Kesha

The New York Court of Appeals rules that Dr Luke is a limited-purpose public figure for this dispute and must therefore prove by clear and convincing evidence that Kesha acted with actual malice. The court also finds that five statements are privileged and applies certain provisions of the anti-SLAPP reform to the pending case.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

Nine days after the Court of Appeals ruling and before the scheduled trial, Kesha and Dr Luke announce that they have reached a settlement ending their litigation. The financial terms are not published. Kesha says she cannot recall everything that happened on the night central to the allegations; Dr Luke repeats that he never drugged or assaulted her.

State of the evidence

Settlement

Attribution

Directly implicated

Intermediate New York courts uphold several points adverse to Kesha, including the analysis that Dr Luke was not at that stage treated as a public figure for defamation purposes and the limits on the retrospective application of anti-SLAPP reform.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

In a private message to Lady Gaga, Kesha alleges that Dr Luke also raped Katy Perry. Perry denies under oath that he raped her. In 2020, a New York judge finds that there is no evidence supporting the allegation and rules that the message is defamatory.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

In the same 2020 ruling, the judge orders Kesha to pay approximately 373 671 dollars in interest relating to royalties paid late to one of Dr Luke's companies under her contractual obligations.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

A New York judge denies Kesha's request for a preliminary injunction to release her from contractual obligations to Kemosabe/Sony during the dispute with Dr Luke, finding in particular that the required irreparable harm had not been established.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

The refusal of the injunction sparks a widespread #FreeKesha campaign and public support from numerous artists; notably, Taylor Swift gives her 250 000 dollars to help with costs and needs. The campaign transforms the contractual dispute into a debate about the power of producers and labels over artists alleging abuse.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

Judge Shirley Kornreich dismisses several of Kesha's claims based on the alleged assaults and abuse, particularly on grounds of limitation periods, the location of incidents outside New York and the legal insufficiency of certain claims as framed.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

Kesha withdraws her California action against Dr Luke without prejudice, explaining that she wants to focus her resources on the appeal and New York litigation while resuming her career. Her lawyer states that she has delivered 28 new songs to the label.

Attribution

Directly implicated

Kesha sues her producer Lukasz Gottwald, known as Dr Luke, in California, alleging sexual assaults, battery, harassment, emotional abuse and unfair business practices over several years. Gottwald denies the allegations and promptly files an action in New York for defamation and breach of contract, maintaining that the accusations are intended to secure an early release from contracts.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated