In the case where ADOR sued the five NewJeans members to confirm the validity of their exclusive contracts, the court cited Slack messages from the then ADOR CEO, Min Hee Jin. The ruling, dated October 30, pulled corporate chat logs into daylight, showing instructions to find material that could support lawsuits and stir negative sentiment. The judgment ultimately favored ADOR, and the ruling is now posted on LBOX for the public to read.
[Exclusive] New Evidence in NewJeans Court Case Reveals Min Hee-jin’s Shocking Slack Orders: ‘Dig Through Slack to Find XX’s Flaws’
Corporate messaging platform Slack has now been dragged into the spotlight following KakaoTalk, due to Min Hee-jin. Newly revealed KakaoTalk… pic.twitter.com/Qu7XCZxzc6
— Aespann_jeans (@a1071364) November 5, 2025
According to the ruling, Min Hee Jin told a subordinate to search for anything that could fit claims of business interference, Fair Trade issues, breaches of commercial law, or embezzlement. The court said these efforts looked like groundwork to shape the public narrative against HYBE and ADOR.
“The reasons cited by the defendants, NewJeans, for the plaintiff, ADOR’s, alleged failures appear to be the result of Min Hee Jin’s prior efforts to examine materials between HYBE, the plaintiff, and the defendants. She identified elements necessary to generate negative sentiment toward HYBE and to support litigation.”
NewJeans announces plans to appeal the court’s decision upholding the validity of their exclusive contract with ADOR.
“The members respect the court’s decision however, they maintain their position that it is impossible to return to ADOR and continue normal entertainment… pic.twitter.com/Yoipocm0If
— Pop Base (@PopBase) October 30, 2025
Legal watchers call it a boomerang risk. By hunting for alleged offenses, she may face questions about breach of duty, misuse of data, trade secrets, or defamation. Slack remains a standard workplace tool at HYBE, but on October 30, it became a legal exhibit. Meanwhile, NewJeans continues their legal battle against ADOR by appealing the court’s verdict that reaffirms the validity of their contract to the company, stopping them from exiting ADOR.
