ADOR Reviews NewJeans Song Vetting After U.S. Copyright Suit Over ‘ETA’

ADOR is reviewing how NewJeans’ music was selected and checked for similarity after the group’s hit single “ETA” became the subject of a copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States, adding another legal complication to one of K-pop’s most closely watched label disputes.

According to Korean reports, U.S. copyright management company All Surface Publishing filed a suit in the Central District of California on July 7, claiming that “ETA” improperly used elements from “Samir’s Theme,” a 2005 Baltimore club track by producer DJ Debonair Samir. The complaint reportedly names several parties connected to the song and its rollout, including NewJeans, producer 250, lyricist Beenzino, HYBE, ADOR, BANA, and Apple, whose collaboration on the music video drew attention when the song was released.

ADOR responded by saying the track at issue was obtained through BANA, or Beasts And Natives Alike, under then-CEO Min Hee-jin’s direction. The label said it is looking through internal materials to determine whether the similarity review process at the time was handled properly. That wording is significant: ADOR is not simply denying public chatter, but is also examining the chain of selection, supply, and review that brought the song into NewJeans’ catalog.

What The Lawsuit Claims

“ETA” was released in July 2023 as a title track from NewJeans’ second EP, Get Up. The song became one of the group’s defining singles and entered Billboard’s Hot 100, helping reinforce NewJeans’ position as a global K-pop act with a distinctive blend of club rhythm, minimalist production, and understated performance style.

The plaintiff’s side reportedly argues that “ETA” uses musical material from “Samir’s Theme,” including a syncopated horn line, a sixteenth-note rhythmic structure, and bass drum elements. The claim also draws attention to the fact that some overseas critics had already discussed similarities around the time of the song’s release. In Korea, some listeners had assumed the resemblance was connected to an authorized sample, but reports note that “Samir’s Theme” does not appear in the official sampling credits for “ETA.”

That distinction matters in modern pop production. Sampling, interpolation, genre reference, and stylistic borrowing can all sit close together in the public ear, but they are not treated the same way legally or commercially. If a track uses a sample, the rights normally must be cleared and credited. If a song merely works within a genre tradition, the question becomes whether protected musical expression was copied, not whether two songs share a broad mood or rhythmic vocabulary.

A Wider Copyright Pressure Point For NewJeans

The “ETA” case arrives while NewJeans’ catalog is already under heightened scrutiny. Korean reports noted that the group has faced plagiarism or copyright-related allegations involving other songs, including “Bubble Gum” and “How Sweet.” Of those, “How Sweet” and “ETA” have been described as facing U.S. copyright litigation, while all three tracks were associated with the Min Hee-jin-led creative period at ADOR.

For fans, the legal discussion is unfolding against a complicated backdrop. NewJeans’ music has long been praised for its fresh restraint and carefully curated references to older pop, R&B, club, and dance sounds. At the same time, K-pop’s global expansion means those references are being examined by a much wider network of rights holders, publishers, producers, and musicologists than in earlier generations of the industry.

ADOR’s current position appears to place emphasis on process: who selected the track, which external company supplied it, and whether checks for musical overlap were sufficient before release. That does not decide the legal merits of the U.S. case, but it shows how a copyright claim can quickly become a governance issue inside a label, especially when a song was released during a leadership era that has since become controversial.

The inclusion of Apple in reports about the lawsuit also reflects how K-pop releases now operate as multi-party entertainment campaigns. A high-profile single may involve a label, parent company, creative director, producer, publisher, distributor, advertising partner, and platform strategy. When a rights dispute emerges after release, the question is not only whether a melody or rhythm was copied, but also which party had responsibility for clearing risks before the song reached the public.

What Comes Next

The immediate next step is likely procedural: ADOR’s internal review, the defendants’ legal responses in the U.S., and any expert analysis comparing the songs. Copyright cases involving music often turn on detailed questions of access, substantial similarity, protectable elements, and whether disputed portions are original enough to receive protection.

For NewJeans, the case adds pressure at a time when the group’s name remains tied to wider debates about artist contracts, production authority, and label control. The lawsuit does not erase the commercial impact of “ETA,” but it may affect how the public, the industry, and future collaborators evaluate the systems behind major K-pop releases.

For the broader industry, the dispute is another reminder that global pop success brings global legal exposure. K-pop companies increasingly build songs through international writing camps, outside production houses, and cross-border publishing networks. That model can create distinctive hits, but it also requires careful documentation, rights clearance, and review before a track becomes the centerpiece of a worldwide campaign.