NYT publishes NewJeans contract... HYBE: “Min Hee-jin was the contracting party... It has become a tool to attack K-pop”

[Financial News] The New York Times (NYT), a U.S. daily newspaper, published the exclusive contract between K-pop group NewJeans and its agency ADOR, pointing to the industry’s strict practices for controlling artists.
In an article published on the 5th local time titled “Strict Control of a Top K-pop Girl Group Revealed by a Confidential Contract,” NYT reported that behind NewJeans’ success was an unusually strict contract that members signed when they were 14 to 17 years old. The names, home addresses and other details were redacted from the published contract, and NYT also withheld additional information to protect personal privacy.

In response, HYBE issued a statement on the 6th rebutting the main points of NYT’s report across seven areas: omission of artist-protection provisions required under the government’s standard contract; whether the artist side’s views were reflected at the time of signing; CCTV installation; the right to education; the penalty clause; rights related to members’ voices and faces; and bans on defamation and unhealthy romantic relationships.
On the criticism that the artist side’s views were not sufficiently reflected during the contract process, HYBE countered that negotiations took place for about three months before the contract was signed. According to HYBE, a draft was shared on January 7, 2022, and discussions on revisions continued through questions and answers, email correspondence, and review by the artist side’s lawyer until the contract was signed in April that year. HYBE added that a Seoul High Court ruling also acknowledged that the two sides had signed the contract after thorough discussion.
HYBE explained that the provision the mother of a member currently in a dispute with ADOR had asked to revise at the time was the requirement to “immediately notify the company if there is an attempt at tampering.” The requested revision was not made, but according to HYBE, after hearing the company’s explanation, the mother replied, “I’m writing to let you know that I have no further comments on the response you provided.”
On the cost-sharing terms, HYBE emphasized the judgment made by ADOR’s management at the time. When a member’s mother suggested reducing the artist’s financial burden, the legal team prepared several options and presented them to ADOR. HYBE said ADOR’s then deputy CEO rejected them, and the contract was signed under the terms that remain in place today.
HYBE’s position is that the provisions banning defamation and unhealthy romantic relationships are necessary to protect artists and maintain their dignity. HYBE said they “mean that [artists] must not commit crimes constituting defamation.” It added, “Contracts for overseas brand models sometimes impose broader obligations to maintain good conduct than domestic contracts,” and explained, “Preventing unhealthy romantic relationships that could cause social controversy is also necessary to protect artists. The provision was included in the contract with the agreement of the artists’ parents.”
HYBE also emphasized that Min Hee-jin, then ADOR’s CEO, and the deputy CEO she appointed took part in the contract process. HYBE said they coordinated the wording with each member and their parents, as well as the legal representatives of some members, and signed the final agreement.
HYBE added, “We explained these points to NYT with supporting materials and asked it to state in the article that Min Hee-jin was the contracting party, but our request was not accepted.” It continued, “The contracts and litigation materials, which only the parties themselves possess, have been leaked to foreign media and are being used as a tool to attack K-pop, so we had no choice but to explain the matter.”
[email protected] Shin Jin-a Reporter