You have certainly heard about the latest ruling on ADOR VS NJZ (NewJeans) injunction hearing on their exclusive advertising contracts and activities.
What was the first thing coming up in your mind when you read the news? Were you surprised? Or was everything going just as what you had expected? Well, if you’re still wondering how the court came up with such a decision, no worries. Today, we’re going to guide you through all the complete reasons why the court decided to rule against NJZ (NewJeans) on the ADOR injunction hearing.
No Activities Allowed: Court Ruling on ADOR VS NJZ (NewJeans) Injunction Hearing
The revolutionary K-pop act NJZ (NewJeans) had just announced its temporary hiatus at ComplexCon Hong Kong. This is a follow-up decision after the group reportedly lost the first injunction hearing when the Seoul Court’s ruling was more in favor of ADOR on exclusive advertising contracts and other activities.
Previously, on March 21, 2025, Seoul Central District Court’s 50th Civil Division reportedly granted ADOR’s injunction request to maintain the exclusive rights as NJZ (NewJeans)’s official management company. Therefore, all activities the members made outside of the company’s management are considered unofficial and invalid.
The court’s decision also means that the members cannot use their new name and logo for now. And as they are all waiting for the upcoming hearing for the validity of their exclusive contract on April 3, NewJeans members are now banned from all advertising contracts and all activities outside of ADOR.
Therefore, as an attempt to comply with the court’s order, members of NewJeans have now decided to go on hiatus.
ADOR VS NewJeans Ruling on Exclusive Advertising Contracts & Activities Injunction Hearing: Why Granted?
Now that we have reached a crucial checkpoint on the whole ADOR VS NewJeans dispute that’s basically irreversible, there must be some of you questioning this shocking decision from the court. But to truly understand why the court ruled against NJZ (NewJeans), we need to take a closer look into the exact reasoning behind this legal judgment.
That is why today we’re going to discuss all the reasons behind the court’s ruling in ADOR VS NewJeans injunction hearing on exclusive advertising contracts and activities.
1. No Clear Grounds for Termination: Trust Not Yet Broken
The most pivotal point in the court’s decision was its rejection of NewJeans’ claim that the trust between the group and ADOR had already been irreparably damaged.
NewJeans argued that the relationship had broken down beyond repair, thus justifying their attempt to unilaterally terminate the contract. However, the court firmly disagreed.
“It is difficult to conclude that the mutual trust which underpins the exclusive contract has been irreparably broken based on the evidence presented.”
Seoul Central District Court.
This essentially means that while tensions may exist between both parties, the trust—which forms the core of any exclusive contract in the K-pop industry—had not sufficiently collapsed to legally justify a termination.
Without clear-cut proof of fundamental breach or misconduct, the court determined that the original terms of the contract should still stand.
2. Lack of Substantial Evidence of ADOR’s Contractual Breach
Another major element of the decision lies in the insufficiency of evidence provided by NewJeans. According to the ruling, the materials and documents submitted by the group did not convincingly establish that ADOR had failed to uphold significant contractual obligations.
“The materials submitted so far are insufficient to prove that ADOR violated significant contractual obligations. The argument alone does not establish that ADOR has breached key duties or that the trust relationship has completely collapsed.”
Seoul Central District Court.
In short, despite the members’ claims, the court found ADOR had not breached any core aspect of the contract that would justify such a drastic legal move from the group.
3. The Issue of Former CEO Min Hee Jin: Not Contractually Binding
One of the hot-button points in the dispute was NewJeans’ dissatisfaction with ADOR’s refusal to reinstate its former CEO, Min Hee Jin. The group suggested that this refusal amounted to a breach of trust. However, the court was not convinced.
“ADOR has sufficient capability to appoint a different producer, and the return of Min Hee-jin cannot be seen as a contractual requirement.”
Seoul Central District Court.
So, while the emotional and creative attachment to the former CEO may be valid from the members’ perspective, the court viewed this issue as separate from the enforceable terms of the exclusive contract.
4. ADOR Has Fulfilled Major Contractual Duties
Beyond dismissing the grounds for termination, the court went one step further to reinforce ADOR’s standing. They highlighted that the company had actively fulfilled its obligations, including financial settlements and other management responsibilities.
Furthermore, the ruling pointed out that ADOR’s ability to continue fulfilling these duties had been obstructed. And it was all because of the group’s unilateral move to terminate the contract. This statement placed the responsibility back on NewJeans for disrupting the operational flow.
This conclusion added more weight to ADOR’s legal position. Therefore, the court believes that ADOR was still functioning within its legal boundaries.
5. HYBE’s Internal Controversies: Not Enough for Legal Action
The legal battle also brought into public attention two industry-wide controversies: the “ditch NewJeans” phrase from HYBE’s internal report and allegations that the company’s new girl group, ILLIT, had plagiarized NewJeans’ concept. Both of these issues had sparked heated debates among fans and media alike.
However, the court dismissed both claims:
- On the “ditch NewJeans” phrase, the court noted that the internal document “contained various suggestions aimed at ensuring NewJeans’ success,” and the phrase in question “does not indicate HYBE’s intention to abandon the group.”
- Regarding the plagiarism allegations, the court ruled, “It is difficult to conclude that ILLIT’s concept plagiarized NewJeans. Furthermore, the concept of NewJeans is ambiguous as an intellectual property right.”
In both cases, the court concluded that the presented materials were insufficient for legal intervention. Therefore, they could not be used as justifications to invalidate the contract.
6. Album Sales Controversy: A Matter of Factual Correction
Meanwhile, there was also the matter of alleged manipulation of NewJeans’ album sales—specifically, a case where a HYBE staff member had reportedly asked for revisions to sales figures. While some interpreted this as an attempt to sabotage the group’s market performance, the court saw it differently.
According to the ruling, the incident appeared to be “a correction of factual information affecting stock prices rather than an attempt to defame or undermine NewJeans.”
Thus, this too was dismissed as a legally viable reason for termination.
What Do You Think Will Happen Next?
With the court granting the injunction in favor of ADOR, NewJeans must now pause all entertainment activities outside of the agency, including endorsements, public appearances, and digital releases. Any breach of this court ruling could potentially lead to additional lawsuits and damages, legally cornering the group into a temporary standstill.
Still, NewJeans has publicly stated that they will contest the decision and bring forward more evidence at the upcoming hearing on April 3, which will determine the validity of their exclusive contract in full.
“While we respect what the court has decided, we feel that it didn’t fully take into account how much the trust between us and ADOR has broken.
We’re planning to challenge the decision by filing an objection and will also add more evidence to support our case.
Also, the main trial about whether our exclusive contract is still valid is still going on. Therefore, at the next hearing on April 3, we’ll do our best to show that ending the contract was the right and legal thing to do.”
NewJeans (NJZ).
While a final verdict is still pending, it’s undeniable that this injunction decision marks a decisive legal advantage for ADOR. As history has shown in similar K-pop disputes—such as those involving LOONA and SECRET—a favorable injunction ruling can often pave the way to winning the larger lawsuit.
We will continue to monitor this legal standoff closely. But for now, it is finally clear that NewJeans remains under ADOR’s management—at least for the time being.
But what about you? What are your thoughts on all the above reasons on the court’s ruling in favor of ADOR regarding injunction hearing on NewJeans exclusive advertising contracts and activities? Please share them in the comments. Also, stay tuned as we bring you more updates from this ever-evolving case.
Join us on Kpoppost’s Instagram, Threads, Facebook, X, Telegram channel, WhatsApp Channel and Discord server for discussions. And follow Kpoppost’s Google News for more Korean entertainment news and updates.
