{"id":9003,"date":"2025-12-08T21:20:10","date_gmt":"2025-12-08T21:20:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/diddy-drake-mariah-carey-more\/"},"modified":"2025-12-08T21:20:10","modified_gmt":"2025-12-08T21:20:10","slug":"diddy-drake-mariah-carey-more","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/diddy-drake-mariah-carey-more\/","title":{"rendered":"Diddy, Drake, Mariah Carey &#038; More"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<!-- do not apply CSS styles to this element! --><\/p>\n<div class=\"pmc-not-a-paywall\">\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\t<span>I<\/span>n another banner year for music law, 2025 saw industry attorneys wrestle with existential questions about new technology, and some of the world\u2019s biggest artists went to court to protect their work and fight for their reputations. <\/p>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\tThe advent of artificial intelligence dominated this year across the board, and music law was no exception. The first record deal for an AI-powered artist raised thorny questions about these songs\u2019 intellectual property rights, and some of the major labels reached landmark licensing settlements in their bitter copyright litigation against AI music generators Suno and Udio. <\/p>\n<div class=\"injected-related-story \/\/ lrv-u-align-items-center u-align-items-flex-start@mobile-max  lrv-u-background-color-grey-lightest  lrv-u-flex lrv-u-flex-direction-column@mobile-max u-width-710@desktop lrv-u-margin-lr-auto lrv-u-margin-tb-1 u-margin-b-250@mobile-max u-margin-t-275@mobile-max u-margin-t-250@desktop u-margin-b-250@desktop u-margin-lr-n1@mobile-max lrv-u-border-b-1 lrv-u-border-color-brand-secondary-dark lrv-u-border-t-1 lrv-u-padding-tb-1  lrv-u-padding-tb-1@mobile-max lrv-u-padding-r-1@mobile-max lrv-u-padding-l-00@mobile-max u-grid-gap-18@desktop u-grid-gap-0@mobile-max\">\n<h3 id=\"title-of-a-story\" class=\"c-title  a-article-related-module-title a-article-related-module-title--color-brand-primary a-font-accent-xl u-font-weight-800 u-letter-spacing-0179 u-line-height-normal lrv-u-color-grey-dark bb-pro-related-stories-label lrv-u-text-transform-uppercase\">\n<p>\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n<div class=\"injected-related-story-wrapper lrv-u-flex lrv-u-justify-content-space-between  a-children-border-vertical a-children-border--grey a-children-border-width-050\">\n<div class=\"o-card  lrv-u-width-100p\">\n<div class=\"o-card__image-wrap lrv-u-flex-shrink-0 u-width-191 u-width-150@mobile-max\">\n<div class=\"c-lazy-image   lrv-u-margin-b-00@mobile-max u-width-130px@mobile-max lrv-u-margin-b-00@mobile-max\">\n<div class=\"a-crop-6x4 a-crop-3x2@mobile-max\">\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\tThen there were the human artists. Sean \u201cDiddy\u201d Combs\u2019 stunning fall from grace culminated in a blockbuster criminal trial;\u00a0a slew of civil sex abuse lawsuits dragged in fellow rap mogul Jay-Z, who went on the offensive to clear his name;\u00a0and Drake stunned everyone by suing his own record label over Kendrick Lamar\u2019s \u201cNot Like Us.\u201d <\/p>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\tAs per usual, many artists spent time in court battling over music copyright law, from Miley Cyrus to Bad Bunny to Salt-N-Pepa to Ye (formerly Kanye West), while Mariah Carey defeated a major IP lawsuit over her holiday classic \u201cAll I Want for Christmas Is You.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\tThe touring industry was busy too, with Live Nation continuing to defend against a blockbuster trust-busting action and facing new claims over ticket scalpers. And the controversial resale market for Taylor Swift\u2019s record-breaking Eras Tour spawned an entire legal ecosystem of its own. <\/p>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\tTo catch up on the legal year that was, here are <em>Billboard<\/em>\u2019s top 10 music law stories of 2025.<\/p>\n<div id=\"pmc-gallery-vertical\">\n<div class=\"c-gallery-vertical-loader u-gallery-app-shell-loader\">\n<ul class=\"pmc-fallback-list-items lrv-a-unstyle-list lrv-u-margin-t-2\">\n<li class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item-wrap lrv-u-margin-b-2\">\n<article class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item\">\n<h2>AI Boom Sparks Endless Legal Issues\u00a0<\/h2>\n<p>\t<!-- do not apply CSS styles to this element! --><\/p>\n<div class=\"pmc-not-a-paywall\">\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\t<span>T<\/span>he meteoric growth of artificial intelligence over the past three years only accelerated in 2025 \u2014 and, like the rest of the world, the music industry spent the year grappling with difficult questions about how AI will upend the status quo in the near future.\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0\u00a0<br \/>AI-powered artists like Xania Monet and Breaking Rust put up big numbers, but it\u2019s not entirely clear that the humans behind them even own the legal rights to their songs. An artist named HAVEN. nearly broke out with its viral \u201cI Run\u201d \u2014 that is, until it was revealed that creators had used AI to generate the vocals and Jorja Smith\u2019s team accused them of deepfaking her voice in the process.\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0\u00a0<br \/>Universal, Sony and Warner continued to litigate their massive copyright infringement lawsuits against AI firms Suno and Udio \u2014 until they didn\u2019t. In October, UMG struck a deal with Udio to settle their portion of the litigation, agreeing to partner on a more-limited AI \u201cwalled garden.\u201d Warner quickly inked its own settlement with Udio, then struck another one with Suno that will allow that company to keep most of its current form.\u00a0\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0<br \/>The deals will see the platforms pay licensing fees for the millions of songs they use to train their models, and will crucially require artists to opt in before they\u2019re included \u2014 big wins for human musicians as they fight to avoid being replaced by machines. But with something so immensely complex, the devil will be in the details, more of which will likely emerge in 2026.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/li>\n<li class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item-wrap lrv-u-margin-b-2\">\n<article class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item\">\n<h2>Diddy Goes Down \u2026 Sort Of\u00a0<\/h2>\n<p>\t<!-- do not apply CSS styles to this element! --><\/p>\n<div class=\"pmc-not-a-paywall\">\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\t<span>O<\/span>nce one of the music industry\u2019s most powerful figures, Sean \u201cDiddy\u201d Combs faced the music in 2025, going to trial in early May over allegations of heinous sexual abuse. Over eight weeks in a Manhattan courtroom, the feds and witnesses told jurors about \u201cfreak off\u201d parties in which Combs allegedly plied women with drugs and forced them to have sex with male prostitutes. In response, the star\u2019s lawyers admitted their client was a domestic abuser with weird sexual tastes, but said he was not the sexual monster described by prosecutors \u2014 and that the feds had clearly overshot their case.\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0\u00a0<br \/>In the end, that argument largely worked. After two days of deliberation, jurors issued a verdict in July that cleared Diddy of the most serious sex trafficking and racketeering charges that could have seen him sent to prison for life. But he didn\u2019t get off completely: He was still convicted of two prostitution charges, on which he was sentenced in October to four years in prison.\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0\u00a0<br \/>What\u2019s next? Diddy, now living at a New Jersey federal prison, has launched an appeal of his conviction and sentence. And he\u2019s still facing dozens of civil lawsuits filed by alleged victims. How they play out will be a big legal story to watch in 2026.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/li>\n<li class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item-wrap lrv-u-margin-b-2\">\n<article class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item\">\n<h2>Jay-Z Dragged into Diddy Mess \u2013 and Fights Back\u00a0\u00a0<\/h2>\n<p>\t<!-- do not apply CSS styles to this element! --><\/p>\n<div class=\"pmc-not-a-paywall\">\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\t<span>A<\/span>s the sprawling litigation spree against Diddy heated up, other music industry figures in his orbit got dragged into the fray. Jay-Z was one such target at the tail end of 2024, with an anonymous woman alleging that he and Diddy raped her together when she was 13 years old at an after-party following the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards. <br \/>\u00a0<br \/>The shocking claims were dropped by February \u2014 but Jay-Z wasn\u2019t done fighting.\u00a0The rapper went on to file two lawsuits of his own, accusing both the woman and her Texas-based attorney, <strong>Tony Buzbee<\/strong>, of extortion and defamation, claiming they\u2019d fabricated a \u201cwildly false\u201d story to \u201cblackmail\u201d him for a payday. The superstar was dealt a loss in July when his Los Angeles case was thrown out, but he\u2019s appealing that ruling and still has pending claims in Alabama federal court.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/li>\n<li class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item-wrap lrv-u-margin-b-2\">\n<article class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item\">\n<h2>Drake Sues Over a Diss. And Loses.\u00a0<\/h2>\n<p>\t<!-- do not apply CSS styles to this element! --><\/p>\n<div class=\"pmc-not-a-paywall\">\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\t<span>J<\/span>ust weeks into 2025, Drake shocked the music world by suing UMG for defamation over Kendrick Lamar\u2019s scathing diss track \u201cNot Like Us,\u201d a Grammy-winning banger that labeled Drake a \u201ccertified pedophile.\u201d Few had expected a rapper to respond to lyrical insults by hiring lawyers; fewer still had expected him to file it against UMG, his longtime label where he rose to the very top of the music industry.\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0\u00a0<br \/>Drake\u2019s case was always something of a gamble. It aimed to protect his reputation, but it also posed risks of harming it. To many, going to court over a diss track felt antithetical to a genre rooted so heavily in authenticity, and Drake\u2019s case prompted ridicule in some corners of the hip-hop world. \u201cWhat type of shit is that?\u201d asked A$AP Rocky in September, in one representative example.\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0\u00a0<br \/>In August, Drake lost that wager: A federal judge dismissed the case, ruling that listeners would hear the \u201cpedophile\u201d diss as just one more \u201cinflammatory insult\u201d during a \u201cheated rap battle,\u201d not the kind of \u201csober facts\u201d that could be proven true or false. Will that ruling hold up on appeal? Drake is going to find out, and experts say he has a fighting chance. Stay tuned in 2026 for the answer.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/li>\n<li class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item-wrap lrv-u-margin-b-2\">\n<article class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item\">\n<h2>Spotify Cases Raise Big Questions\u00a0<\/h2>\n<p>\t<!-- do not apply CSS styles to this element! --><\/p>\n<div class=\"pmc-not-a-paywall\">\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\t<span>S<\/span>potify remained the uncontested heavyweight champion of music streaming in 2025, reporting in November that it saw a 12% year-over-year jump to 281 million paying subscribers. But it also faced two new lawsuits that raised big questions about the modern streaming ecosystem.\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0\u00a0<br \/>In one case, a Spotify user claimed in November that the streamer\u2019s Discovery Mode and editorial playlists amount to a \u201cmodern form of payola,\u201d allowing labels to secretly boost their tracks with a \u201cdeceptive pay-for-play\u201d regime. Spotify says the lawsuit is \u201cnonsense\u201d and \u201criddled with misunderstandings,\u201d but Discovery Mode has raised eyebrows for years \u2014 even as it\u2019s slowly become a key part of the music marketing toolkit.\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0\u00a0<br \/>Another case, also filed last month, claims that Spotify turned a \u201cblind eye\u201d to streaming fraud \u2014 the use of bots and other means to artificially boost numbers. It claimed Drake and other stars had enjoyed \u201cbillions\u201d of such fake streams, depriving other artists a fair cut from Spotify\u2019s finite royalty pool. The problem of streaming fraud is not a new one, and Spotify says the lawsuit ignores its \u201cbest-in-class systems\u201d designed to combat it, but it will be fascinating to watch the issue be dissected in federal court.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/li>\n<li class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item-wrap lrv-u-margin-b-2\">\n<article class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item\">\n<h2>Song Theft Cases Just Keep on Coming\u00a0<\/h2>\n<p>\t<!-- do not apply CSS styles to this element! --><\/p>\n<div class=\"pmc-not-a-paywall\">\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\t<span>A<\/span>s seems to be the case every year, 2025 saw a steady drip of copyright lawsuits brought against artists over allegedly unlicensed samples and interpolations in their songs. The old music industry saying holds true: \u201cIf you write a hit, expect a writ.\u201d\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0<br \/>Among the artists to face such cases this year were Lizzo, who was sued over a sample in a track poking fun at the Sydney Sweeney ad controversy; Rauw Alejandro, accused of using material from reggaeton legend DJ Playero; and Bad Bunny, who faced a case over a track from his chart-topping <em>Un Verano Sin Ti. <\/em>Ye, who\u2019s battled more than a dozen sampling claims over his career, was hit with two. Travis Scott was also sued twice, once alongside SZA and Future.\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0<br \/>Music lawyers can expect to keep racking up billable hours on this seemingly never-ending parade of song theft claims in 2026. The blockbuster case against Miley Cyrus over her megahit \u201cFlowers\u201d is moving ahead after a judge refused to dismiss it in March. Another huge case is also headed for trial, after an appeals court ruled in May that a lawsuit over Sam Smith and Normani\u2019s 2019 hit \u201cDancing With a Stranger\u201d must be decided by a jury. Stay tuned.\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/li>\n<li class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item-wrap lrv-u-margin-b-2\">\n<article class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item\">\n<h2>Christmas Comes Early for Mariah Carey\u00a0<\/h2>\n<p>\t<!-- do not apply CSS styles to this element! --><\/p>\n<div class=\"pmc-not-a-paywall\">\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\t<span>O<\/span>ne major song theft case was wrapped up with a bow this year: a lawsuit alleging Mariah Carey\u2019s holiday classic \u201cAll I Want for Christmas is You\u201d infringed a 1989 track of the same name. A federal judge held that the two songs really just share Christmas song clich\u00e9s, and she ordered songwriter Vince Vance to repay Carey\u2019s legal fees for filing \u201cfrivolous\u201d arguments during the litigation.\u00a0\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0<br \/>The case was a big deal because \u201cAll I Want for Christmas is You\u201d is big business. The 1994 blockbuster earned a whopping $8.5 million in global revenue in 2022, and it has retaken the top spot on the Billboard Hot 100 every holiday season since 2019. The song hit No. 1 for a whopping 19th week on Monday (Dec. 8), tying the record for most time atop the chart.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/li>\n<li class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item-wrap lrv-u-margin-b-2\">\n<article class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item\">\n<h2>Artists Fight for Termination Rights\u00a0<\/h2>\n<p>\t<!-- do not apply CSS styles to this element! --><\/p>\n<div class=\"pmc-not-a-paywall\">\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\t<span>A<\/span>side from the usual parade of traditional infringement claims, a more obscure area of copyright law was also a hot topic in 2025. Termination rights allow artists who sign over their master recordings to regain control of that intellectual property after 35 years.\u00a0\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0<br \/>At the beginning of the year, an unusual federal court ruling out of Louisiana determined for the first time that termination rights apply not just in the U.S., but also across the globe. This set off alarm bells among music industry attorneys, who said the decision could lead to chaos in cross-border dealings and even violate international treaty obligations. The case is now on appeal.\u00a0\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0<br \/>Then, in May, Salt-N-Pepa made waves by suing UMG\u00a0over termination rights. The legendary hip-hop duo claimed UMG is refusing to give them back control of their masters, while the company maintained that the fine print of Salt-N-Pepa\u2019s original record deal bars them from exercising termination rights. The lawsuit is continuing to play out in court \u2014 and Cheryl \u201cSalt\u201d James even referenced it during their induction into the Rock &amp; Roll Hall of Fame in November.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/li>\n<li class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item-wrap lrv-u-margin-b-2\">\n<article class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item\">\n<h2>Live Nation in DOJ Crosshairs\u00a0<\/h2>\n<p>\t<!-- do not apply CSS styles to this element! --><\/p>\n<div class=\"pmc-not-a-paywall\">\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\t<span>O<\/span>ne of the biggest legal stories of 2024 was the Department of Justice (DOJ) suing to break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster, which the live events juggernaut bought back in 2010. That case chugged along through the famously-unhurried legal system in 2025, with Live Nation losing its first bite at dismissing the antitrust claims in March.\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0<br \/>Next came the lengthy evidence collection process, followed by Live Nation arguing in a November summary judgment motion that there\u2019s simply no proof it wields monopolistic control over the live industry. Unless Live Nation wins summary judgment, the DOJ case will go to trial in early 2026.\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0<br \/>Another branch of the federal government took Live Nation to court this year, too. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought a lawsuit in September alleging that Ticketmaster has violated the BOTS Act by failing to adequately keep scalpers off the site. Live Nation calls the claims \u201ccategorically false\u201d and is fighting back.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/li>\n<li class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item-wrap lrv-u-margin-b-2\">\n<article class=\"pmc-fallback-list-item\">\n<h2>Taylor Swift\u2019s Eras Tour Keeps Lawyers Busy\u00a0<\/h2>\n<p>\t<!-- do not apply CSS styles to this element! --><\/p>\n<div class=\"pmc-not-a-paywall\">\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\t<span>T<\/span>aylor Swift\u2019s blockbuster Eras Tour, which wrapped up at the end of 2024 after a two-year run with a record-shattering haul of more than $2 billion, was so big that it developed its own legal system in 2025.\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0\u00a0<br \/>In March, New York prosecutors charged members of a \u201ccybercrime crew\u201d with stealing more than 900 Eras Tour tickets from StubHub and reselling them for over $635,000 in illegal profit. And in August, the FTC sued a ticket broker that allegedly used bots to buy thousands of Eras Tour tickets that it resold for more than $1 million in profit.\u00a0<br \/>\u00a0<br \/>Then, in October, an angry Swiftie sued StubHub for giving her \u201cinferior\u201d replacement seats at the last minute after she dropped $14,000 on Eras tickets. And just last month, a federal judge issued a key early ruling in favor of hundreds of Swifties who filed an antitrust lawsuit against Ticketmaster over the infamous Eras presale in 2022.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<div>\n<p>\t\t<svg xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" id=\"Layer_1\" data-name=\"Layer 1\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"0 0 702.8 85.2\"><defs\/><path d=\"M63 84.2h19.2V26H63zM86.2 84.2h19.1v-81H86.2zM109.3 84.2h19.2v-81h-19.2zM334.8 32v-6h-19.2v58.3h19.2V56.5c0-7.1 3.7-11 10.5-11h2.3V25.4c-5.8.2-10 2-12.8 6.6M72.6 0c-6.1 0-11.1 5-11.1 11.1s5 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1-5 11.1-11.1S78.8 0 72.6 0M292.5 30.4c-2.7-2.9-9-5.4-13.7-5.4-14.5 0-24.9 9.5-27.4 23.7-2.8-13.6-14.6-24.1-29.1-24.1s-26.6 10.6-29.2 24.5c-2.5-14.4-13.9-24-27.9-24s-9.5 1.1-13.3 3.7V3.2h-19.2v81.1h18.8V79c4.5 4.2 9.4 6.1 15.4 6.1 12.9 0 23.8-10.1 26.2-24.1 2.7 13.7 14.5 24.1 29.1 24.1s26-10.2 29-23.5c2.4 14.6 14 23.7 27.7 23.7s10-1.6 13.5-4.2v3.3h19.2V26.1h-19.2v4.3ZM163.1 66.5c-6.1 0-11.1-5-11.1-11.1s5-11.1 11.1-11.1 11.1 5 11.1 11.1-5 11.1-11.1 11.1m59.1-.9c-6.1 0-11.1-5-11.1-11.1s5-11.1 11.1-11.1 11.1 5 11.1 11.1-5 11.1-11.1 11.1m57.6.4c-6.1 0-11.1-5-11.1-11.1s5-11.1 11.1-11.1 11.1 5 11.1 11.1-5 11.1-11.1 11.1M390.1 3.1v25.7c-3.7-2.6-8.1-3.7-13.3-3.7-16 0-28.5 12.4-28.5 30.2S360.3 85 375 85s10.9-1.9 15.4-6.1v5.3h18.8V3.1H390Zm-11.3 63.3c-6.1 0-11.1-5-11.1-11.1s5-11.1 11.1-11.1 11.1 5 11.1 11.1-5 11.1-11.1 11.1M32.4 25.2c-5.2 0-9.5 1.1-13.3 3.7V3.2H0v81.1h18.8V79c4.5 4.2 9.4 6.1 15.4 6.1 14.6 0 26.7-12.9 26.7-29.7S48.4 25.2 32.4 25.2m-2 41.3c-6.1 0-11.1-5-11.1-11.1s5-11.1 11.1-11.1 11.1 5 11.1 11.1-5 11.1-11.1 11.1M702.8 83.2v-79H424v79.1h278.8ZM515.7 35.5c0 13.9-10.7 18.3-26 18.3h-25.6v16.4H442v-53h47.8c15.2 0 26 4.4 26 18.2Zm78.9 0c0 9.3-5.9 14.5-14.2 16.8l19.1 18h-28.1l-17-16.4h-11.3v16.4H521V17.2h47.8c15.2 0 26 4.4 26 18.2Zm92.3 8.3c0 18.2-18.3 27.8-44.2 27.8s-44.2-9.6-44.2-27.8c0-18.3 18.3-27.9 44.2-27.9s44.2 9.6 44.2 27.8Zm-22.8 0c0-9.3-9.9-13.9-21.4-13.9s-21.4 4.7-21.4 13.9 9.9 13.9 21.4 13.9 21.4-4.7 21.4-13.8Zm-92.3-8.3c0-3.3-2.4-5-7.4-5h-21.3v10.1h21.3c5.1 0 7.4-1.8 7.4-5.1m-78.9 0c0-3.3-2.4-5-7.4-5h-21.4v10.1h21.4c5 0 7.4-1.8 7.4-5.1\" class=\"cls-11\"\/><\/svg>\t\t<span class=\"lrv-a-screen-reader-only\"\/><\/p>\n<p class=\"c-tagline  a-font-accent-l@desktop u-font-size-1205 a-font-accent-xs@mobile-max u-font-size-15@mobile-max u-line-height-22px@mobile-max lrv-u-text-align-center@mobile-max u-letter-spacing-0030@mobile-max lrv-u-padding-t-025 lrv-u-margin-a-00 u-padding-t-0125@mobile-max u-padding-b-0063@mobile-max lrv-u-color-grey-dark lrv-u-text-align-center@mobile-max\">Daily newsletters straight to your inbox<\/p>\n<p><a class=\"c-link  lrv-a-unstyle-button lrv-u-cursor-pointer lrv-u-display-inline-flex lrv-u-background-color-brand-primary lrv-u-background-color-grey-dark:hover lrv-u-color-grey-dark lrv-u-color-brand-primary:hover u-padding-lr-0.875 u-padding-tb-10 lrv-u-flex-shrink-0 u-align-items-center a-font-basic-fancy-xs u-margin-t-0.188 u-margin-b-0188 u-margin-b-040@mobile-max\" href=\"https:\/\/cloud.email.billboard.com\/signup\/\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" target=\"_blank\"><br \/>\n\tSign Up<\/a>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In another banner year for music law, 2025 saw industry attorneys wrestle with existential questions about new technology, and some of the world\u2019s biggest artists went to court [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":9004,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[2943,296,441,2942],"class_list":["post-9003","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-carey","tag-diddy","tag-drake","tag-mariah"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9003","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9003"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9003\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9004"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9003"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9003"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9003"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}