Ariana Grande can begin serving subpoenas on social media platforms and payment services to identify the people she says have stolen and sold her unreleased music.
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge granted her application for expedited discovery on Wednesday (August 19).
The ruling was first reported by Billboard, which obtained the order.
“Plaintiff may serve the discovery aimed at identifying the identities of the Doe defendants at any time,” wrote Judge Mark H. Epstein.
The ruling matters because Grande has not named a single defendant in the case.
She filed the underlying lawsuit on July 27, listing the defendants as John Doe 1 and John Does 2 through 100.
The complaint alleges that hackers broke into the personal digital accounts of photographers and producers who have worked with Grande.
The hackers “have then sold this personal data and content on the dark web for significant sums of money,” the complaint states, with transactions running through payment services “including but not limited to PayPal and CashApp.”
In 2023 alone, 45 unreleased songs were “hacked, stolen and leaked by defendants,” according to the suit.
“Since her music debut in 2011, hundreds of similar leaks have taken place,” it adds.
The suit brings claims of invasion of privacy, conversion, and violation of California‘s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.
Grande was “forced to re-record materials and modify the release dates of her upcoming projects and releases in order to protect her artistic works along with her personal and professional integrity,” the complaint says.
Because no defendant has been identified, none can be served – and until one is served, the clock on standard discovery in California does not start.
That was the argument made by Grande‘s attorney, Joshua Rosenberg, in the request filed on Tuesday (August 18), Billboard reported.
“Absent serving these identified third parties with discovery subpoenas, plaintiff will be unable to obtain the business records and information needed to unmask defendants, hiding behind anonymous accounts across various platforms, thus halting this action and foreclosing any relief for the substantial, irreparable harm already caused to plaintiff, her privacy and her artistry,” Rosenberg wrote.
Judge Epstein accepted the point: “Given that there is no one to whom notice can be given anyway, it makes little sense to wait the 16 days,” he wrote, in a passage reported by Variety. “And on the merits of the motion, good cause is shown.”
On the separate 20-day clock, he added: “The 20-day waiting period will never run because plaintiff cannot – even with reasonable diligence – [determine] the defendant’s identity without this discovery, and therefore will never be able to serve defendants,” according to Rolling Stone, which also obtained the minute order.
The platforms and services named in the case include Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, X, and Discord, alongside PayPal and Cash App, Billboard reported.
None of those companies is accused of wrongdoing; Grande says she needs their account, subscriber, and login records to put names to the accounts.
Grande is not the first in the music business to take this route through the courts.
In April, HYBE‘s BigHit Music asked a federal judge in California to authorize a subpoena on X Corp. to identify an anonymous account that allegedly distributed unreleased songs, lyrics and artwork from BTS‘s album ARIRANG before its release.
BigHit later withdrew that application and refiled in Texas after X relocated its headquarters from California, raising questions over jurisdiction.
A federal judge in the Western District of Texas granted the request on August 5, according to Korean outlet Sisa Journal, which first reported the ruling on August 14 and described it as the first known instance of such a K-pop application being granted in Texas rather than California.
X did not contest the discovery application itself, but the court attached conditions: X must notify the account holder within 10 days of being served, and X and the account holder each have 21 days from service or notification to move to quash or modify the subpoena.
The court also acknowledged it is settled law that a decision to remain anonymous carries First Amendment protection, but said it did not need to rule on the question at this stage, since there was no evidence the account holder is a US citizen or located in the US.
Madonna, Megan Thee Stallion, Ye and Kelsea Ballerini have also used the legal system against leakers, according to Billboard.
Criminal enforcement has followed a similar pattern: in 2022, UK hacker Adrian Kwiatkowski was jailed for 18 months after taking unreleased material from the cloud accounts of 89 artists, including Ed Sheeran and Lil Uzi Vert, and selling it on the dark web for cryptocurrency.
Loeb & Loeb litigation partner Tal Dickstein told Billboard in July that “filing legal claims can send a clear message that deters would-be hackers from engaging in this kind of unlawful activity.”
Grande has spoken about the leaks before.
In a February 2024 interview on the Zach Sang Show, discussing studio sessions that had ended up on TikTok, she said: “I’ll see you in jail, literally.”
Her lawyers say they have been running an “extensive fact investigation” into the leaks since 2023, Billboard reported.
The lawsuit landed days before Grande‘s eighth studio album, petal, arrived on July 31 via her own imprint, BabyDoll Music, in partnership with Republic Records.
It debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 with 295,000 equivalent album units, her seventh chart-topper.
The case is due back in court on January 25 for a status hearing, according to Rolling Stone.Music Business Worldwide
Ariana Grande has secured a significant legal victory in her ongoing battle against the unauthorized leaking and selling of her unreleased music. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has granted her request for expedited discovery, allowing her to issue subpoenas to social media platforms and payment services to uncover the identities of individuals she claims have stolen and sold her unreleased songs. The ruling was made on August 19, as reported by Billboard.
Grande’s legal challenges began with a lawsuit filed on July 27, where she has yet to name any specific defendants, referring to them as John Doe 1 and John Does 2 through 100. The lawsuit alleges that hackers infiltrated the personal digital accounts of photographers and producers associated with Grande, subsequently selling this stolen content on the dark web for considerable amounts. In 2023 alone, the suit claims that 45 unreleased tracks were compromised and leaked.
The complaint outlines several legal claims, including invasion of privacy and violations of California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. Grande argues that these unlawful activities have forced her to alter her upcoming projects, impacting her artistic integrity. As the defendants remain anonymous, Grande’s attorneys contended that without the ability to serve these individuals, the standard discovery process would be stalled, preventing her from obtaining necessary information to proceed with the lawsuit.
Judge Mark H. Epstein recognized the urgency of the situation, agreeing that there is little sense in delaying the discovery process when no defendants can be served. He noted that the waiting period would not be beneficial since Grande’s attorneys would be unable to identify the defendants without the subpoenas. The judge’s ruling allows Grande to seek information from various platforms and services, including Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), and Discord, as well as payment services like PayPal and Cash App. Importantly, these companies are not being accused of any wrongdoing; rather, Grande requires their records to identify the responsible parties.
This legal strategy is not unique to Grande. Other artists have pursued similar actions against leakers of unreleased material. For instance, in April, the K-pop company BigHit Music sought a subpoena against X Corp. to identify an account allegedly distributing unreleased BTS material before its official release. After withdrawing the case in California due to jurisdiction issues, they refiled in Texas, where a federal judge eventually granted their request, noting the need to inform the account holder about the subpoena.
Several other prominent musicians, including Madonna, Megan Thee Stallion, Ye, and Kelsea Ballerini, have also taken legal action against those leaking their unreleased works. In some cases, there have been criminal repercussions for such activities; for example, UK hacker Adrian Kwiatkowski was sentenced to 18 months in prison for stealing unreleased music from the cloud accounts of numerous artists.
Legal experts suggest that pursuing such claims serves a dual purpose: it not only seeks justice for the individual artist but also acts as a deterrent against future hacking attempts. Grande has publicly expressed her frustrations about the leaks, stating in a February 2024 interview that she was aware of the risks and consequences for those involved in unauthorized sharing of her work.
The lawsuit comes at a significant time for Grande, coinciding with the release of her eighth studio album, « petal, » which debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 chart shortly after the filing. The case is set for a status hearing on January 25, where further developments will be discussed.
Overall, Grande’s legal maneuvers reflect a growing trend in the music industry, where artists are increasingly willing to take legal action to protect their work and privacy in the face of rampant digital theft.
