Seoul, South Korea – November 7, 2026 – Global entertainment giant HYBE Corporation has vehemently refuted claims made in a recent report by The New York Times regarding the exclusive contracts of its popular girl group, NewJeans, with subsidiary ADOR. In a detailed statement released to Korean media outlets, HYBE has sought to clarify the factual basis of the contracts, pointing fingers at the leadership within ADOR, particularly its former CEO, Min Hee-jin, for the contentious terms and the subsequent leak of sensitive contractual information.
The New York Times report, published on November 5, 2026, alleged that the 2022 contracts signed by NewJeans members, who were then between 14 and 17 years old, lacked standard protections for minors typically found in South Korea’s K-pop industry. These alleged omissions included clauses concerning health, schooling, and rest, and reportedly required members to bear the costs of cosmetic surgery, describing the terms as "essentially nonnegotiable."
HYBE’s swift and comprehensive rebuttal aims to counter these allegations, asserting that the narrative presented by The New York Times is incomplete and misleading. The company has emphasized its commitment to artist welfare and adherence to industry standards, while simultaneously highlighting the role of ADOR’s management in the contract negotiations and finalization.
The Core Allegations and HYBE’s Counter-Narrative
The crux of The New York Times’ report centered on the perceived vulnerability of the young NewJeans members due to alleged deficiencies in their contracts. Specifically, the report highlighted:
- Absence of Standard Protections for Minors: The New York Times claimed that the contracts omitted crucial protections for minors, such as rights to health, education, and adequate rest, which are typically included in the standard K-pop contract template mandated by the South Korean government.
- Mandatory Cosmetic Surgery Costs: The report alleged that members were required to cover their own cosmetic surgery expenses.
- "Essentially Nonnegotiable" Terms: The article suggested that the contract terms were presented in a manner that offered little room for negotiation.
HYBE has systematically addressed each of these points in its statement:
Protection for Minors:
HYBE strongly asserted that all labels under its umbrella, including ADOR, adhere to national standards for minors. "All labels under HYBE sign the national standard supplementary agreement for minors with their respective trainees," the company stated. "These agreements include all protective provisions, including personality rights and the rights to sleep, education, and rest." This directly contradicts the Times’ claim that such protections were absent.
Cosmetic Surgery Costs and Contract Negotiation:
Regarding the cosmetic surgery costs, HYBE acknowledged that this was a point of discussion, particularly with one member’s mother. However, the company stated that the specific clause in question related to the reporting of any attempted tampering with the contract, not a mandatory requirement for cosmetic surgery.
"Although the requested revision was not incorporated at the time, the mother expressed her gratitude for the company’s detailed explanation, saying, ‘Thank you for your thoughtful response. I would like to let you know that I have no objections to the response you provided,’" HYBE quoted.
HYBE also refuted the notion of "nonnegotiable" terms. The company clarified that the contracts, signed in April 2022, were the result of three months of discussions and revisions. Crucially, HYBE stated that these revisions were reviewed by NewJeans members’ legal representatives.
Role of ADOR and Min Hee-jin:
A significant portion of HYBE’s rebuttal focused on the decision-making authority within ADOR. The company explicitly stated that the contract terms, including how payments were calculated, were ultimately determined by each subsidiary label, not HYBE’s centralized legal team.
"The wording of NewJeans’ contracts was jointly worked out and the contracts ultimately signed by then-CEO Min Hee-jin, the deputy CEO she appointed, each member and their parents, and legal representatives for some of the members," HYBE declared. This places direct responsibility on Min Hee-jin and her appointed deputy for the final contract stipulations.
HYBE further elaborated on the issue of cost reduction for cosmetic surgery, stating that while the mother of a member had inquired about reducing costs, HYBE’s legal team had prepared and presented several options to ADOR to accommodate this request. However, these proposals were reportedly rejected by ADOR’s deputy CEO at the time, who was appointed by Min Hee-jin.
Chronology of Events and Contractual Development
To provide a clearer timeline and context, HYBE outlined key stages in the contract formation process:
- Early 2022: Discussions and negotiations surrounding NewJeans’ exclusive contracts with ADOR commenced. The members were minors at this stage.
- January 2022: Emails cited by The New York Times indicate a specific instance where a mother requested revisions to the contract. HYBE asserts that the requested revision pertained to a clause about reporting contract tampering.
- April 2022: The exclusive contracts were finalized and signed. HYBE emphasizes that this followed three months of talks and revisions, with legal counsel involved.
- November 2026: The New York Times published its report, drawing upon leaked contract documents.
- November 6, 2026: HYBE released its official statement to Korean media, directly addressing and disputing the claims made in The New York Times report.
Supporting Data and Evidence Presented by HYBE
HYBE claims to have provided The New York Times with supporting materials to substantiate its position, including:
- Standard Minor Protection Agreements: Evidence that all HYBE subsidiaries, including ADOR, utilize standard supplementary agreements for minor artists that include provisions for personality rights, sleep, education, and rest.
- Email Correspondence: Specific email exchanges, including the one with the member’s mother, to demonstrate the nature of the discussions and the responses provided.
- Contractual Signatories: Confirmation that the contracts were signed by key parties, including Min Hee-jin, her appointed deputy CEO, the members themselves, their parents, and legal representatives.
HYBE expressed frustration that its requested clarifications and supporting evidence were not incorporated into The New York Times’ final article.
Official Responses and Rebuttals
HYBE’s statement serves as its primary official response to the allegations. The company’s tone is firm and fact-driven, aimed at correcting the public record.
"Contracts and litigation materials held only by the parties involved have been leaked to overseas media and are being used as a tool to attack K-Pop, leaving us no choice but to explain the facts," HYBE concluded, framing the leak and subsequent report as part of a broader agenda against the K-pop industry.
While ADOR itself has been embroiled in a separate, ongoing dispute with HYBE, this statement from the parent company directly addresses the specific contractual issues raised by The New York Times, aiming to insulate itself and the NewJeans members from the negative implications of the report.
Implications and Future Outlook
The public exchange between HYBE and The New York Times raises several critical questions and potential implications for the K-pop industry:
- Contractual Transparency and Artist Rights: The controversy underscores the ongoing need for transparency in artist contracts, particularly concerning minors. While HYBE asserts adherence to standards, the details of the report have ignited discussions about the adequacy of existing protections and the potential for exploitation, even within major entertainment agencies.
- The Role of Subsidiary Management: The situation highlights the significant autonomy and responsibility granted to subsidiary labels like ADOR. HYBE’s statement suggests that managerial decisions at the subsidiary level, rather than centralized corporate policy, can lead to contentious contract terms. This also raises questions about the oversight mechanisms within HYBE for its subsidiaries.
- Impact on NewJeans: The public nature of these allegations, regardless of their ultimate veracity, can have an impact on the public perception of NewJeans and its members. The group’s image as fresh and youthful could be overshadowed by these controversies.
- Inter-Agency Disputes: The timing of this report, amid the public dispute between HYBE and Min Hee-jin, suggests a potential strategic element to the leak. HYBE’s statement directly implicates Min Hee-jin and her appointed deputy in the finalization of these contracts, potentially positioning her as the primary responsible party for any problematic clauses.
- Global Scrutiny of K-Pop: The involvement of a major international publication like The New York Times signifies the growing global interest in the K-pop industry and its business practices. Such reports can lead to increased scrutiny from international media, fans, and regulatory bodies.
HYBE’s detailed rebuttal indicates a strategic effort to control the narrative and present its version of events. The company’s stance suggests a belief that the facts, when clearly explained, will exonerate them and place the onus on ADOR’s former leadership. The coming days and weeks will likely see further developments as the industry and fans digest HYBE’s counter-arguments and the broader implications for artist management in the global K-pop landscape.
