NewJeans’ “How Sweet” Faces U.S. Copyright Lawsuit Over Melody Claims

NewJeans’ 2024 single “How Sweet” is facing renewed scrutiny after a report detailed a U.S. copyright infringement lawsuit filed by four American songwriters who allege that the song used a rejected topline without authorization.

According to the report, the complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and names HYBE, ADOR, NewJeans, BANA, producer 250, and others connected to the track. The plaintiffs are identified as Audrey Amacost, Aidan Rodriguez, Michael Campanelli, and Adam Gokcebay, who claim that material they submitted during the song-development process later appeared in the released NewJeans single.

What The Plaintiffs Say Happened

The dispute centers on a topline, the vocal melody and lyric framework written over an instrumental track. The report says BANA sent an instrumental to Pulse Music, a U.S. publishing company, seeking a completed topline. Pulse then brought in Amacost, who worked with Rodriguez, Campanelli, and Gokcebay on a version that was eventually sent back through the chain.

The songwriters say that their submission was rejected, with BANA allegedly indicating that it liked the topline but had decided not to use it. Several months later, “How Sweet” was released as a NewJeans single. The plaintiffs allege that the topline they had delivered was used in the finished song, and they argue that people involved in sourcing the track would have known about the earlier submission.

These are allegations in an active legal dispute, not a final ruling. Still, the case is drawing attention because it concerns one of NewJeans’ most recognizable releases and because it comes amid broader public scrutiny of the production and management networks surrounding the group.

The Melody Comparison At The Center Of The Case

The report says Dispatch compared the plaintiffs’ song, identified as “One of a Kind,” with “How Sweet” and focused on specific verse passages. Both works were described as sharing the same tempo, meter, and key, though the report noted that those elements could be connected to the original instrumental provided during the production process.

The more important claim involves the melody. Dispatch’s analysis said the disputed sections use highly similar pitch movement, note length, and rhythmic emphasis. The report also highlighted the use of an outside-scale note that it characterized as a distinctive musical choice rather than a generic pop convention.

Music copyright disputes often turn on whether a court finds protectable expression, access, and substantial similarity. In practical terms, that means the lawsuit is likely to examine not only whether the passages sound alike, but also whether the plaintiffs’ topline was available to the parties who later completed and released the NewJeans track.

ADOR Says It Is Reviewing The Matter

ADOR responded briefly to the report, saying that “How Sweet” was sourced through BANA and that it is verifying the progress of an audio similarity review conducted at the time. The statement does not amount to an admission of wrongdoing, and the defendants will have the opportunity to respond through the legal process.

The report also places BANA CEO Kim Ki Hyun under particular focus because of his reported A&R role in sourcing music for NewJeans. In K-pop, A&R teams often sit at the center of song selection, outside-writer coordination, rights checks, and final approvals, which makes their documentation and communication especially important when a dispute emerges later.

For fans, the case lands in a complicated moment. “How Sweet” was a major commercial release, selling strongly and earning international attention after its debut. At the same time, NewJeans’ name has repeatedly appeared in larger industry conflicts involving ADOR, HYBE, Min Hee Jin, and questions about creative ownership, management authority, and artistic identity.

Why The Case Matters Beyond One Song

The lawsuit could become another test of how globalized K-pop production handles authorship. Many major K-pop tracks are assembled through international writing camps, publisher submissions, outside producers, Korean labels, and separate A&R teams. That system can create polished global pop, but it also depends on clear records showing what was submitted, rejected, revised, licensed, and ultimately released.

If the plaintiffs can show that their submitted topline was accessed and reused without clearance, the case could carry financial and reputational consequences. If the defendants can show independent creation, proper clearance, or insufficient protectable similarity, the claims may narrow or fail. Either way, the dispute is likely to keep attention on the behind-the-scenes paperwork that supports high-profile K-pop releases.

For now, the key facts remain contested. The songwriters say their work was taken after a rejection. ADOR says it is checking the earlier similarity review. The court process, rather than online comparison clips, will determine whether the similarities described in the report amount to copyright infringement.