[Edaily Reporter YUN GI BACK ] HYBE and Min Hee-jin, CEO of OK Records, engaged in a blame game over a New York Times (NYT) report that pointed out restrictions on artists’ rights in the exclusive contract of the group NewJeans. HYBE emphasized that Min Hee-jin, who was the CEO of ADOR at the time, was the primary party to the contract. Min countered, saying, “Stop with the absurd ‘Min Hee-jin is behind everything’ theory,” and argued that it was HYBE that designed and approved the key clauses.

On the 5th (local time), the NYT analyzed the contract signed by NewJeans members with ADOR in 2022, when they were between the ages of 14 and 17. It pointed out that provisions protecting members’ rights to health, education, sleep, and rest—which are included in the government’s standard contract—were omitted, and that members were required to reimburse the company for a significant portion of the costs incurred for cosmetic surgery and skin care. It also highlighted restrictions on privacy and the company’s rights to use members’ faces and voices after the contract’s termination as problematic.
◇ HYBE: “Min Hee-jin and Parents Coordinated”… Min Hee-jin: “Decision-Making Authority Lay with the Parent Company”
In a statement released on the 6th, HYBE stated that CEO Min Hee-jin, the deputy CEO she appointed, the members and their parents, and the legal representatives of some members coordinated the wording and ultimately signed the contract. The company explained that the contract was signed after three months of Q&A sessions, email correspondence, and review by attorneys, and that the court’s decision acknowledged it was concluded following sufficient discussion.
HYBE’s legal team further emphasized that while they provide a standard template, the label communicates with the artists to determine key terms, such as the settlement method. They also noted that they had requested the *New York Times* to explicitly state that CEO Min was the contracting party, but this was not reflected in the report.
CEO Min countered that participating in contract negotiations and signing the agreement are distinct from having the authority to determine key provisions. He argued that, on behalf of ADOR—which lacks an independent legal team—HYBE’s legal team led the drafting and revisions, and that the agreement required the consensus of HYBE’s legal team, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), as well as board approval.
She also noted that she had requested the authority to sign major contracts in 2024, but HYBE had refused. She stated that consultations with the parents primarily involved limited revisions to clarify wording, arguing, “The explanation needed now is not who signed the contract, but who actually had the authority to create and amend its key provisions.”

◇ HYBE: “Safeguards in Place”… Min Hee-jin: “Must Account for Design Responsibility”
Their positions also diverged regarding cost burdens. HYBE stated that it had proposed multiple measures to reduce the members’ financial burden, but the then-deputy CEO of ADOR had rejected them. CEO Min countered that the ability to choose certain conditions should not be expanded to imply independent decision-making authority over the entire contract, noting that ADOR had agreed not to bill the members for their previous trainee expenses.
Regarding the rights to use the members’ names, faces, and voices after the contract’s termination, HYBE clarified that individual consent is required for the use of AI-generated content and that it has no plans to utilize those rights arbitrarily. CEO Min argued that the essence of the matter lies not in plans for abuse but in who included those rights in the contract, asserting that this clause was also drafted by HYBE’s legal team.
HYBE stated that minors’ rights to sleep, education, and rest are also guaranteed through a separate supplementary agreement. It explained that if the method for calculating liquidated damages were applied to NewJeans, the actual effect would be the same as that of a standard contract.
CEO Min raised concerns not about the interpretation of individual clauses, but about the mismatch between authority and responsibility. He argued that HYBE created a structure where contracts could not be finalized without its approval, yet is now shifting the blame onto ADOR’s management at the time, and demanded that HYBE explain the contract drafting and approval procedures as well as their fairness.