[DiaryPoint | Reporter Choi Seung-jin] ADOR on November 6 pushed back against a New York Times report that NewJeans’ exclusive contracts lacked clauses protecting minors. The company said protections were included in a standard youth addendum as well as the exclusive contracts, and that the wording was discussed with the members and their parents for three months.
On November 5, the Times published and analyzed 26 images of contracts signed by the five NewJeans members with ADOR in 2022, before their debut. The members were 14 to 17 at the time. The report said the contracts did not appear to guarantee health, education, sleep or rest, while including restrictions related to “insincere attitudes,” “neglect of self-management” and “inappropriate relationships.”
ADOR disputed the view that protections for minors must appear in a single contract document. HYBE said its labels sign a standard youth addendum with trainees, covering personal rights, sleep, education and rest, and remaining in effect until they reach adulthood. It added that the exclusive contracts also contain basic human-rights protections and that the company appointed an employee responsible for safeguarding young artists.
HYBE also offered details about the negotiations. It said a draft was shared on January 7, 2022, and revisions continued through the signing in April, including questions and answers, email exchanges and a review by the artists’ lawyer. According to the company, one member’s mother asked to revise a clause requiring the company to be informed of attempts to induce an artist to leave, but the request was not adopted. HYBE also released an email in which, it said, ADOR replied to the mother: “Thank you for your thoughtful response. We’d like to let you know that we have no further comments on the answers you provided.”
The company also addressed cost responsibilities and the formula for calculating contractual penalties. HYBE said one mother proposed ways to reduce the artists’ financial burden and its legal team prepared several alternatives, but ADOR’s then-vice president did not accept them. It said the penalty is calculated based on periods when actual revenue was generated, and that because there were no revenue-free periods after debut, the economic effect is the same as under the standard contract.
The Times report also examined clauses allowing commercial use of the members’ names, faces and voices after a contract ends, as well as a provision on responsibility for cosmetic procedure costs. ADOR said individual consent from the artists is required to create or use AI content, and described clauses concerning defamation and dating as measures intended to protect artists and ensure social responsibility.
The accounts differ on how much weight to give the wording in the contracts themselves versus the separate addendum and records of negotiations. The Times concluded that the published contracts lacked protections for minors; ADOR countered that safeguards were in place across the full set of documents and the negotiation process. How the clauses apply in practice, and whether they are enforceable, remains a matter to be assessed in light of the documents and relevant procedures.