NewJeans contracts under scrutiny over dating bans and beauty costs

The NYT reported on the 5th that exclusive contracts signed by NewJeans members between ages 14 and 17 include clauses allowing beauty-related costs to be charged to the artists. While HYBE maintained that the members' parents consented to the terms, the report noted the contracts lacked standard protections for the physical and mental health of minors.

Controversy has resurfaced regarding the exclusive contracts signed between the group NewJeans and their agency ADOR before their debut. Foreign media reports have highlighted clauses that allegedly restrict dating and privacy, as well as provisions that could shift the costs of plastic surgery and skin care to the members. Additionally, a clause allowing the commercial use of the members' names, faces, and voices even after the contract ends has come under scrutiny. In response, HYBE countered that the contracts were executed through proper procedures and that the members' parents consented to the terms.

The NYT reported on the 5th (local time) that an analysis of the exclusive contracts signed by the five NewJeans members when they were between 14 and 17 years old revealed several clauses that differ from the government's standard exclusive contract. The report specifically pointed out that regulations intended to protect the rights and privacy of underage entertainers were not sufficiently reflected.

According to the report, the contracts lacked the standard clauses that guarantee the physical and mental health, right to education, and the right to sleep and rest for minors. Provisions to prevent forced excessive exposure or long working hours were also missing. Given that all members were minors at the time of their debut, questions have been raised regarding whether sufficient protections and basic rights for the artists were established during the contracting stage.

Conversely, the report stated that regulations limiting the members' behavior were explicitly specified. The contracts reportedly included prohibitions against "insincere attitudes," "neglect of self-management," and "inappropriate dating," and also restricted public statements that could damage the company's reputation, regardless of their truthfulness. Experts contacted by the NYT noted that such expressions could grant the agency broad authority to determine contract violations without providing clear criteria for judgment.

The clauses regarding cost burdens have also become a focal point of the controversy. It is reported that the contracts allow a significant portion of the costs incurred for beauty-related expenses during trainee years, such as plastic surgery and skin care, to be charged to the members. Even considering the nature of the K-pop industry, where appearance management is closely linked to activities, debate is inevitable regarding how much financial responsibility can be placed on underage trainees.

The method for calculating penalties for contract violations has also emerged as an issue. The contract reportedly calculates the monthly average revenue based on the months when actual revenue is generated, rather than the entire contract period. Analysis suggests this method could result in larger penalty amounts compared to methods that include periods with no revenue. However, the specific calculation results and actual application remain matters for further examination.

A particularly notable aspect is the clause allowing the agency to use the members' names, faces, and voices for business purposes even after the contract expires. The NYT analyzed that this provision could potentially apply to the creation of AI-generated voice clones or chatbots. However, it remains unclear whether the wording of the contract explicitly permits the production of actual AI content or the extent to which its legal validity is recognized. This could evolve into a new dispute over whether companies can utilize personal elements such as an artist's identity and voice after a contract ends.

The report also stated that ADOR can sell or rearrange existing NewJeans music after the contract ends and may lower the profit-sharing ratio paid to the members during this process. The core issue is the extent of authority the company retains over the use of existing content and profit distribution after the artist is released from the contractual relationship.

In response, HYBE explained in a written reply to the NYT that the contracts were negotiated based on the principle of good faith and were intended to protect the financial investments of both the artists and the company. They maintained that the government's standard contract is a non-binding recommendation and that the members' parents consented to the contract terms that differed from the standard model.

However, the NYT disclosed an email in which ADOR suggested it could reconsider the contract itself after a mother of one member requested contract modifications. This leaves questions regarding how requests for revisions were handled during actual negotiations, independent of the parental consent emphasized by HYHYE. A distinction must be made between the fact that the contracts were signed and whether the content of each clause and the negotiation process were sufficiently explained and agreed upon.

HYBE emphasized that they strictly complied with laws regarding the protection of minors and never pressured members to drop out of school or disadvantaged them for taking breaks. They explained that they never forced plastic surgery and did not even suggest procedures against an individual's will. This is interpreted as suggesting that the report regarding the existence of cost-bearing provisions in the contract is a separate issue from whether procedures were actually forced upon the members.

HYBE also refuted the claims regarding financial conditions. They stated that HYBE bore the initial training costs for NewJeans and that the members began receiving profit settlements immediately after debut without any debt incurred during their trainee years. They further claimed that the penalty calculation method meets industry standards and that the structure does not mean penalties will unconditionally increase just because monthly revenue is generated. Some experts contacted by the NYT evaluated that some of the financial conditions are relatively common within the K-pop industry.

This report goes beyond the merits of a specific contract, questioning the balance that should exist between the rights of underage artists and the business authority of agencies in the K-pop industry. Regardless of the standard contract being a recommendation, there is a need for discussion on how much protections for the learning, rest, and health of minors should be reflected in actual contracts, and to what extent regulations regarding privacy and appearance management can be permitted. Particularly with the spread of AI technology, defining the scope of use for an artist's voice and image after a contract ends has become an important issue.

NewJeans entered a legal dispute after declaring the termination of their exclusive contracts with ADOR in 2024. Subsequently, in March 2025, the court accepted an injunction filed by ADOR. In December of the same year, ADOR terminated the exclusive contract with member Danielle and filed a lawsuit, citing refusal to work, unauthorized solo activities, and contracts with third parties. According to the NYT report, ADOR's claim amounts to approximately 22 million won, which corresponds to over 30 billion won, and is reported to consist mostly of penalties. Danielle's side claimed the lawsuit is a retaliatory measure and reported the matter to the Korea Fair Trade Commission.

As the legal battle over the exclusive contract continues, the specific clauses of the contract have become a subject of international debate. With the legitimacy of contracts signed during minority, the protection of artist rights, and the company's right to recover investment and utilize content clashing, attention is focused on the direction of future legal judgments and reviews by relevant institutions.

Read the original (Korean)