Jang Won-young’s lawsuit against Sojang shows signs of prolongation

On April 3rd, the Seoul Central District Court held the second date for argument for the lawsuit filed by Starship Entertainment against Sojang’s operator, A, seeking 100 million won in damages.

Starship Entertainment stated on January 17th, “We have been pursuing civil and criminal lawsuits against Sojang, both domestically and internationally, since November 2022. Sojang’s continuous dissemination of false information has caused severe damage to our artists’ reputation, disrupted our business, and inflicted serious pain on the artists and fans. We are doing our best to hold them legally accountable throughout the ongoing legal proceedings.”

Sojang is a prominent YouTube cyber wrecker channel known for spreading speculative rumors, personal attacks and malicious defamation related to celebrities, causing mental distress. Starship Entertainment issued a strong legal response in July 2023, and although the court rendered a partial judgment in favor of Jang Won-young without any argument, but A, through legal representation, submitted an appeal against the judgment and subsequently applied for a stay of enforcement of the lawsuit outcome.

Sojang, notorious for spreading baseless facts and malicious rumors about popular celebrities, has caused significant chaos by using celebrities as scapegoats to increase views and spreading elaborate fabrications and false information. Consequently, major public music organizations urged strict punishment for Sojang and other malicious content creators in September 2023.

Afterwards, in May 2023, Starship Entertainment received a subpoena from the US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA and recently obtained significant information about the operator of the YouTube channel “Sojang” from Google’s headquarters in the US. Through Google’s cooperation, Starship Entertainment strongly asserted their legal response against Sojang and initially achieved a favorable judgment.

During the first argument, A’s attorney claimed that the content was for public interest purposes and that they were unaware if the content contained false information.

Subsequently, the judge asked A’s attorney why there was so much evidence submitted. The attorney replied that there was a large amount of evidence (related to the videos) because A had consulted numerous sources while making the videos. Starship Entertainment’s attorney responded that they could not determine if A had genuinely referenced the evidence or simply compiled it, and they would confirm the evidence adoption at the next hearing. The judge decided to provisionally accept the evidence.

Starship Entertainment’s attorney then appealed for clarity regarding the distinction between the plaintiff’s damages and the defendant’s profits, stating that it was unclear how much of the defendant’s overall revenue was attributed to the defendant’s defamation and interference with business resulting from the videos. They argued that distinguishing between these factors would be essential, especially since A had deleted their account, making it difficult to assess the total revenue.

The judge stated that there might not be a need to calculate direct damages at this point but emphasized the importance of verifying whether the video content was false.

Additionally, Starship Entertainment’s attorney mentioned that besides this lawsuit, two other cases were ongoing. One was a criminal case that had proceeded to a formal trial, where A was the accused but with a different victim. The other case was initiated by Starship Entertainment and was pending with the Incheon District Prosecutor’s Office, with a conclusion expected soon.

The court set the next hearing for June 19th.