New releases, music videos and album news — indie, rap, rock and pop. Always covering Ren, Chris Webby, Sam Tompkins, bbno$, CHINCHILLA, Muse, Yungblud and more.
NewJeans’ Contracts Removed Key Protections Against Child Labor Violations
A New York Times report says ADOR left key child-protection provisions out of NewJeans’ contracts, signed when the members were aged 14 to 17. The omissions included standard protections for education and physical and mental health, raising questions about the conditions young performers faced and the power labels hold over them.
The report says four of the five members left school and that rehearsals sometimes continued until 2 a.m., while breaks were discouraged; HYBE says it complies with child-protection laws and does not pressure performers to quit school or penalise them for resting. The contracts also granted ADOR indefinite use of AI-generated voices and included restrictions on conduct and public statements. ADOR is seeking about $22 million from former member Danielle Marsh, while the other members’ contracts run until 2029.
In short
- ADOR contracts omitted standard protections for young performers.
- Members reportedly rehearsed late and four left school.
- ADOR is seeking about $22 million from Danielle Marsh.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Signing young performers to contracts without explicit safeguards for education, health and rest can leave them vulnerable, especially when a powerful label controls their schedules and public work. Reports of late rehearsals and members leaving school strengthen the case for clearer protections and scrutiny, while broad rights over AI-generated voices and restrictions on speech raise questions about young artists’ control of their identities and careers.
The case against
The reported contract omissions do not by themselves establish that child-protection laws were breached or that the label caused members to leave school; HYBE says it follows the law and does not pressure performers to quit or penalise them for resting. A label could also argue that contracts need to address practical demands of a demanding performance career and protect legitimate business interests, while the specific circumstances and enforceability of the disputed terms require careful examination.