Is NewJeans gone? What K-pop group’s saga reveals about power play in artist-label relations

Amid industry concern about similar moves by other artists, the group’s dispute may also prompt a review of the K-pop system, analysts say

NewJeans’ abrupt disappearance from the K-pop spotlight has shaken South Korea’s multibillion-dollar music industry – not just because of the group’s meteoric rise and global reach, but for what the saga reveals about increasingly blurred lines of power and the fragile nature of artist-label relations in the world’s most systematised pop machine.

The five-member girl group – consisting of Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin and Hyein – went on indefinite hiatus last month after a Seoul court ruled they could no longer operate outside the oversight of their label, Ador.

The group, which made its debut in 2022, had been hailed as K-pop’s breakout act of the decade for its Y2K-inspired visuals, genre-blending sound and global partnerships with brands such as Chanel and Coca-Cola.

The ruling marked a new low in a year-long battle involving the group members, their fiercely loyal producer Min Hee-jin, and Ador’s parent company, Hybe – home to globally famous acts such as BTS and Seventeen.

Legal disputes between K-pop idols and agencies are hardly new, but what set the NewJeans controversy apart was the unprecedented public messaging from the group, its direct defiance of a major label and the polarising role played by Min, the group’s creative force who often described its members as being like her children.

Breaking point

The conflict erupted last year when Hybe reported Min – then CEO of parent company Ador – to police for allegedly plotting a hostile takeover by tampering with company shares. The move stunned fans and insiders alike, given Min’s role as the creative architect behind NewJeans’ image and success.

Min fired back with a series of public accusations, claiming Hybe had systematically undermined her and engaged in creative plagiarism. She accused Belift Labs – another Hybe subsidiary – of copying NewJeans’ signature aesthetic to launch rival girl group Illit, alleging duplication of “make-up, costumes, choreography, photos, videos and even appearances”. After Min stepped down from her CEO role, she became the target of a defamation lawsuit filed by Belift Labs over her claims.

A respected creative director before founding Ador, Min previously worked with top K-pop acts such as Girls’ Generation and f(x), helping shape some of the genre’s most iconic concepts. Her standing in the industry added weight to her grievances – and to the group’s vocal loyalty.

The dispute came to a head in April last year, when Min held a two-hour, profanity-laced press conference that went viral on YouTube. Tearful and defiant, she presented herself as the real force behind NewJeans – and as a casualty of corporate power struggles within Hybe.

Public sentiment has remained largely sympathetic to Min and the group throughout the dispute. Hybe’s share price slumped following the controversy, and NewJeans’ fan base rallied behind the members as they continued to defend their producer and criticise the company’s handling of the fallout.

In September, the group launched a live stream urging Hybe to reinstate Min as Ador’s CEO, branding the company “inhumane”. Two months later, it issued an ultimatum: meet the members’ demands within 14 days or face the cancellation of their contracts. Ador did not budge. The group responded by rebranding itself as NJZ and launching a new Instagram account – moves that blindsided its label and triggered court intervention.

“There’s no evidence that says the music label didn’t pay fair wages or mistreated the artists in this case,” said pop music critic Kim Sung-hwan, a member of the Korean Music Awards’ selection committee.

“NewJeans’ main contention is that Min Hee-jin was unfairly fired from her job. If the courts sided with NewJeans in this case, it would undermine investment in the industry and be detrimental to the K-pop sector.”

Kim pointed out that K-pop groups demanded significant upfront investment. Companies such as Hybe pour millions of dollars into training, producing and marketing new talent – meaning that acts are often locked into long-term contracts as a form of risk mitigation.

“We might’ve had a different story if NewJeans were [further] into their contract, but the fact that they were only active for just a little over two years didn’t play to their advantage,” Kim said.

Loyalty and loss

The industry’s support has largely coalesced around Hybe, with insiders voicing concerns that NewJeans’ rebellion could embolden similar challenges from other young artists.

Still, fans remain sympathetic. Global media outlets such as CNN and the BBC have interviewed the group’s members, who continue to engage their fan base directly via social media despite apparent professional limbo. Their branding deals, however, have taken a hit – including the loss of a lucrative partnership with Shinhan Financial Group.

“Many fans place the [blame for the] conflict squarely on Ador and Hybe,” said Paul Han, co-founder of English-language site Allkpop. “Their view is that the artists deserve stability and the ability to work with whoever they choose to.”

Even BTS member Jungkook weighed in, posting to Instagram: “Artists are not guilty” and “Don’t use them” – widely interpreted as a show of solidarity with NewJeans.

There are multiple examples of past disputes between K-pop idols and their labels. In 2009, three members of the group TVXQ filed a landmark suit against SM Entertainment over contract length and pay. In 2023, members of the girl group Fifty Fifty sought to terminate their contract with Attrakt after alleging a breach of contractual obligations.

But what makes the NewJeans saga more volatile is its visibility – and timing.

According to Kim Jeong-seob, a professor of K-culture and entertainment at Sungshin Women’s University, the contract system has become more regulated over the past two decades. The early days of K-pop were dominated by “slave contracts”, he said, with idols working under harsh terms and minimal oversight.

“In the past, so-called ‘slave contracts’ put young artists in extremely unfavourable conditions,” he said. “But as K-pop became much more industrialised and global since the 2000s, professionals like lawyers, accountants and management specialists came into the industry to add more oversight into the system.”

Even so, concerns remain that the machine-like efficiency of the K-pop system has come at the cost of artistic freedom.

“There’s a bit of a cookie-cutter approach happening,” Han said. “Same concepts, same styles, following the trend, and it can all start to blur together. There’s so much talent, but I think fans want to see more unique, creative risks being taken.”

By that measure, NewJeans was the exception.

“NewJeans exploded onto the scene faster than any act in K-pop history,” Han said. “Aside from setting all sorts of records, their debut felt like an instant cultural moment.”

Whether the group can survive this conflict as a unit is unclear. But the dispute is likely to prompt soul-searching among Korean lawmakers and business leaders alike.

“As K-culture increasingly attracts tourists and promotes Korean products abroad, future administrations are likely to intervene more in legal disputes involving K-pop players,” Sungshin University’s Kim said. “Laws may be tightened so it’s easier for both sides of legal contracts to fulfil their obligations.”

He added that while loyalty remained a foundational virtue in Korea’s entertainment world, companies also “need to become more prudent and humane” in their management of artists.

Like many in the industry, Kim hopes a resolution is still possible. “I’m praying that both sides meet at the negotiation table.”