K-pop's two defining acts, BTS and NewJeans, have been hit with plagiarism allegations in parallel lawsuits, pulling South Korea's pop music industry into the eye of a copyright storm. Analysts say the pattern is no coincidence: the bigger K-pop's footprint in global markets, the more attractive its stars become as litigation targets.
The price of global success
K-pop's rising commercial stature has sharpened the financial incentives to sue. According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), South Korea ranked sixth in the world by music-market size in 2023. HYBE, the entertainment conglomerate behind BTS, posted annual revenues exceeding two trillion won (roughly $1.5bn). NewJeans, managed by HYBE's subsidiary label ADOR, has accumulated tens of millions of streams across North American and European platforms, sending the commercial value of the group's catalogue sharply higher. Legal observers note that "the higher an artist's earnings, the more attractive they become as a litigation target," adding that some suits may be strategic filings designed to extract settlements rather than vindicate genuine creative grievances.
A production model exposed to risk
Experts argue that K-pop's songwriting process is structurally vulnerable to plagiarism claims. Tracks are routinely assembled through collaboration between domestic composers and overseas songwriters from Sweden, the United States and Britain. The dominant method — known as "camp writing," in which a large group of writers convenes to produce songs in a short period — makes clean documentation of each contributor's creative input difficult. Park, a lawyer specialising in music copyright, warns that "the more composers involved, the greater the scope for claims of similarity with existing works," and urges labels to establish clear contractual attribution of rights before recording begins.
An American litigation wave
The lawsuits land against the backdrop of a broader surge in copyright litigation across the American music industry. A landmark 2015 ruling — in which Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were found to have infringed Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up" with their song "Blurred Lines" — nudged American courts towards recognising similarity of "feel" or "mood" as sufficient grounds for an infringement finding. Since then, Ed Sheeran, Katy Perry and Lady Gaga have all faced plagiarism actions. According to the legal analytics platform Lex Machina, the number of music copyright cases filed in the United States has grown at an average annual rate of roughly 15% since 2015. As K-pop acts have made their American commercial breakthrough, they have inevitably been drawn into this litigious environment.
Precedent within K-pop
Copyright disputes are not new to the industry. In 2009, Wonder Girls' "Nobody" attracted similarity allegations in the United States, though no formal lawsuit followed. In 2022, a Korean composer sued over alleged melodic similarities in BTS's "Dynamite," only for the case to be dismissed. Yet even suits that are thrown out or settled quietly can leave a mark. A report by the Korea Creative Content Agency found that copyright disputes alone are associated with an average 8–12% decline in an affected artist's streaming revenues during the period of litigation.
A divided industry
Opinion within the industry is split. The Korea Music Copyright Association (KOMCA) takes the view that rights holders are fully entitled to assert their claims, and that doing so is healthy for the creative ecosystem as a whole. Others are less sanguine. Some within the K-pop business fear that a proliferation of speculative or poorly founded suits will chill creativity and ultimately damage the industry. There is particular unease about the role of so-called "copyright trolls" — entities that acquire rights not to exploit them creatively but to generate litigation income — a phenomenon well documented in international markets.
How HYBE and ADOR are likely to respond
Both HYBE and ADOR have said they are reviewing the claims carefully. Industry observers expect each company to retain specialist intellectual property counsel of the highest calibre. Given that artists including Billie Eilish and Taylor Swift have successfully defended similar actions in the past, early settlement remains a live option. Lee, an entertainment industry analyst, suggests that a company of HYBE's scale will weigh brand management considerations as heavily as legal ones: "A prolonged court battle carries reputational costs that often outweigh the financial exposure. A swift settlement, even without an admission of liability, typically makes more sense."
What the industry must do next
The episode poses a clear challenge to K-pop as a whole: sustaining global growth requires a far more rigorous approach to copyright governance. The Japanese pop industry's experience offers a cautionary parallel — J-pop labels were forced to overhaul their contracting and record-keeping systems after facing similar disputes during their own period of internationalisation. Specialists recommend three priorities: pre-registering copyrights using digital timestamps during the composition process; insisting on unambiguous written contracts for all cross-border collaborative work; and establishing government-backed support infrastructure for rights protection. South Korea's Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism increased its budget for protecting Korean Wave content rights by 30% in 2024 compared with the previous year, but critics say practical support for companies navigating active litigation remains inadequate.
The legal challenges confronting BTS and NewJeans are more than the private difficulties of two enormously successful acts. They represent a structural test that the entire K-pop industry — if it is to compete durably on the world stage — cannot afford to fail.