NewJeans Hit With Two U.S. Copyright Lawsuits: “How Sweet” and “ETA” Plagiarism Claims Explained
NewJeans can’t seem to catch a break in 2026. Just weeks after ADOR unveiled a financial paper trail against member Danielle in their ongoing contract dispute — a story we broke down in detail here — the group is now facing a completely separate legal storm, this time aimed at the music itself rather than the members’ contracts.
In the span of a few days, two of NewJeans’ biggest hits, “ETA” and “How Sweet,” have each become the subject of a U.S. copyright infringement lawsuit, both filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Both cases point back to the same production team, and both raise uncomfortable questions about how the group’s most successful songs actually came together.
The “ETA” Lawsuit: A 2005 Baltimore Club Track at the Center
The first case landed on July 7, when U.S. music publishing company All Surface Publishing filed a copyright infringement suit over “ETA,” the breakout single from NewJeans’ 2023 EP Get Up.
The complaint names NewJeans, producer 250, lyricist Beenzino, HYBE, ADOR, BANA (Beasts And Natives Alike — the production company closely tied to former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin), and Apple, which had featured the song in one of its advertising campaigns.
All Surface Publishing alleges that “ETA” unlawfully borrowed from “Samir’s Theme,” a 2005 track by Baltimore club producer DJ Debonair Samir, pointing specifically to the song’s syncopated horn melody, its 16th-note rhythm structure, and its bass drum pattern as the disputed elements.
The suit is seeking a permanent injunction, recovery of profits, damages, and — if willful infringement is proven — statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work.
Get Up wasn’t a minor release either. The EP pushed NewJeans to the top of the Billboard 200 just a year after their debut, and “ETA” itself charted on the Billboard Hot 100, which raises the financial exposure considerably if the claim succeeds.
Responding to Dispatch, representatives for NewJeans said the track had been sourced through BANA, which was selected by Min Hee-jin during her time as CEO, and that they were reviewing internal records to determine whether a proper similarity check had been carried out at the time.
The “How Sweet” Lawsuit: A Rejected Demo, and an Ironic Twist
The second, and more detailed, case involves “How Sweet,” one of NewJeans’ most commercially successful tracks. According to the complaint, obtained by Dispatch, four American songwriters — including Audrey Armacost.
Say they were sent an instrumental track through a publisher back in January 2024 and asked to develop a topline melody and lyrics as a candidate song for NewJeans. The four wrote and recorded a song called “One of a Kind” over that instrumental, but it was ultimately passed over during NewJeans’ selection process.
Roughly four months after that rejection, “How Sweet” was released — and the plaintiffs argue its opening verse is strikingly close to their demo, both in feel and in the underlying notation.
Their complaint includes a technical breakdown claiming the two songs share a 31-note topline melody sequence across roughly eight measures, in addition to matching time signature (4/4) and key (B-flat minor).
Dispatch went a step further, publishing its own side-by-side comparison on July 10. The outlet had initially played listeners two unlabeled clips before revealing which was “How Sweet” and which was “One of a Kind,” then laid out the sheet music for both.
A music expert consulted by Dispatch noted that having two toplines share identical scale degrees, note lengths, tension notes, and rhythm at the same time is difficult to attribute to coincidence.
One especially pointed detail concerns a “tension note” — a note that falls outside the natural B-flat minor scale — that both songs reportedly use in the same spot, functioning as a deliberate device to build tension in the melody.
According to the reporting, this isn’t the kind of note a songwriter would casually stumble into by chance, which is part of why the plaintiffs believe the similarity is intentional rather than incidental.
There’s also a layer of irony that’s hard to ignore. In April 2024, Min Hee-jin publicly accused ILLIT of copying NewJeans, criticizing Belift Lab for allegedly imitating the group’s direction, album concept, and choreography. “How Sweet” — the very song now facing its own plagiarism claim — was released not long after those accusations.
The complaint also draws attention to the production credits. Min Hee-jin served as executive producer on “How Sweet,” while Kim Ki-hyun of BANA held the A&R role — a position whose core responsibility, in the K-pop system, typically includes sourcing songs and clearing copyright.
The plaintiffs cite a comment attributed to Min Hee-jin describing Kim as central to NewJeans’ entire discography, which they argue undercuts any claim that the similarity went unnoticed.
Financial details reported by Dispatch add more context to the relationship between Min Hee-jin and BANA: Min reportedly paid Kim roughly 33 million KRW (about $24,000) per month in consulting fees, plus incentives around 5% of revenue, which totaled more than 1 billion KRW (roughly $666,000) over time.
Figures that surfaced previously during Min’s separate legal dispute with HYBE over stock options, when she denied giving Kim preferential treatment.
ADOR’s Response
ADOR has addressed the “How Sweet” allegations directly. On July 10, the agency told local outlets that the track had been acquired through BANA and that it was reviewing the circumstances of that acquisition, including whatever similarity analysis was conducted at the time it was selected.
This isn’t the first time ADOR has had to respond to claims about the song — when similar allegations first surfaced in May, the agency said it had checked with BANA and been told no plagiarism had occurred, and that the label and members intended to respond to any legal action in line with BANA’s position.
Representatives for OOAK Records and BANA could not be reached for comment on the latest suit, according to Dispatch’s reporting.
Why This Matters Beyond the Courtroom
“How Sweet” isn’t a deep cut — it’s one of the defining songs of NewJeans’ catalog. The track has sold over 1.24 million copies, reached the top 20 of the Billboard Global 200, and was named one of Rolling Stone’s 100 Best Songs of 2024.
That commercial weight is exactly why a successful copyright claim could carry serious financial consequences, on top of the reputational damage of two separate plagiarism suits landing within days of each other.
It also lands at an already fraught moment for the group. As we covered in our report on the Danielle lawsuit and the NJZ financial paper trail, NewJeans is simultaneously working through a separate, high-stakes legal battle over the members’ independent activities during their split from ADOR.
Between the contractual dispute over Danielle’s status and these new claims about the authorship of two of the group’s biggest songs, 2026 has turned into a year defined almost entirely by litigation rather than music for NewJeans.
What Happens Next
Both lawsuits are still in their early stages, and neither has a scheduled resolution date yet. For the “ETA” case, the central question will likely come down to expert musicological analysis of the disputed rhythmic and melodic elements versus what’s considered common practice within the genre.
For “How Sweet,” the case may hinge heavily on the paper trail — specifically, whether ADOR’s internal review turns up evidence that the similarity between “One of a Kind” and “How Sweet” was flagged, and by whom, before the song’s release.
Given how central BANA and Kim Ki-hyun are to both disputed tracks, and given that BANA also sits at the center of the ongoing Danielle-ADOR case, it’s worth watching whether these separate legal threads start to intersect.
For now, ADOR’s public position is that both songs were sourced through BANA under Min Hee-jin’s direction as then-CEO, effectively placing responsibility for vetting the material on the production team she selected.
In Conclusion :
We’ll continue tracking both cases as new filings and reporting emerge.