In 2014, world-renowned pop star Kesha, filed a lawsuit against her producer, Dr. Luke, claiming he had drugged, assaulted and raped her for 10 years. After two years of intense, legal handlings, Kesha was denied a preliminary injunction, which would release her from Dr. Luke and grant her rights to produce her own music. Sony, the record label, attempted to pacify the situation by offering to provide a new producer to Kesha, but it is widely understood that without Dr. Luke, her music is likely to be less popular and prosperous.
Dr. Luke allegedly invested more than $60 million into Kesha's career, giving him large levels of leverage in the courtroom. After hearing the details of the case, New York Supreme Court Justice Shirley Kornreich said, "My instinct is to do the commercially reasonable thing." Dr. Luke is a huge proponent in the profit margins of Sony record labels. Mark Geragos contended that Sony is more interested in protecting Dr. Luke than Kesha on the basic notion of "who makes more money." Ultimately, by releasing Kesha from her contract, state law would be nullified, money would be lost and the integrity of contract would be questioned.
As objective as the decision was, it left fans, musicians and legal representatives confused and angered. Although Kesha's medical evidence was lacking, her testimony of the abuse was quite compelling. This entire case leaves the onlooker to question when humanity is allowed to enter the courtroom and dollar signs are dismissed. It serves as a signal. Even high visibility cases lack normativity. Perhaps, it's time to overhaul the justice system.
