Ador's NewJeans Contracts Stripped Minors' Rest Protections

Record label Ador omitted standard child-protection language from the contracts it signed with the members of NewJeans when they were between 14 and 17 years old, according to a New York Times report cited by the Guardian. The contracts waived the performers' rights to "sleep, rest and free choice," the report found, stripping out protections that are typically included in South Korea's government-issued template for K-pop talent agreements.

What did the NewJeans contracts actually omit?

The agreements excluded language from the Korean government's standard K-pop contract template that bars labels from demanding minors engage in "excessive physical exposure or overly sexually suggestive expression," according to the Guardian's account of the New York Times findings. The contracts also struck broader child-protection clauses covering "basic human rights," including the group members' right to education, the report found.

In place of those protections, the contracts reportedly barred the performers from having an "insincere attitude" and from engaging in "inappropriate romantic relationships." Ador is a subsidiary of Hybe, the agency behind BTS and Katseye.

Why does this matter for K-pop labor practices?

NewJeans is one of the most commercially successful K-pop acts of the decade. In 2023, the five-member group became the second Korean girl group — after Blackpink — to reach No. 1 on the Billboard albums chart, the Guardian reported. The scale of that success puts fresh scrutiny on contract terms signed by minors at the start of their careers, before labels and performers have equal bargaining power.

The dispute has already reached South Korea's parliament. Band member Hanni told lawmakers last year that NewJeans had been mistreated by Ador, accusing the label of "deliberate miscommunications and manipulation," according to the Guardian.

How have Hybe and Ador responded?

In a statement to the New York Times, Hybe representatives said the company adheres to child-protection laws and works to ensure its artists train and work in safe conditions, the Guardian reported. The statement did not address the specific contract language identified in the report.

Ador has separately maintained that it did not breach its obligations to the group. "A unilateral claim that trust has been broken does not constitute valid grounds for termination of a contract," the label said in a statement cited by the Guardian.

What happened after NewJeans left the label?

The contract dispute became public in November 2024, when the band announced its decision to leave Ador amid claims that the label had deliberately undermined their careers, according to the Guardian. The split has since moved into litigation on multiple fronts.

In December 2025, Ador sued band member Danielle, a member of her family, and the group's producer, seeking nearly $30 million in damages and a contract-break penalty, the Guardian reported. Danielle has separately sued the label for millions of dollars following what the Guardian described as a bitter feud between the performer and Ador.

Neither side has resolved the underlying question of whether NewJeans' departure from Ador was lawful, and both the damages suit and Danielle's countersuit remain active, according to the available reporting.

What to watch next

• Whether South Korean regulators or lawmakers open a formal inquiry into Ador's contract terms following the New York Times findings cited by the Guardian.
• The outcome of Ador's nearly $30 million damages suit against Danielle, her family member, and the group's producer, filed in December 2025.
• Developments in Danielle's separate suit against the label, which the Guardian reported was filed after a protracted dispute.
• Any public response from Hybe or Ador addressing the specific omission of minor-protection clauses, beyond their existing statements on child-protection law compliance.
• Whether other K-pop agencies face comparable scrutiny over use of the government's standard minor-protection template versus modified contract language.

The Guardian's report notes that Hybe has pointed to its general compliance record rather than disputing the specific contract terms identified by the New York Times. Ador, for its part, has continued to argue in public statements that contractual trust was not broken on its end — a position that puts the label's framing of the dispute directly against the group members' public accounts to South Korea's parliament.