---

To the Esteemed CEO Min Hee-jin of ADOR Inc.,

As parents and legal guardians of Kim Minji, Hanni Pham, Kang Haerin, Marsh Danielle, and Lee Hyein (hereinafter referred to as NewJeans), we submit the following statement of opinion to CEO Min Hee-jin of ADOR Inc. on March 31, 2024.

We express deep concern over the numerous similarities and controversies that have arisen between a group that recently debuted under another HYBE label (hereinafter referred to as “XXX”) and NewJeans in terms of concept (photos, music videos, etc.), styling, choreography, and more.

These similarities appear to be the result of deliberate imitation planned by HYBE / BELIFT LAB.
The series of content seen in concept photos, styling, music video scenes, choreography, and self-produced content, as well as the hiring of staff who had exclusively worked with NewJeans since their debut without any prior experience working with other idols, makes it difficult to deny the intentionality.

A large volume of content similar to NewJeans has already been mass-produced, and suspicions of NewJeans copying and plagiarism have spread widely among consumers. We convey our deep regret at how another label under the same parent company could plan a team that deliberately evokes NewJeans’ debut era, only 1 year and 8 months after NewJeans’ debut.

Above all, we wonder why such an irrational plan was made within the same corporate umbrella, when common sense dictates that teams with closer debut timings should target different markets with differentiated concepts. We understand that ADOR was not involved in or cooperated with this process.

We request confirmation from HYBE / BELIFT LAB, who arbitrarily pursued this similar concept, as to what their intentions were.

Furthermore, we believe the bigger problem is that the rookie group was marketed in a way that subtly invites comparison with NewJeans. Did ADOR give permission for them to perform choreography with identical movements?

If this situation continues, it is evident that NewJeans’ reputation and brand value will be damaged.

As the public points out and debates the similarities between the two groups, unnecessary comparisons and various controversies continue to emerge, and the members are experiencing serious psychological harm in this process where the achievements NewJeans has built could be damaged. Not only the members but also their families feel severe fatigue from seeing XXX mentioned alongside NewJeans in almost every article and social media post related to NewJeans, and even feel helpless at being unable to prevent it. It is distressing and painful that NewJeans is being used for unnecessary comparative analysis.

On a TikTok video where XXX faced copying controversy for not crediting a foreign choreographer, the comment with the most hearts was surprisingly, “I thought this was NewJeans.” That video has high view counts. Some people will watch that video and mistakenly think NewJeans did something wrong.

Meanwhile, there was also content in XXX’s material that could be cited as gossip. We found certain mentions in XXX’s self-produced content made by BELIFT LAB to be highly inappropriate. As feared, related gossip was generated, and we discovered content mocking NewJeans in certain online communities. What is most regrettable is that all of this content was produced and edited by HYBE’s internal production team, yet it was not filtered out.

Does BELIFT LAB / HYBE have no intention of protecting the brand value of NewJeans and its members?

This is not an unfounded concern because absurd situations have occurred frequently. We wonder why Chairman Bang Si-hyuk pretends not to recognize the members and ignores their greetings every time they encounter him within the company.

At first, we doubted what the children told us, thinking “He probably just didn’t recognize them,” and confirmed multiple times. But this happened on numerous occasions, on different dates and in different locations, including times when members encountered him one-on-one, situations where he could not have failed to recognize that they were NewJeans members.

Even if he did not know they were NewJeans members, it is basic courtesy to return a greeting when someone greets you first—was it really that difficult to exchange greetings within the company? After hearing not one or two but multiple accounts from members who stood blankly in the elevator feeling embarrassed at being ignored, or who sensed they were being deliberately overlooked, or who felt they were being deliberately avoided, as parents we were shocked at this childish and unbelievable situation and at a loss for words to tell our children. These members are only middle school and high school age.

This is not the only incomprehensible treatment. In the past, the NewJeans members heard the proposal and promise that they would be HYBE’s first girl group and signed trainee contracts with Source Music, but during the period when the project was delayed, they had to wait indefinitely without any explanation from Source Music. Then came news of the contracts for XXX and XXX. In the end, contrary to the promise made to us at the time of contract, a different team debuted as the first group.

The broken promise about the first girl group by HYBE in the past and the indefinite waiting / neglect of the NewJeans members during their trainee days at Source Music remain an unforgettable nightmare.
One member even considered giving up on debuting because of the arduous process at Source Music.

We believe the plagiarism issue currently shaking various fan communities and social media is merely one part of the consequences brought about by the unfair treatment and lack of transparent communication that HYBE has shown.

We object to HYBE using NewJeans only when convenient, as a strategy to deliberately draw attention, simply because they are labels under the same HYBE umbrella. We convey our regret and request for correction regarding the fact that HYBE / BELIFT LAB has arbitrarily pursued these promotional methods without any involvement, prior agreement, request, or consultation with ADOR.

From the past to the present, including matters we could not include in this letter, as legal guardians of NewJeans, we find it difficult to restore our broken trust in HYBE.

Because circumstances indicating that HYBE does not respect NewJeans have become clear through various incidents, we are worried about how HYBE will use NewJeans in the future and what else of NewJeans’ they will imitate.

With a devastated heart, we formally request CEO Min Hee-jin of ADOR, who is in charge of NewJeans’ management contract, to prevent HYBE / BELIFT LAB’s infringing activities against NewJeans and to protect their brand value.

According to the exclusive contract signed on April 21, 2022, ADOR is to faithfully provide management services so that NewJeans’ talents and abilities can be maximized, and to do its best to maximize profits, thereby promoting mutual interests. We strongly demand that you take the best measures to eradicate the ongoing plagiarism controversies caused by HYBE and the marketing activities that exploit them.

Furthermore, we ask that you remind HYBE to protect the value that NewJeans possesses and allow their potential to be realized—not through unethical means of stealing existing creative works and using them for promotion, but by having different labels create diverse content based on their own new ideas and innovate the music industry.

We read an article stating that at XXX’s debut showcase, the members said, “Producer Bang Si-hyuk closely monitored our practice videos and gave feedback,” indicating that Chairman Bang Si-hyuk served as executive producer. If Chairman himself was directly producing, it would have been proper to employ differentiation strategies considering existing teams within the company, and even if overlapping content was unintentionally discovered, it should have been corrected immediately as a matter of principle. Yet reading the interview articles gives the impression of condoning, overlooking, or even leading this, and we cannot help but question HYBE’s sense of ethics.

In a situation where NewJeans’ hits have changed K-pop trends to the point where the term “male NewJeans” has emerged and imitation has become frequent, instead of thinking about protecting their uniqueness, we convey our strong condemnation that HYBE has joined this trend in the most severe form.

As a leader in the K-pop industry, HYBE should provide a sensible and healthy environment for artists under its labels.

We ask that you strongly protest to HYBE regarding the above matters and convey our opinion so that we may receive a response and corrective measures.

March 31, 2024
The Legal Guardians of NewJeans

---

In relation to the above content, ADOR clearly states that we have never received any request for cooperation from HYBE / BELIFT LAB regarding XXX’s content, and we have never consulted, compromised, confirmed, or accepted the matters raised.

Furthermore, as a copyright holder and producer, ADOR is equally deeply displeased with the brand infringement issue. We urgently need a response from HYBE and the relevant label, along with corresponding measures, regarding the plagiarism and direct use of choreography without the subsidiary’s permission, consultation, request, or consent; the imitation of concepts; and the arbitrary exploitation of the artist’s name and issues. We request a prompt response.

Under the guise of benchmarking, after gaining attention through similarities, gradually emphasizing differences while subtly steering the mood and flow, and then responding with denial once popularity has been established later—the prevalence of such behavior is a prime example of unwholesome practices in this industry, particularly those fundamentally based on imitation.

Ironically, the public now knows that the more plagiarism is intended, the more they avoid copying 100% of everything exactly the same.

When too many coincidences accumulate and repeat, they are no longer coincidences but inevitabilities. Because there is a truth that the overall context and circumstances reveal, I clearly state that this is not a matter that can be evaded by pointing to one or two differences among ten things as an excuse.

🔗 A critic reviewing XXX’s album expressed it as “Min Hee-jin style,” “Min Hee-jin-like.” No one can deny that NewJeans comes to mind from XXX’s debut promotion. And everyone knows that XXX went viral to the extent of the unnecessarily dragged-out mentions of NewJeans.

It is problematic that the method expanded the volume of mentions by using NewJeans, who has nothing to do with XXX, without considering the damage NewJeans or ADOR would suffer. But what is guarded and concerning is that over time, the discernment regarding plagiarism may become diluted, and around the time the public becomes weary of excessive viral marketing, they will create slight variations and form another public opinion of “See? I told you it was different.”

The intention to cunningly exploit and then deny may be even more ethically problematic.
This is because such behavior breaks the will of creators who want to try new things, rationalizes imitation, leads to only safe choices, and makes the industry stagnant.
To put it bluntly, if you can just copy successful teams and works, who would struggle and take risks to try something new?

Chairman Bang Si-hyuk once said, “I cannot overlook the irrationalities and injustices in the music industry,” and “That anger has become my calling.”

If HYBE claims to be truly angry about the irrationalities and injustices in the music industry and to be interested in music industry workers receiving fair evaluations and proper treatment, they should reflect on whether they are currently doing so themselves.

That is why it is only right to regard the current XXX plagiarism controversy and so-called aggro marketing matter as a challenge that must be changed for a healthy creative environment.

Not only is there no visible respect for other creators’ work, but even industry insiders are sending numerous questions and contacts out of bewilderment. We take similar cases at other companies seriously, so what is this situation at the parent company?

This can only be explained as tyranny of a parent company against its subsidiary.

To whom was the anger about the industry’s injustices directed?

The original purpose of the multi-label system as I understood it was to respect diverse creative activities and pioneer new paths to create more possibilities—not an agreement that the parent company can freely take from subsidiaries whenever it wants.

Such behavior not only violates corporate ethics but also degrades the industry and hinders diversity, so ultimately it will not benefit HYBE.

HYBE’s RW document proposes the following:

“We provide feedback on opinions or ideas that would benefit the company, even in situations with opposition or discomfort. Dissenting opinions are presented through open discussion or documentation. (We explain/persuade dissenting opinions and utilize data and supporting materials when necessary.)”

We attach the materials compiled by ADOR.

As this matter is clear in its circumstances and not something where right and wrong need to be determined, we note that we have primarily compiled the public’s reactions to it.

We request a prompt response.

April 3, 2024

Min Hee-jin, CEO of ADOR Inc.