ADOR refutes NYT report on NewJeans contracts, citing separate youth protection agreements

As controversy grows over the exclusive contract terms of the group NewJeans, its agency, ADOR, has stepped forward to refute reports by the NYT, which published images of the contracts. Addressing allegations that clauses protecting the rights of underage members were missing, ADOR explained that such protections are included in both the exclusive contracts themselves and separate supplementary agreements for youth. The agency further claimed that the contract process involved gathering opinions from the members' lawyers and parents, and that the agreements were finalized with parental consent.

ADOR provided a clarification on December 6 regarding the NewJeans exclusive contracts released by the NYT. On December 5, the NYT published 26 images of the exclusive contracts signed between the NewJeans members and ADOR. The publication of these images sparked debate over the appropriateness of the contracts, as they appeared to lack clauses found in the South Korean government's standard contracts that guarantee the physical and mental health, educational rights, and sleep and rest rights of minors.

In response, ADOR stated that labels under HYBE enter into separate standard supplementary agreements for youth with trainees. These agreements contain provisions for youth protection, including personality rights, sleep rights, educational rights, and rest rights, and remain in effect until the artists reach adulthood.

ADOR emphasized that basic human rights protection clauses are also included within the NewJeans exclusive contracts themselves. The agency maintains that the rights guaranteed by the standard supplementary youth agreements are reflected throughout the entire contractual framework, arguing that it is factually incorrect to judge the absence of protection for underage members based solely on certain clauses of the contract.

The agency also provided specific details regarding whether the artists' opinions were sufficiently reflected during the signing process. ADOR stated that long-term consultations took place, including question-and-answer sessions and email communications lasting approximately three months, as well as discussions on amendments following reviews by the artists' lawyers. The agency asserted that it did not unilaterally dictate terms but engaged in multiple rounds of opinion exchanges.

Notably, ADOR disclosed a request for an amendment made by the mother of one member, who is currently in a dispute with the agency. According to ADOR, this mother requested a modification to a clause requiring members to immediately notify the company if there were attempts at "tampering," or external inducements to change the contract. While the company did not accept the request, it explained that the member's mother subsequently expressed gratitude and stated she had no further opinions.

Regarding the issue of cost distribution, ADOR reported that during contract negotiations, one mother suggested ways to reduce the cost burden on the artists. In response, the HYBE legal team prepared multiple alternatives and delivered them to ADOR, but the current contract was finalized with the existing terms after the then-Deputy CEO of ADOR rejected those alternatives. This highlights that the decisions of the ADOR management at the time influenced the determination of the contract terms.

Addressing the non-defamation clause, ADOR explained the intent behind the contractual restriction. The company argued that the clause is not intended to unfairly force silence upon the artists, but rather to prohibit the commission of crimes that constitute defamation, citing existing defamation regulations in the South Korean Criminal Act.

Regarding the controversial clause prohibiting "unhealthy romantic relationships," the agency stated the provision is a mechanism for artist protection. The intent is to prevent inappropriate relationships that could cause social controversy, and the agency noted that parents agreed to this content at the time of the contract.

This clarification comes as ADOR directly explains the background of the contract signing and the consultation process in response to criticisms regarding certain clauses and minor protection issues raised by the NYT report. By providing specific details regarding the existence of the supplementary youth agreements, the collection of parental opinions, and the management's decisions on cost distribution, the agency has offered a rebuttal to the report.

However, the core issues of the controversy remain, requiring a distinction between the literal wording of individual clauses in the contract and their actual scope of application, the relationship between the supplementary youth agreements and the exclusive contracts, and the specific conditions to which the parties agreed at the time.

Read the original (Korean)