitz Construction.

Here’s the premise of the show: the “Love it or List it” team finds a family who is not happy with their home. Then, interior designer Hilary Farr renovates the home according to the family’s needs while a realtor, David Visentin, shows them other houses in the area that fit their specifications. At the end of the episode the family decides whether to “love” their newly renovated home or “list” it because they’re going to live elsewhere.

In the case in question, Murphy and Sullivan were looking to renovate one of their rental properties and move into it with their foster children. They were chosen to be on the show in April 2015. However, they claim that they paid $140,000 to the show to use for the renovations, but the show didn’t give all that money to the contractors. The lawsuit also states:

Instead, Big Coat hired its own subcontractors and supervised their work itself, acting as an unlicensed general contractor, the suit states. The result of this improper conduct was the very kind of substandard work the statutes are designed to protect consumers against. The floors of the Plaintiffs’ house were destroyed by Big Coat’s negligence, and the work that was done was generally performed badly, for the most part using inexpensive, low quality materials.

The plaintiffs also claim that there were holes left in their floors, making it easy for “vermin” to enter the home, and the rest of the floor was damaged beyond repair. They also had complaints about other parts of the show, including that during the “list it” portion of the episode, they were not shown houses by a realtor who was licensed to do business in North Carolina.

It seems like the show’s producers will fight the suit. According to Maria Armstrong, chief executive officer and executive producer of Big Coat Productions/Big Coat TV:

We are aware of the lawsuit. Because this matter involves ongoing litigation, our attorneys have advised us and we feel that making a comment would be inappropriate at this time. However, we do intend to vigorously defend what we consider to be false allegations.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Love it or List it” Sued by North Carolina Couple appeared first on Law Street.

Notorious fantasy betting site FanDuel is in legal trouble yet again. The site is being hit with a class action lawsuit by Washington Redskins player Pierre Garcon. The suit alleges that FanDuel used the name and likeness of Garcon and other players without their permission in order to make money.

The suit claims that FanDuel makes money and promotes its daily fantasy contests “on the backs of NFL players, whose popularity and performance make the Defendant’s commercial daily fantasy football product possible.” The lawsuit argues that ads using Garcon’s likeness, as well as other football players’, appear on TV ads, Youtube spots, and infomercials. Garcon wants compensation for himself and other players who have been used in FanDuel advertising. Garcon had previously worked to promote FanDuel, but it’s unclear what sort of contract he had with the company.

FanDuel doesn’t have a licensing agreement with the NFL, the way that its main competitor DraftKings does. Observers are speculating that the only reason that DraftKings has not been hit with the same lawsuit is for this reason.

It’s unclear whether or not this lawsuit actually holds any weight. Darren Heitner wrote at Forbes about the many reasons why he believes that Garcon’s lawsuit will ultimately prove unsuccessful, including the fact that he chose to file the suit in a state, Maryland, that isn’t exactly hospitable to publicity rights lawsuits. Additionally, Heitner thinks that precedent isn’t on Garcon’s side either, and the fact that he used to actively work to promote FanDuel will be a compelling counter-argument for the company’s lawyers.

But regardless of whether or not Garcon’s suit is successful, the fact that FanDuel is receiving even more negative publicity is hard to ignore. A few weeks back FanDuel and its competitive counterpart DraftKings came under investigation by the New York Attorney General for possible insider trading-like behavior. Another lawsuit currently being waged against FanDuel and DraftKings accuses the two companies of negligence, fraud, and false advertising. Brought by Adam Johnson, and also as a class action lawsuit, the suit is based on the same revelations that sparked the New York Attorney General investigation–essentially the fact that employees of FanDuel or DraftKings had been playing, and winning lots of money, on their competitors’ sites.

Additionally, there’s a lot of controversy over how sites like FanDuel and DraftKings should be regulated. Whether or not they constitute gambling is also a hotly contested question. Some states, like Arizona and Washington, have outlawed the sites. But for the most part, it’s all a legal gray area. However, so far, these scandals and bad publicity don’t appear to have affected FanDuel or DraftKings’ profits–in fact, the opposite has happened, and both companies have seen increases. Garcon’s lawsuit, successful or not, may not be able to make a dent either.

Read More: Fantasy Sports…Ready…Set…Bet!

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FanDuel Sued by Washington Redskins Player Pierre Garcon appeared first on Law Street.