Is Min Hee Jin to Blame for NewJeans’ Controversial Contracts? Leaked Clauses Raise Questions About Minors’ Rights as HYBE, ADOR Face Fresh Scrutiny

NewJeans‘ long-running dispute with ADOR has entered another controversial chapter after details of the K-pop group’s exclusive contracts reportedly emerged, drawing attention to clauses that legal experts have described as unusually aggressive.

The agreements, signed when the members were between 14 and 17 years old, have raised fresh questions about how much protection young performers receive when entering South Korea’s highly competitive entertainment industry.

According to a report published by The New York Times, the contracts signed by Hanni, Minji, Haerin, Hyein, and former member Danielle contained provisions concerning the use of their identities, restrictions on public statements, cosmetic procedure expenses, and the treatment of minors. The documents reportedly omitted several protections included in South Korea’s standard government contract template for young entertainers.

The revelations have renewed scrutiny of HYBE and its subsidiary ADOR, particularly as the dispute with NewJeans continues to affect the group’s future. Beyond the disagreements over management and contracts, the reported clauses have brought a broader issue into focus: whether teenage artists and their guardians have enough information, protection, and negotiating power when signing agreements that can shape their careers for years.

Missing Protections for Underage K-Pop Artists

One of the most concerning aspects of the reported contracts is the absence of provisions relating to the health, education, sleep, and rest of young performers. South Korea’s standard contract template includes these safeguards for minors, but the NewJeans agreements reportedly left them out.

People close to the group told The New York Times that the members regularly attended rehearsals that continued until 2 am. Cameras were also reportedly used to monitor training areas, while four of the five members dropped out of school during their training period.

These details have added another dimension to the discussion surrounding the treatment of young K-pop trainees. The industry is known for demanding training schedules, extensive performance preparation, and intense public scrutiny. However, the reported experiences of the NewJeans members have prompted questions about where professional expectations end and the responsibility to protect underage performers begins.

HYBE responded by arguing that the government contract template is a guideline rather than a legally binding requirement. The company also stated that it follows child protection laws.

The distinction between a recommended template and legally enforceable protections is central to the debate. Even if companies are not legally required to adopt every provision in the standard agreement, the absence of safeguards for teenagers can still raise concerns about the balance of power between entertainment agencies and young artists.

Post-Contract Rights and AI Use Raise Further Concerns

Another provision attracting attention concerns ADOR’s reported rights to use and license the members’ names, images, and voices even after their exclusive contracts end.

The agreements are scheduled to remain in effect until 2029. However, according to the report, the relevant clauses would allow ADOR to continue licensing the members’ identities beyond that period. The reported scope also includes AI-generated voice clones and chatbots.

Although the members would receive payment for such usage, the contracts reportedly did not give them control over where or how their faces and voices could appear.

This provision has raised questions that extend beyond the immediate NewJeans dispute. As artificial intelligence makes it increasingly possible to reproduce a person’s voice and likeness digitally, questions about consent, ownership, and the commercial use of an artist’s identity have become more significant.

Legal experts who reviewed the documents reportedly questioned whether the clause would withstand a legal challenge. Its inclusion in agreements signed by teenagers has nevertheless become a major point of concern.

The issue is particularly sensitive because an artist’s voice and image are closely connected to their public identity. The possibility of an agency retaining broad licensing rights after an artist’s contract ends could have consequences long after the original professional relationship has concluded.

Broad Restrictions and Cosmetic Procedure Costs Under Scrutiny

The contracts also reportedly contained restrictions on public statements that could damage the company’s reputation, regardless of whether those statements were true or false.

Other prohibited conduct included “insincere attitudes,” “neglect of self-management,” and “inappropriate romantic relationships.” Critics have questioned the breadth of such language, arguing that vague definitions could give an entertainment company considerable discretion when deciding whether a member has violated an agreement.

Another controversial provision reportedly required the members to repay a significant portion of the expenses incurred by the company for cosmetic procedures, including plastic surgery, skin treatments, and body correction during training.

Two sources told The New York Times that photographers took pictures of the members from multiple angles before their debut to examine how stage lighting affected their facial features. The company reportedly suggested procedures to several members after reviewing the photographs.

HYBE denied recommending surgery against anyone’s wishes.

The issue has intensified discussions about appearance-related expectations in the K-pop industry, particularly when trainees are still minors. Questions about who makes decisions concerning a young performer’s appearance, who pays for the procedures, and whether those expenses should become the artist’s financial responsibility have become part of the wider controversy.

Emails Reveal Limited Room for Parents to Negotiate

The involvement of parents and guardians is another important part of the reported findings.

Emails obtained by The New York Times reportedly show that, in January 2022, the mother of one member requested changes to the contract before signing it. An ADOR vice president responded that if the family did not agree with the existing draft, “it may be best to reconsider the contract itself.”

Ultimately, every guardian signed the agreements.

The exchange has raised questions about how much negotiating power families actually had when dealing with a major entertainment company. Parents are expected to protect their children’s interests, but that responsibility can become difficult when they are presented with complex legal documents and limited alternatives.

The reported correspondence also adds context to the criticism surrounding the contracts. If families felt they had little room to request changes, the issue goes beyond the wording of individual clauses and raises broader concerns about the circumstances in which the agreements were signed.

Why Both HYBE and Min Hee Jin Are Facing Questions?

Although HYBE has faced much of the criticism, former ADOR CEO Min Hee Jin has also become part of the discussion. She was leading the subsidiary when the contracts were signed, and some fans have questioned her role in overseeing the agreements.

One user wrote, “Did they not sign this with Min Heejin? Specifically ADOR, who was Min Heejin’s at the time? Who did NewJeans defend until they went back to ADOR?”

The reaction reflects an uncomfortable contradiction for some supporters. Min Hee Jin was the executive whom the members publicly defended during their dispute with HYBE. The reported contract provisions have now prompted questions about the agreements signed under her leadership.

However, the responsibility may not rest with ADOR’s former CEO alone. According to an investigation by Kyunghyang Shinmun, the NewJeans contracts were drafted by HYBE’s legal team rather than independently prepared by ADOR.

Fans have also pointed to HYBE’s centralized legal management system, which reportedly handles contract drafting and review across its subsidiary labels. If that account is accurate, the parent company’s legal department played a significant role in preparing the agreements.

This distinction matters when examining accountability. Min Hee Jin was the CEO overseeing ADOR at the time, but the reported involvement of HYBE’s legal team raises questions about the responsibilities of both the subsidiary and its parent company.

NewJeans’ Contract Dispute Leaves the Group’s Future Uncertain

The revelations arrive against the backdrop of a prolonged dispute between NewJeans and ADOR.

In November 2024, all five members announced that they were leaving the agency, citing mistreatment and the removal of Min Hee Jin. ADOR subsequently filed a lawsuit, and in October 2025, a court ruled that the exclusive contracts remained valid until 2029.

Haerin, Hyein, and Hanni later returned to ADOR. Discussions regarding Minji’s return were still ongoing, although she appeared in the group’s fourth-anniversary content in July 2026.

Danielle, however, did not return. In December 2025, ADOR terminated her contract and filed a lawsuit against her, her mother, and Min Hee Jin, seeking approximately $22 million in penalties and damages. Danielle’s legal team described the lawsuit as retaliation and filed a complaint with South Korea’s antitrust authority. ADOR maintains that its claim is legitimate.

The four remaining members surprised fans with an anniversary video in July 2026, prompting speculation about a possible return to group activities. Nevertheless, the absence of Danielle has continued to fuel discussions about the group’s identity and future.

One sentiment repeatedly expressed by fans is, “NewJeans is five, not four.”

ADOR has said that future plans will be announced once discussions with the members are complete.

Contract Controversy Extends Beyond One K-Pop Group

The reported documents have made the NewJeans dispute about more than a disagreement between artists and their agency. Their contents have brought attention to the responsibilities of entertainment companies when signing young performers, the influence parents can realistically exercise during negotiations, and the extent of control artists should retain over their identities after leaving an agency.

HYBE has defended its approach by pointing to the non-binding nature of the government template and its compliance with child protection laws. However, the questions surrounding the reported clauses are unlikely to disappear simply because the contracts remain legally enforceable until 2029.