Live Nation and other companies have reached a legal settlement with the estate of Drakeo the Ruler over his fatal backstage stabbing at a Los Angeles hip-hop festival in 2021.

A Friday (Oct. 9) court filing reveals the estate administered by Drakeo’s mother, Darrylene Corniel, settled all of its remaining negligence claims against Live Nation and subsidiary C3 Presents, as well as various other concert promoters and security companies involved in the Once Upon a Time in LA festival where the rapper (Darrell Caldwell) was killed. A lawyer for Drakeo’s son, Caiden Caldwell, tells Billboard that they too have settled parallel claims over the incident.

Terms of the settlements have not been made public. A rep for Live Nation declined to comment on the resolutions, and Drakeo’s estate did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday (Oct. 14).

A third lawsuit over Drakeo’s death is still pending against Live Nation and set to go to trial on Nov. 30. This case is being leveled by Drakeo’s brother, Devante Caldwell, and members of his entourage who were present at Once Upon a Time in LA in December 2021.

Drakeo died of stab wounds after being attacked backstage at L.A.’s BMO Stadium, where the up-and-coming rapper was set to perform. To date, no one has been arrested or charged in the murder.

Various members of Drakeo’s family and inner circle later filed multiple civil lawsuits alleging Live Nation and various companies involved with the festival were negligent in providing sufficient security. The defendants all denied liability, with Live Nation arguing that the tragic 2021 killing was “unforeseeable.”

Drakeo’s family members also initially leveled claims against an LLC controlled by Snoop Dogg, claiming that the rap star helped organize and promote Once Upon a Time in LA. Snoop’s company responded that he was merely a performer at the festival, and those claims were later dropped entirely.  

Rebecca Allen is leaving Universal Music Group U.K. after 27 years, she revealed in an internal memo obtained by Billboard U.K.

The executive announced her departure in a memo to staff and said she will continue in an advisory role. She most recently served as chief artist and strategy officer, a newly created role which was first announced in 2025.

Prior to that, Allen led the audience and media division and held the title of co-president at the rebooted EMI (2020-2024) alongside Jo Charrington (current president of Capitol U.K.); Allen acted as president of Decca Records from June 2017 to June 2020.

“To my friends, colleagues and Universal family, after 27 years at Universal Music, this chapter is coming to an end,” Allen said in the memo to colleagues. “I’ll be stepping away from my current role and, while I’ll remain connected to UMG in an advisory capacity, the time feels right for me to turn the page and make space for a new chapter.

“There are, of course, a lot of emotions that come with saying goodbye after so long. Mostly, I feel incredibly fortunate.”

Allen added in her memo, “Music and artists have always been at the centre of my world, and the driving force behind every decision I’ve made. To have spent 27 years working alongside such extraordinary artists, and the brilliant people who surround them, has been an enormous privilege.”

“I’ve always believed that how you do something matters just as much as what you do. Be kind. Be respectful. Be brave. Continue to push creative boundaries. Make space for brilliant people to be brilliant. Fight for the ideas you believe in. And always put the music and the artist at the heart of everything.”

“I leave enormously proud of what we’ve created together, grateful for the friendships, the adventures, the lessons and the laughter, and for 27 years that have shaped me in more ways than I probably even realise yet. It’s been quite a ride. I can’t thank you all enough for being on this journey with me. Love to you all.”

Universal Music Group U.K. did not immediately return Billboard U.K.‘s request for comment.

Warner Music Group (WMG) claims in a new lawsuit that Ray-Ban’s parent company has used hundreds of its works in social media advertisements without paying for the rights.

The legal complaint, filed on Friday (Oct. 9) and obtained by Billboard, accuses Italian eyewear conglomerate EssilorLuxottica of infringing 427 copyrights owned by WMG. The music company is seeking the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work, adding up to a total of $64 million.

WMG alleges that EssilorLuxottica, which owns brands like Ray-Ban, Oakley and Sunglasses Hut, regularly uses unlicensed music in ads blasted to more than 36 million followers across Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube. These videos have featured recordings put out by WMG’s labels, including Charli xcx’s “Apple” and Dua Lipa’s “Don’t Start Now”, as well as compositions published by Warner Chappell, like Drake’s “0 to 100/The Catch Up”, Rihanna’s “Where Have You Been”, Taylor Swift’s “You Belong with Me” and Travis Scott’s “Sicko Mode”.

According to the lawsuit, EssilorLuxottica’s ads have been “wildly successful” in selling eyewear and earning the company billions of dollars in revenue. But WMG says it’s been cut out of the windfall.

“Defendants used the Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works to build their brand profiles and drive sales without paying any compensation to Plaintiffs,” reads the lawsuit. “Defendants not only failed to pay for the use of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, but by including these works in the Luxottica videos without Plaintiffs’ consent, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and their artists and songwriters of the ability to control how and where their art is used.”

EssilorLuxottica did not immediately return a request for comment on the lawsuit on Monday (Oct. 12).

Over the last several years, the major music rightsholders have launched a large-scale legal crackdown on the use of unlicensed tracks by corporate social media accounts. While platforms like Instagram and TikTok have blanket licenses in place that allow individual users to freely soundtrack their videos from vast libraries of pre-cleared songs, music companies require commercial accounts to purchase synch licenses to use their material, just like for a conventional TV ad placement.

Labels and publishers have sued brands like Chili’s, Marriott, Crumbl and Designer Shoe Warehouse over this issue in the past few years. The vast majority of such cases end in settlements.

Summer Walker and Interscope Records are in a legal dispute over the status of her record deal.

Walker, who signed a joint deal with the Universal Music Group (UMG) subsidiary and label/management company LVRN in 2017, sent a notice of termination to Interscope in August. Interscope responded on Friday (Oct. 9) by submitting a lawsuit, obtained and first reported by Billboard, alleging that if Walker does indeed break their deal, she’d owe $50 million for not yet delivering all her promised albums.

The singer-songwriter is invoking California’s “seven-year statute,” a 1944 state law that allows an individual to exit a personal services contract after that amount of time. The statute was amended in 1987 to allow record labels to sue artists for damages if they leave after seven years but before fulfilling all their album commitments.

Under that law, labels only have 45 days to bring such lawsuits in response to contract termination notices. Interscope’s Friday complaint, brought at the tail-end of that period, alleges Walker has only delivered three projects from her contract’s five-album commitment: her 2019 debut Over It, which hit No. 2 on the Billboard 200, the 2021 chart-topper Still Over It and another No. 2 set, Finally Over It, in 2025.

A spokesperson for Interscope told Billboard in a statement Friday, “While we remain hopeful that our ongoing discussions will lead to an amicable resolution, the statutory deadline makes it necessary to file suit in order to preserve the terms of our contract. We have great respect for Summer and her music and would welcome the opportunity to continue our successful partnership.”

Walker’s reps did not immediately return a request for comment on the matter.

Labels have in the past used these types of damages lawsuits to respond when artists seek to terminate their record deals under the seven-year statute. Warner Bros. Records did so amid a dispute with heavy metal band Avenged Sevenfold in 2016, as did MCA with R&B groups New Edition and Bell Biv DeVoe back in the 1990s.

There have been numerous unsuccessful efforts in the California legislature to repeal the 1987 amendment that allows labels to bring such lawsuits, with artist advocates arguing that the possibility of hefty damages unfairly dissuades artists from invoking the seven-year statute to get out of their record deals. The record industry maintains that this provision protects labels’ contractual rights and stabilizes dealmaking.

Beatport, the digital download platform for DJs and the electronic music community, has secured a growth investment from Los Angeles-based investment firm Square Nine Capital. The sum of the investment is undisclosed.

A press release notes that “the investment refinances an existing credit facility,” effectively providing Beatport with the funds to pay off old loans while also providing them with new capital to, as the press release continues, “support Beatport’s strategic priorities and further strengthen its position at the center of the global electronic music ecosystem.”

The release adds that this new funding will also provide Beatport “with additional flexibility to invest across its platform, products and broader ecosystem as the company expands its offerings for music creators around the world.”

The announcement tracks with previous Beatport news from April, when the company’s then-departing CEO Robb McDaniels told Billboard that the company plans to continue its expansion into the live events sector.

“Obviously, Beatport has been a digital company and the brand is extraordinarily well-known and the audience is massive,” McDaniels said at the time. “We’ve slowly but surely started seeing how that translates into IRL events. Because we’re a relatively small company, and the majority of our income comes from digital sales, we’ve been very careful about how much we extend ourselves into the physical realm. But starting in the pandemic with the online events we were doing, we’ve gotten more comfortable — from small pop-ups to larger stage takeovers and festivals. It’s all gone amazingly well, and the brand translates really well, so we’re going to continue leaning into that.”

Beatport’s search for a growth investor is also well-established, with the company years ago retaining an investment bank to explore strategic options for the company, including a potential sale by the company’s majority owner Axar Capital. No such sale was completed.

“We have tremendous respect for the team at Axar and what they have built in partnership with Beatport’s management team,” Square Nine leader Griffin Coakley says in a statement. “Our strategy is centered on partnering with high-quality companies backed by thoughtful sponsors, and we are excited to support Beatport as it continues to invest in its platform and build on its leadership position in electronic music.”

“We are excited to welcome Square Nine as a new capital partner to Beatport,” adds Matt Gralen, who rose to the CEO position this past spring. “Square Nine shares our conviction in Beatport’s leading position and strategic role, and we look forward to working together as we continue to invest in our platform and expand the ways we serve the global electronic music community.”

A German artist suing Ye (formerly Kanye West) for copyright infringement will be allowed to cite the rapper’s history of antisemitism and her own family’s ties to the Holocaust as the case moves forward.

A Thursday (Oct. 8) court order, obtained and first reported by Billboard, denied Ye’s motion to strike these references from the lawsuit filed in 2025 by German singer-songwriter Alice Merton. The case, currently set to go to trial early next year, claims Ye’s 2024 track “Gun to My Head” sampled Merton’s earlier song “Blindside” without permission.

Merton alleges Ye included this sample on a digital deluxe version of Vultures 2 even though she had expressly denied his clearance request months earlier. Merton says she refused to grant the license for a key reason: as a direct descendant of Holocaust survivors, she did not want to be associated with Ye’s past antisemitic remarks.   

Ye’s lawyers sought to remove the references to the Holocaust and antisemitism from the lawsuit, calling them “immaterial, impertinent and scandalous.” But Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha denied that motion on Thursday, finding that these details could indeed be relevant.

“The court finds that the allegations concerning Merton’s background or Ye’s alleged remarks are not unduly prejudicial and may have some bearing on the litigation, including potentially at trial to explain Plaintiffs’ rationale for denying Defendants’ use of Plaintiffs’ song,” wrote the judge.

Judge Aenlle-Rocha similarly refused Ye’s request to trim away the complaint’s references to his many prior copyright infringement lawsuits. The fully intact lawsuit will now move forward through the remaining evidence discovery process. A jury trial is set to begin in March unless a settlement is reached first.

One of Merton’s attorneys, Dylan Grimes, told Billboard on Thursday that his team is “very pleased with the court’s ruling,” adding, “We are glad the court has found [Ye’s] antisemitic statements to be relevant.”

Reps for Ye did not immediately return requests for comments on the court order Thursday.

Ye has been sued more than a dozen times over the years for allegedly using unlicensed samples and interpolations in his music. While the rapper has historically settled many of these claims, he took one to trial for the first time earlier this year. In May, a jury found Ye liable for infringing an instrumental track on an early version of his chart-topping 2021 album Donda.

Meanwhile, Ye’s career has been mired in controversy around his antisemitism since 2022. He issued a lengthy apology in the Wall Street Journal this past January for years of public hate speech, which included praise of Hitler and selling swastika T-shirts. Ye wrote in this apology, which preceded the release of his album Bully, that these controversial comments had stemmed from a 2002 car crash that caused severe brain damage and bipolar disorder.

“I regret and am deeply mortified by my actions in that state, and am committed to accountability, treatment and meaningful change,” Ye wrote. “It does not excuse what I did, though. I am not a Nazi or an antisemite. I love Jewish people.”   

Ye has since worked to mount a comeback, playing to huge crowds at an ongoing run of stadium shows this year. But the rapper’s past is still haunting him, and shows in the U.K. and Poland have been canceled due to government concerns about his previous antisemitic statements. Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.) also ran a public, though unsuccessful, campaign to stop Ye from performing at Tampa’s Raymond James Stadium in June.

SYDNEY, Australia — Weaken Australia’s copyright laws, ruin the future of the global music community and make the land down under an outcast.

That was the message from ARIA and PPCA CEO Annabelle Herd, who joined executives from trade associations representing writers and voice actors to address a parliamentary inquiry into AI.

Any changes to Australia’s Copyright Act to accommodate OpenAI and Anthropic “could make Australia the Trojan horse for Big AI – the global safe haven for industrial-scale copyright exploitation,” reads a statement from ARIA.

Australia has a trust issue with OpenAI and its rivals.

In June of this year, an autonomous OpenAI agent breached several government platforms, including Australia’s universal healthcare system, Medicare, a hack that security-experts are now saying was the first of its kind. Adding insult to injury, OpenAI only responded in September with a mea culpa that, many observers say, falls well short.

Speaking at the parliamentary hearing on Tuesday (Oct. 6) in Sydney, OpenAI’s chief strategy officer Jason Kwon admitted the breach “should not have happened” and the tech company “should have handled our response better.” Three months passed before the hack was brought to light, which the business did by way of a five-paragraph email.

“We are sorry and we know we have work to do to rebuild trust with the Australian people,” Kwon remarked. Reps from Anthropic, Microsoft and Google also attended the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence.

The time for talk on trust has passed, reckons Herd.

“OpenAI and Anthropic want the Australian Government to sign up to a deal to train their frontier AI agents here on the proviso that they don’t have to abide by our copyright laws,” she explained.

For what outcome? “The world’s richest and most advanced companies say it would be too costly and complex to work with rights holders,” Herd continued.

“This concept that the status quo isn’t working is being used as an argument by AI companies to change our copyright law. You don’t address a systemic problem of mass piracy by changing the law to legalize that piracy on an ongoing basis.

Australia operates with a “very clear system where, if you can’t rely on a fair dealing exception, you can’t copy. The law is very certain,” Herd noted. The solution, the creative community insists with a unified voice, comes down to content licensing. 

“They should come to the negotiating table, not to the Prime Minister’s office,” Herd continued.

OpenAI is said to be in talks with the Australian government about hosting and training AI models in these parts.

ARIA and PPCA “are not against these companies doing their frontier training in Australia. We understand why that is beneficial, but it should happen on our terms, not theirs. There is nothing less sovereign than rewriting our laws to suit foreign company commercial interests,” warns Herd.

“Done the way that Big AI is proposing, it would devastate the music industry and make Australia a pariah for rights holders globally.”

OpenAI’s Kwon told the hearing CEO Sam Altman had not known about the breach when he met the nation’s deputy prime minister Richard Marles on Sept. 1, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, even though staff were aware of the situation weeks before. When asked to comment on why some polls reveal that most Australians don’t trust the technology, he remarked: “I can’t explain the current sentiment. All we can do is continue to get better.”

Live Nation was recently the target of a “limited” cybersecurity breach, the company has disclosed.

On Oct. 1, Live Nation notified the Vermont Attorney General’s online portal that two customers in the state were affected by a breach impacting social security numbers, government IDs and health records. No other state had posted a similar notification from Live Nation as of press time, though different states have varying laws about when and how a data breach is to be publicly reported.

It was not immediately clear when this data breach occurred, how many individuals were affected, or whether the victims were Live Nation customers or employees. The company said in a Wednesday (Oct. 7) statement to Billboard, “Live Nation takes the security of our systems and the information entrusted to us seriously.”

“Recently, we identified, contained and secured a cybersecurity incident,” continued Live Nation’s statement. “Following a thorough internal review and independent investigation by a leading cybersecurity firm, we found the incident was limited in scope and had no impact on our operations. The small number of individuals whose information may have been affected are being notified and offered support in monitoring their information.”

The incident has already spawned three class action lawsuits alleging Live Nation didn’t have adequate cybersecurity measures in place to protect sensitive data. Such civil claims are common occurrence when a company discloses a data breach.

Live Nation previously faced two data breaches in 2018 and 2024, both targeting customers of its subsidiary Ticketmaster. The 2018 incident compromised payment information from British ticket buyers, and the company was ultimately fined £1.25 million ($1.65 million) by the U.K. Information Commissioner’s Office.

The 2024 breach was part of a larger hack on Snowflake, a popular third-party cloud storage service used by Ticketmaster. The hacking group ShinyHunters claimed responsibility for the cyberattack, and a Canadian citizen recently pleaded guilty to participating. Civil claims brought by customers against Ticketmaster and other Snowflake clients remain ongoing in U.S. court.

Spotify announced Wednesday (Oct. 7) that it’s expanding its audiobook service to virtually all of its 750 million monthly active users across 180 countries by the end of 2026, as the Swedish streaming giant bets that a subset of subscribers are willing to nearly double their monthly Spotify bill to hear books.

Spotify began offering audiobooks to premium individual subscribers in the U.S. and U.K. three years ago, later expanding the offering to 22 markets. Adoption grew fast, with listening hours increasing 60% from 2024 to 2025, the company said at its investor presentation in May. In mid-2025, Spotify launched Audiobooks+, an additional $11.99 per month subscription plan for premium subscribers — who pay $12.99 — who want to double the allotment of audiobook listening time they get from 15 to 30 hours per month.

“We’re building products that help people discover new books, that give them more chances to enjoy them, and that weave stories into every single part of their day, because nobody ever regrets time spent with a good book,” Smith said during a press briefing the company held on Monday (Oct. 5).

Spotify says it now has more than 1 million premium subscribers paying for Audiobooks+, and annual recurring revenue from Audiobooks+ was estimated to be $100 million as of July. Expanding the program to more markets with more books in additional languages will attract new audiences, particularly younger readers, with roughly half of audiobook listeners skewing younger than 35, Spotify executives say.

“These are very valuable users,” Alex Norström, Spotify co-CEO, said at the company’s investor day in May, adding that some Audiobooks+ subscribers are paying for blocks of more streaming time above the 30 hours they get per month hours. “These subscribers have lifetime values that are multiples of premium-only users. They spend far more and they stay much longer.”

In addition to streaming books, Spotify launched a partnership with Bookshop.org that allows subscribers to buy books in print, and its Page Match feature lets subscribers switch to Spotify to listen to a book from the exact page in the physical book where they stopped reading. Spotify claims that Page Match users finish books twice as fast, and that two-thirds of those users are under the age of 35, a segment the publishing industry has been keen to reach.

Page Match has “quickly become one of our most consistently used and highest performing product launches,” Owen Smith, Spotify’s global head of books, said at the May investor day. “We are creating healthy reading habits and high-value behavior that becomes even more powerful when it sits inside the broader Spotify ecosystem.”

The company also shares data about audiobook consumption and marketing information with authors and publishers through Spotify for Authors. It has also invested in Spotify Audiobooks Selects, which gives independent authors the tools to make professional-grade audiobooks and offers an additional AI voice-over tool that uses ElevenLabs’ technology.