NEWJEANS “HOW SWEET” COPYING ALLEGATIONS EXPLAINED

Added: 2026-05-12

[00:00:08]Hey everyone and welcome back to the channel because today we've got something honestly massive and not going to lie pretty messy to unpack involving Hib and Ador because things have now escalated into a full-on lawsuit over how sweet with songwriters accusing the track of what they're calling blatant copying and the internet has already completely exploded over it. And what makes this whole situation even louder isn't just the lawsuit itself, but everything surrounding it. The timing, the history, and the way people are immediately connecting it to past Hive related plagiarism debates that were already sitting in the background waiting to resurface. And before we even properly get into the details, it's pretty obvious a lot of New Jeans fans are not going to be happy hearing this, especially because online discussions have already started dragging up previous controversies under Hib's umbrella, particularly the situation around Illet, where there were already heavy accusations flying around at Debut about alleged copying in concept styling and even overall group direction. And that's exactly why this new lawsuit is hitting such a nerve online because people are now pointing out what they see as irony in the situation with old posts being resurfaced, including stop copying type comments that were originally aimed at Illit during that whole debate. So now with New Jeans themselves being hit with blatant copying accusations in a completely separate case, the internet is doing what it does best, pulling everything back into one big chaotic conversation, whether it's fair or not, and turning this into way more than be. But stepping away from the drama for a second, let's actually break down what the lawsuit is claiming. Because it's not just vague internet allegations. According to reports first highlighted by Billboard, the group along with Ador and Hive are being sued in the United States over alleged similarities between House Sweet, which dropped in 2024, and an unreleased demo titled One of a Kind.

[00:01:48]The lawsuit was officially filed on May 7th, and it reportedly includes copyright infringement claims not only against the labels, but also the members themselves, Miy Hani, Aaron, Hian, and Danielle Marsh, which is already a huge deal in itself because it pulls the entire group directly into a legal spotlight rather than keeping it limited to producers or behind-the-scenes creators. And just to understand why this is getting so much attention commercially as well, How Sweet wasn't some small experimental release. It was a major international success. The track dropped as part of the House Sweet EP in May 2024 and quickly became one of the group's standout global hits, start charting on major Billboard rankings, including peaking at number 15 on the Billboard Global 200, number seven on the global XTL US chart. So, this isn't just a niche disagreement over a b-side track or a forgotten demo. This is a globally successful song that played a big role in New Gene's international momentum, which is exactly why the stakes around this lawsuit feel so much higher than a typical copyright claim.

[00:02:44]And that's where the situation starts to feel layered because now it's not just about whether two tracks sound similar or whether there's actual legal merit to the claims. It's also about how quickly this has become tied into existing narratives around hibore and past plagiarism accusations across different groups under the same umbrella. Which is why online reactions aren't just focusing on the courtroom side of thing, but also on the history, the fandom discourse, and the wider industry drama that's been building up for a while now.

[00:03:10]And honestly, this is only the beginning of how messy this could get, depending on how the case unfolds. Because once a lawsuit like this starts pulling in both massive commercial success and existing industry tension, it rarely stays just a music copyright issue for long. So, when a song at that level gets hit with plagiarism claims, it instantly stops being just a music comparison debate and turns into something way heavier.

[00:03:31]Because now we're not only talking about creativity or inspiration. We're talking about ownership, royalties, and a track that generated serious global streaming numbers. And that's exactly why this case is blowing up the way it is.

[00:03:42]Because the people behind the lawsuit aren't just random online critics.

[00:03:45]They're four songwriters, Audrey Armicost, Aiden Rodriguez, Adam Gabe, and Michael Campanelli, who are now formally taking legal action over what they believe happened behind the scenes.

[00:03:56]According to their complaint, Armicost originally received an instrumental from her publisher back in January 2024 with the intention of developing a topline melody and lyrics that could potentially be pitched for New Jeans. From there, she teamed up with the other three writers to build out a full demo titled one-of-a-kind, shaping it into what they believed was a complete submission ready track. They claimed they did everything through the proper channels, submitted it, and were eventually told it wasn't selected for use. But the entire situation changes according to them.

[00:04:25]after House Sweet is released because once the song dropped in May 2024 as part of the House Sweet EP, they say they immediately noticed what they describe as striking similarities between their demo and the final release. And they're not just talking about general vibes or mood either, specifically pointing to the first verse as the key area of concern, arguing that the structure and melodic movement felt too close to be coincidental. This is where the complaint gets very technical, almost forensic in how it breaks things down. The writers claim both songs sit in four out of four time. Both are in the key of B and they argue that the melodic topline follows a highly similar pattern. They even go as far as describing what they say is an eight bar sequence made up of 31 notes which they claim repeats in comparable ways across both compositions. In their argument, it's not just a shared sound or aesthetic anymore, but a specific structural overlap in melody construction. Because of that, they're now alleging that House Sweet didn't merely take inspiration, but instead copied core compositional elements from their unreleased demo without permission. And the remedy they're pushing for is significant. They're asking to be recognized as co-authors and co-owners of the composition, which would directly entitle them to songwriting credits and a share of royalties from a track that has already achieved, including strong Billboard chart performance. Representative, attorney Trevor Barrett, has also been very firm in how he's framing the situation, stating that the writers were deeply disappointed after discovering what he described as blatant copying in the released song. That kind of wording is important because it's they're not positioning this as a misunderstanding or minor overlap, but as something they believe is a clear-cut case of infringement. And on the other side of this, Ador has already started pushing back against the allegations, rejecting the claims and setting up what is likely to become a very detailed back and forth over music theory production timelines and who had access to what during the creation process. On May 9th, Adored directly to the growing allegations, stating that they had checked the situation with Bana Easts and natives alike, one of the production teams involved in How Sweet. And according to their internal confirmation, there was no copyright infringement or copying involved in the creation of the track.

[00:06:30]In other words, from Ador's position, they're fully rejecting the idea that the song was derived from the demo in question, and they're backing that claim with the production team's own account of how the song was made. They've also made it clear that both the company and the members intend to respond through proper legal channels, which basically signals that this isn't something they're planning to settle quietly or informally. Instead, it's heading straight into a drawn out legal process.

[00:06:54]Meaning, this could take months or even longer, depending on how aggressively both sides pursue the case and how much evidence gets brought forward. But what really makes this situation feel even more intense is the timing of it all.

[00:07:04]Because this lawsuit isn't happening in isolation. It's landing right in the middle an already ongoing and very public legal and contractual battle involving New Jeans, Hib and ADOR over the group's contract status and long-term direction. Over the past year, New Jeans have been involved in a highly public dispute after attempts to distance themselves from AOR and continue activities independently under the name NJZ following the removal of former CEO Minhi Jin. situation escalated quickly into court involvement with rulings confirming that the members are still bound under their exclusive contracts until 2029, meaning any attempt to operate outside of Ador's structure has been legally restricted.

[00:07:41]And depending on which updates you follow, there have also been shifting dynamics within the group's current status, with reports suggesting some members may have returned to activities under Ador while others remain in a more uncertain or unresolved position as negotiations and legal discussions continue in the background. So, the group itself is already in a pretty unstable and high pressure situation even before this lawsuit entered the picture. Which is exactly why online discussions are treating this case like it's adding fuel to an already burning fire rather than being a standalone issue. Because now people are connecting it back to previous hive related controversies, especially the debates around where hivebacked groups were previously accused of copying elements like concept styling, visuals, and overall group identity, particularly in relation to new genes during earlier industry discourse. And whether those comparisons were ever legally validated or not, the conversations around them never really disappeared. They stayed alive in fandom spaces, resurfacing whenever a new comeback, concept, or controversy dropped. So now with New Genes themselves being on the receiving end of a blatant copying accusation in this case, a lot of people online are immediately revisiting those older debates and framing this moment as some kind of reversal or contradiction in how copying accusations are applied across different hive associated acts. That's why the conversation has expanded far beyond just one song or one lawsuit.

[00:08:58]It's now become a much bigger debate online about where inspiration ends and plagiarism begins, how those boundaries are judged in K-pop production specifically, and whether accusations of copying are being applied consistently depending on which group is involved and which side of hive they fall under. Of course, fans on all sides are using this moment differently. Some are defending the production process behind how Sweet.

[00:09:19]Others are focusing on the legal claims and similarities being alleged. And others are more focused on the broader hive narrative and what this means in terms of industry patterns rather than just one case. Still important to ground this in what we actually know right now.

[00:09:32]These are allegations brought forward by the songwriters. Ador is firmly denying any wrongdoing and nothing has been legally proven at this stage. Everything else beyond that is currently interpretation argument and ongoing legal escalation that will likely take time to fully unfold. So, at this point, this is officially heading into the courts. And given how globally successful How Sweet was, plus how much existing tension is already surrounding New Jeans and their label situation with Hib and Ador, this is very clearly not going to be a quick or quiet resolution.

[00:10:01]It's one of those cases that people in both the industry and fandom spaces are going to be watching closely as it slowly unfolds because the outcome here could have implications that go way beyond just one track. And honestly, continuing from that, what makes this situation feel even more loaded is that cases like this rarely stay contained as just a single song dispute in K-pop.

[00:10:21]They tend to snowball into something much bigger in terms of perception, trust, and label reputation, especially when the artist involved is as globally visible as New Jeans. Because if this lawsuit gains real traction in court and the plaintiffs are able to prove substantial similarity, even partially, it doesn't just raise questions about royalties for How Sweet, it could also open up broader scrutiny around how songs are selected, cleared, and reviewed across Hib's production pipeline, including within Ador's internal processes. And that's where things start to get especially sensitive because Hib is already constantly under a microscope due to the sheer scale of artists under its umbrella and the way its groups are often compared either fairly or unfairly across different sublabels. So anytime a plagiaris discussion comes up doesn't just stay at the level of one artist or it often expands into a wider debate about the company's overall creative direction and consistency. This is also exactly why the eyelet connection keeps resurfacing in online conversation even though they are not directly involved in this lawsuit at all. earlier plagiarism and copying concept debates around their debut era created a kind of lingerin fandom spaces where similarities between hive groups tend to get amplified and reinterpreted through that existing lens. So now with New Jeans themselves being accused of blatant copying in a formal legal setting, a lot of people are framing it as some kind of full circle moment in the discourse.

[00:11:36]Regardless of whether that comparison actually holds up legally or if you strip away the fandom framing and look at it more realistically, these cases are usually far more technical and less dramatic than they appear online. In modern K-pop production, especially at the level Hive operates, it's extremely common for multiple teams to work across shared songwriting camps, reference tracks, international producers, and overlapping creative briefs. Because of that, similarities in things like key, tempo, or even melodic phrasing can sometimes happen naturally within pop music structures. without it automatically meaning something was copied. And that's actually one of the core legal battlegrounds in cases like this, whether what is being pointed out is legally protectable expression or just part of the general language of pop music that tends to overlap across different songs and creators. So even though the complaint here is focusing heavily on specific technical details like melodic sequences, note patterns, and structural similarities, Ador's position is essentially that similarity alone is not enough to prove copying, especially without strong evidence of access, intentional replication, or direct derivation from the original demo. And realistically, that's the exact point where these cases usually go in one of three directions. They either get dismissed if the evidence isn't strong enough, they get quietly settled out of court to avoid further exposure, or they turn into long drawn out legal battles where both sides dig deeper into production files, drafts, timestamps, and creative documentation to build their argument. So, right now, everything really depends on what evidence each side can actually produce once this fully plays out in court. But outside of the strict legal side of things, the impact that's already playing out in real time is definitely perception. Because New Jeans have built their entire identity around being seen as fresh, distinct, and very intentionally different in sound and aesthetic direction compared to most groups in the industry. Even the suggestion of copying hits harder in public discourse than it might for other acts. Whether that's fair or not, that's just how strongly their brand has been positioned since debut. And when you stack that on top of their already ongoing contract and label situation with Hib and Ador, it creates this really layered environment where every new development doesn't exist in isolation anymore. Instead, it gets pulled into an existing narrative that's already been building for months.

[00:13:42]Meaning, this lawsuit isn't just being judged as a standalone copyright claim, but as another piece in a much larger ongoing story around the group, their label, and their future direction.

[00:13:51]That's also why the online reaction is so split right now. On one side, there are people trying to keep it purely grounded in the technical and legal side of things. Basically arguing that music copyright disputes are common and that similarity in structure, key or melody doesn't automatically equal infringement in an industry where songwriting camps, reference tracks, and shared producers are standard practice. But on the other side, you've got people who are looking at this through a much more contextual lens, pulling in past hiblated discourse, especially earlier comparisons involving Illlet, and using that history to frame the current situation as either inconsistency or double standards, depending on which group they're defending. And even though those earlier debates weren't legally tied to this case, they still shape how a lot of people interpret anything related to similarity or copying within Hib's ecosystem. So, what ends up happening is that this stops being just a lawsuit about one demo and one released song and turns into a much bigger cultural argument online where legal terminology, fandom history, and industry speculation all get blended together in real time. It becomes less about one specific track and more about trust, perception, and how people interpret creative overlap in K-pop as a whole. And moving forward, the most important thing to watch is still going to be the actual evidence that comes out in court. Because at the end of the day, everything will hinge on whether the plaintiffs can demonstrate not just similarity, but actual access and substantial copying of protected material from the original demo into the final composition of how sweet. If the court ultimately finds that the similarities are coincidental, stylistic, or not legally substantial enough, suits that generate massive online debate for a while before disappearing without a major legal shift. But if the opposite happens and the plaintiffs are able to prove that the demo was accessed and meaningfully replicated in the final production, then it could have wider implications not just for New Jeans or Hive, specifically for how demo submissions, songwriting pipelines, and creative documentation are handled across the K-pop industry more broadly. Either way, the reality right now is that the online narrative is moving much faster than the legal process itself. how globally recognized New Genes have become. Every update from this point forward is going to be heavily analyzed, reinterpreted, and folded back into existing discourse.

[00:15:59]Whether that stays focused on the music or circles back again to the ongoing hive related conversations that never really seem to fully die