Beyond the Feud: Min Hee Jin's Testimony Exposes the Cracks in K-Pop's 'Multi-Label' Empire

The Lede: More Than a Lawsuit, A Stress Test for a Titan

This is not just another K-Pop feud. Former ADOR CEO Min Hee Jin’s court testimony in her $17.6 million lawsuit against HYBE is a critical stress test for the foundational business model of the world's most dominant K-Pop agency. For executives and investors, this clash transcends celebrity drama; it's a high-stakes battle over creative integrity, intellectual property (IP) cannibalization, and the viability of HYBE's much-lauded 'multi-label' system. Min Hee Jin's core argument—that she had to publicly decry plagiarism to protect her creation, NewJeans—forces a difficult question: can a creative empire scale without eating itself alive?

Why It Matters: The Ripple Effects of a Civil War

The conflict between ADOR's creator and its parent company, HYBE, creates significant second-order effects that will reverberate through the industry:

• The Threat of IP Cannibalization: Min's accusation that HYBE-backed group ILLIT copied NewJeans’ formula strikes at the heart of the portfolio strategy. If a parent company is perceived to be replicating successful IP from one subsidiary for another, it erodes the unique value proposition of each artist, confusing the market and diluting fan loyalty.
• The Future of Creator Talent: K-Pop's success relies on visionary producers like Min Hee Jin. This public, acrimonious battle sends a chilling message to top-tier creative talent. It raises doubts about whether true creative autonomy is possible within a major corporate structure, potentially pushing the next generation of hitmakers toward full independence.
• Eroding Investor Confidence: HYBE’s stock has been sensitive to this internal conflict. The ongoing legal drama highlights significant governance risks and operational friction in its multi-label system. What was once seen as a brilliant diversification strategy now appears to be a source of internal competition and potential brand damage.

The Analysis: The Paradox of the Multi-Label Promise

HYBE's strategy was to acquire and incubate a portfolio of independent labels—like Pledis (SEVENTEEN), Source Music (LE SSERAFIM), and Min Hee Jin's own ADOR—to foster diverse creative output under one powerful corporate umbrella. The promise was simple: the creative freedom of an indie label with the financial and logistical might of a giant.

Min Hee Jin’s testimony systematically dismantles this utopian vision. She portrays a reality where the parent company, far from being a neutral facilitator, becomes an active antagonist. Her claim that Chairman Bang Si Hyuk "squeezed everything he could out of us" from the beginning paints a picture of extractive, not collaborative, oversight. The plagiarism allegation against a sister label, ILLIT, is the ultimate manifestation of this conflict. It suggests that when faced with the need for a new hit, the system defaulted to replicating a proven success rather than innovating.

By framing her actions as a defense of NewJeans—stating, "the harm goes directly to NewJeans. Protecting them is what a CEO should do"—Min masterfully repositions herself. She is no longer just a disgruntled executive fighting over a contract; she is the creative guardian, the "mother" of the group, fighting a soulless corporation. This narrative is incredibly potent, resonating deeply with a fandom culture built on emotional connection and artist authenticity.

PRISM Insight: The Scalability vs. Authenticity Dilemma

This conflict reveals the core tension in the modern entertainment business: the push for scalability versus the demand for authenticity. The K-Pop machine is designed to be replicable. HYBE's multi-label system was supposed to be the solution to this, allowing multiple, distinct 'authenticity engines' to run in parallel.

The ADOR-HYBE fight suggests a flaw in the code. At a certain scale, the pressure for predictable returns can overwhelm the mandate for unique creation. The system begins to copy its own most successful outputs, treating creativity as a formula to be reverse-engineered rather than a vision to be nurtured. This is a classic innovator's dilemma, mirroring trends seen in the wider creator economy where top talent often breaks from large platforms or networks to protect their unique brand from dilution.

PRISM's Take: A Reckoning for the K-Pop Factory Model

Regardless of the legal verdict on Min Hee Jin's put option, she has already won a significant victory in the court of public opinion and industry perception. She has successfully reframed this dispute from a corporate power struggle into a referendum on creative integrity within the K-Pop industry.

The real damage to HYBE is not the potential $17.6 million payout, but the blow to its brand as a haven for creative geniuses. Min Hee Jin has exposed the inherent paradox of its empire: you cannot promise radical creative freedom and simultaneously enforce a centralized, formulaic path to success without expecting a rebellion. HYBE now faces the monumental task of proving that its multi-label system is a genuine ecosystem for unique artistry, not just an assembly line for increasingly similar products. The future of its creative dominance depends on it.