[Analysis] 2025-03-07 ADOR distorted the KKT chat conversation

This is an analysis of how ADOR distorted the 2024-06-02 Kakao Talk Chat Between Hanni and Min Hee-Jin.

ADOR has deliberately distorted the meaning, sequence, and context of the KKT chat messages exchanged between Hanni and Min Hee-jin (MHJ). In their presentations to the court and the media, ADOR selectively quoted and decontextualised the conversation in an attempt to discredit Hanni’s account and falsely suggest that MHJ manipulated her statements or exaggerated the incident for legal or strategic purposes.

Yet, even ADOR’s own selectively edited screenshots reveal that Hanni consistently and independently described the incident in question of her own accord—long before any commentary or questioning from MHJ. She reported genuine discomfort but still strived to be compassionate and give the benefit of the doubt to the offending parties. In response, ADOR twisted her words and intentions in an apparent attempt to protect their corporate interests at the expense of both truth and employee well-being.

1. ADOR downplayed Hanni’s certainty about what she heard

From the outset, Hanni was clear: she overheard an ILLIT manager instructing members to ignore her. Her only uncertainty pertained to the exact phrasing of the instruction in Korean—not the content, tone, or intent of what was said.

ADOR’s attempt to manufacture ambiguity relies on isolating specific phrases and removing them from their surrounding context.

1.1. Hanni’s account was clear, independent, and without outside influence

Hanni’s first-hand recollection unambiguously described hearing the ILLIT manager say something to the effect of ignoring her. This report came before any input or suggestion from MHJ.

“Those four came out of the styling room again, and I heard the door open, followed by their manager” (message #6)
“saying, Just pretend you don't know her and walk past.” (message #7)

These messages clearly demonstrate that the origin of the “ignore her” narrative lies with Hanni herself. She initiated the conversation, described the sequence of events with great detail without external prompting.

1.2. Hanni was certain of the manager’s message

Despite ADOR’s attempt to sow doubt, the chat log makes it evident that Hanni was clear and consistent in what she experienced.

1.2.1 Hanni understood the meaning of the managers’ words

Throughout the chat, Hanni consistently reaffirmed that she heard the manager instruct ILLIT members to ignore her.

“Just pretend you don’t know her and walk past.” (Message #7)

The only area where she expressed any doubt was in recalling the precise Korean wording, which is a reasonable and natural uncertainty for a non-native speaker. At no point did she question what she heard—only whether her memory of the wording was exact.

“I can't remember if those were the exact words, but it was something like that.” (Message #8)

As a non-native Korean speaker, it is entirely reasonable that she may not recall the precise expression. However, she made it clear that she understood the general message, which was a directive to ignore her. ADOR distorted her statement by highlighting only the first half (“I can't remember...”) while omitting the second half (“...but it was something like that”), which reaffirms her understanding.

1.2.2. The ILLIT Members’ behaviours validated her interpretation

Hanni’s interpretation of the manager’s words was further confirmed by the actions of the ILLIT members and their manager immediately after the instruction. She described their behaviour in detail.

“So when they passed by, the manager completely avoided looking at me, and one member just looked towards the manager while saying something like "Yes yes...I'll just pretend I don't know her"” (message #9)

This clearly corroborates her understanding. The group’s behaviour was consistent with someone following an instruction to ignore another person. It is highly unlikely that multiple members and their manager would coincidentally act in this way unless such a directive had been given.

1.2.3. Hanni consistently reaffirmed her experience throughout the conversation

Throughout the rest of the conversation, Hanni consistently reiterated her version of events. She never once indicated that she doubted what she had heard. Instead, she repeatedly emphasised that the manager’s words were what most troubled her:

“That the manager said those words…” (Message #17)

“Yes... That’s what they said as they were coming out after I heard the door open.” (Message #24)

These statements reinforce that Hanni was not confused or uncertain about the event itself—only about reproducing the manager’s exact phrasing. Her emotional response was consistent and rooted in the clear message that she had been deliberately excluded.

1.3. ADOR manufactured doubt using a misleading interpretation

Hanni’s “I’m not sure” (Message #14) was specifically in response to whether the manager’s instruction was about her greeting, not the whole incident.

“I'm not sure.” (message #14) – in reply to “Was the manager telling them not to accept your greeting?” (message #11)

This reply was clearly about whether the instruction specifically targeted a greeting, not about whether the incident happened.

ADOR misrepresented this uncertainty by implying Hanni was unsure about the entire incident. By isolating the “I’m not sure” statement and removing crucial context, they created a false impression that Hanni doubted the whole situation.

The full context (Messages #6–7, #9, #13, #17, #24) reveals that Hanni consistently reported the event with confidence, with her only uncertainty being the exact wording related to the greeting, not the incident itself.

2. ADOR’s false claim that MHJ introduced the “Ignore Her” narrative

ADOR distorted the context of the KKT conversation between Hanni and MHJ through selective interpretation and misleading visual framing. Contrary to ADOR’s suggestions, MHJ was responding to Hanni’s account and seeking clarification; she did not manipulate or escalate the situation.

2.1. Hanni was the first to mention the “Ignore Her” narrative

The narrative that an ILLIT manager told members to ignore Hanni came directly from Hanni herself. She independently reported overhearing the instruction, without prompting from MHJ:

“Just pretend you don't know her and walk past.” (Message #7)

Despite this, ADOR falsely claimed that MHJ introduced the “ignore her” narrative and that Hanni’s account was influenced or coached. This is demonstrably false. Hanni made this statement early in the conversation, before MHJ had said anything similar.

When MHJ later used the phrase “Ignore her” in a follow-up message, it was clearly part of a clarifying exchange:

“Ignore her” (Message #18)

“This?” (Message #19)

MHJ was reflecting Hanni’s words back to her, not introducing anything new. The timeline of the conversation makes it clear that the “ignore her” phrase originated with Hanni’s experience—not with MHJ.

2.2. ADOR’s visual framing and wordplay were misleading

Throughout the conversation, MHJ simply paraphrased Hanni’s words back to her later in the conversation as a way to confirm what she had heard and understood without introducing any new narratives.

However, to create a false narrative, ADOR employed misleading visual materials in their court and media presentations. They used red boxes and arrows to visually link MHJ’s later paraphrase—

“Ignore her”
“This?” (Messages #18–19)

—back to Hanni’s original statement:

“Just pretend you don’t know her and walk past.” (Message #7)

This framing was designed to imply that MHJ introduced the “ignore her” idea when, in reality, she was referencing what Hanni had already stated. Crucially, MHJ’s paraphrase followed Hanni’s clear identification of the part of the incident that she is the most certain about:

“That the manager said those words…” (Message #17, in response to “What’s the part you’re most certain about?”)

ADOR’s omission of this context distorted the nature of the exchange. It also attempted to exaggerate the difference between “just pretend you don’t know her” and “ignore her,” as if MHJ had altered the meaning. But both phrases communicate the same intent: to deliberately dismiss or avoid someone. MHJ’s use of the phrase was a natural, shorthand reflection—not an exaggeration or manipulation.

2.3. MHJ’s questions were clarifying, not leading

Throughout the conversation, MHJ’s questions were genuine efforts to understand what Hanni had experienced and to offer support.

1. She asked a neutral, open-ended question to allow Hanni to identify what she is the most certain about from her memory:

“What’s the part you’re most certain about?” (preceding message #17)

2. In response, Hanni clearly and independently identified the manager’s words as the most upsetting part:

“That the manager said those words…” (Message #17)

3. MHJ then reflected this back to ensure she had understood correctly:

“Ignore her” (Messages #18)
“This?” (Messages #19)

4. Hanni confirmed this interpretation and expressed her discomfort again, emphasising that the manager’s comment was what left the strongest impression:

“Well… there’s really no need for us to be like this with each other.” (Message #20)
“Personally, it felt weird when the manager said something like that.” (Message #21)

These were not leading questions. MHJ’s messages show a responsible, empathetic attempt to understand what Hanni found most troubling. At every step, Hanni spoke for herself, expressing her experience clearly and without pressure.

ADOR’s portrayal of these clarifying questions as manipulative is not only inaccurate—it erases Hanni’s agency and misrepresents the conversation’s actual tone and flow.

3. ADOR twisted Hanni’s compassion and emotional restraint into indifference

When faced with clear exclusion and hostility, Hanni responded with emotional intelligence. She expressed discomfort but made a conscious effort to set aside her own feelings to de-escalate the situation and show empathy. Despite the hurt she felt, she attempted to regulate her emotions and reassure others—an act of considerable maturity for someone in such a vulnerable position.

Rather than acknowledging this, ADOR deliberately distorted her words. They reframed her compassion and emotional restraint as signs that she was unaffected. And frame the bullying she experienced as acceptable.

3.1. Hanni clearly expressed discomfort from the start

From the outset, Hanni made it clear that the incident upset her. She immediately described feelings of discomfort and confusion:

“Well... there's really no need for us to be like this with each other.” (Message #20)
“Personally, it felt weird when the manager said something like that.” (Message #21)

These were spontaneous, unfiltered reactions that communicated her sense of exclusion and unease. They directly contradict ADOR’s narrative that Hanni was unaffected.

3.2. Hanni downplayed her emotions to protect herself and others

After expressing her hurt, Hanni began to downplay her emotions—not out of indifference, but as a way to protect herself emotionally, to de-escalate the situation, and to reassure MHJ.

“So rather than feeling bad, it was honestly... kind of funny.” (Message #27)
“I really don’t care about them at all.” (Message #29)
“So if you’re worried about that, don’t be!” (Message #30)

However, ADOR ignored all of this context. They selectively quoted these remarks to fabricate a misleading story—that Hanni was unaffected or dismissive of the incident. In doing so, they weaponized her emotional maturity against her.

This manipulation served multiple purposes:

• To invalidate her experience, suggesting she wasn’t truly hurt.

• To minimise the severity of the exclusion and bullying she described.

• To discredit her emotional response, presenting her restraint as cold detachment.

Hanni’s behaviour reflected strength, not indifference. Her compassion was not a weakness to be exploited—it was something that deserved protection and acknowledgment.

3.2.1. “Funny” meant absurd, not amusing

Hanni’s remark that the situation was “kind of funny” was clearly sarcastic—not an expression of amusement, but a reflection of how absurd and childish the manager’s behaviour was:

“So rather than feeling bad, it was honestly... kind of funny.” (Message #27)
“It just made me think once again, ‘Ah, we’re really working with such great people.’” (Message #28)

ADOR deliberately misrepresented this comment to suggest that Hanni found the situation trivial. But no reasonable interpretation supports that conclusion. The word funny in this context aligns with definitions like “strange, surprising, or difficult to explain,” as noted in the Cambridge Dictionary. Hanni was highlighting the bizarre and surreal experience of being ostracized—not laughing at it.

Her dry, sarcastic tone—especially in Message #28—makes it clear that she found the behavior absurd and disappointing, not amusing.

3.2.2. Distancing from the bullies ≠ accepting the bullying

Hanni told MHJ that she doesn’t care about her bullies—and that’s entirely valid. No one should expect a bullying victim to maintain emotional attachment to the people who mistreated them.

“I really don’t care about them at all.” (Message #29)

ADOR used this statement to suggest that she didn’t care about the bullying itself. This is a gross misrepresentation. In reality, Hanni was setting an emotional boundary—a protective mechanism to minimise the power that her bullies could continue to have over her.

Distancing oneself from those who cause harm is not the same as excusing their behavior. Her detachment was an act of self-preservation, not indifference to the bullying she experienced.

3.2.3. Hanni tried to reassure MHJ and de-escalate

Throughout the conversation, Hanni’s instinct was not to center herself or amplify the hurt she experienced, but to shield others from being negatively affected by her own experience.

“So if you’re worried about that, don’t be!” (Message #30)

Her comments about “not caring” and the situation being “funny” were clearly meant to reduce tension and ease MHJ’s concerns—not to suggest that what happened was acceptable. Hanni was trying to move forward with dignity and avoid further conflict.

Instead of recognising this, ADOR used her restraint and empathy as evidence against her. They treated emotional maturity as if it were apathy—twisting her attempts to de-escalate into a false narrative of indifference.

4 Hanni’s main concern was always about the manager, not ILLIT

Throughout the conversation, Hanni consistently identified the manager’s behaviour as the central issue. While she experienced exclusion and emotional discomfort, she showed empathy toward the ILLIT members, deliberately avoiding accusations against them.

Even when she later chose to share the incident publicly, Hanni made it clear that the ILLIT members greeted her initially and never accused them of any wrongdoing. She handled the situation with maturity, making sure not to assign blame where it wasn’t warranted. Her consistent message is clear: the focus was not on the ILLIT members' actions, but on the manager's conduct.

However, ADOR tried to shift the focus toward the ILLIT members, contrary to Hanni’s intentions. This was a deliberate attempt to distort the issue. By centring attention on the ILLIT members’ behaviour, ADOR achieved three things:

1. They reframed a clear case of managerial misconduct into a muddled interpersonal misunderstanding between peers.

2. They victimise the ILLIT members as victims, and reframe Hanni as the aggressor accusing them of wrongdoing.

3. They weaponised the ILLIT fandom to continue harassing and defaming Hanni into silence.

4.1 Hanni repeatedly stated her primary concern was the manager’s actions

Hanni made it unequivocally clear that her primary concern was the manager’s actions, not the behaviour of the ILLIT members. 

“Personally, it felt weird when the manager said something like that.” (Message #21)

Her focus remained squarely on the power dynamics at play—where a manager was giving exclusionary instructions to junior idols. Hanni did not dwell on the ILLIT members’ reactions; she clearly understood that the real issue lay with the manager.

4.2 Hanni gave the benefit of the doubt to the ILLIT members—not the manager

Even when mistreated, Hanni extended empathy toward the ILLIT members involved. She went out of her way to contextualise their behaviour and avoid blaming them.

“See, I totally understand why the girls would be uncomfortable and awkward when they see us, because there's been so much rivalry between our teams in the media and inside the company, so I fully get that.” (Message #26)

This generous interpretation of the situation likely reflects Hanni’s desire to de-escalate, avoid unnecessary conflict, and protect others. However, this compassion did not extend to the manager. Hanni’s earlier messages show she was disturbed and hurt by the manager’s directive to "pretend not to know her," finding the manager’s behaviour absurd and unnecessary.

“Well… there’s really no need for us to be like this with each other.” (Message #20)
“Personally, it felt weird when the manager said something like that.” (Message #21)

While she showed understanding toward the idols—who may have felt pressure to follow instructions—Hanni never excused or minimised the manager’s deliberate and inappropriate actions.

4.3. ADOR misconstrued MHJ’s natural follow-up questions

During the conversation, MHJ reasonably asked some clarifying questions to better understand what had happened:

“Then everyone ignored you?” (Message #23)
“Did all the ILLIT members ignore you?” (Message #25)

These were natural follow-up questions, not accusations. Crucially, ADOR omitted Hanni’s responses to these questions. While her direct responses are not visible, other messages indicate she continued to shift the focus back to the manager, signalling that she was not blaming the ILLIT members.

By selectively presenting only MHJ’s questions, ADOR created a misleading narrative, falsely implying that Hanni was accusing her peers of intentionally ignoring her. But that was never Hanni’s stance.

4.4. ADOR published an ILLIT member’s behaviour to shift blame

In their materials, ADOR also published a quote that MHDHH’s side had redacted, likely to protect an ILLIT member.

“One member just looked towards the manager while saying something like, ‘Yes, yes... I’ll just pretend I don’t know her.’” (Message #9)

This line was originally shared in a private context and later withheld by Hanni’s side, demonstrating her clear effort to ensure the blame did not fall on the ILLIT members.

ADOR, on the other hand, disregarded this caution. By publishing this quote while ignoring Hanni’s later, repeated attempts to shift focus away from the ILLIT members, ADOR reframed the situation as one of peer-driven exclusion, rather than a clear instance of manager-initiated misconduct.

This move not only undermined Hanni’s attempt to protect the ILLIT members but also exposed them to the public—ironically from the very company (and parent company HYBE) that claims to support and protect them. ADOR’s choice signals a lack of genuine concern for the ILLIT members’ well-being, using them as a deflection shield while letting the manager—the actual authority figure responsible—escape scrutiny.

5. ADOR ignored the retaliation Hanni faced

ADOR dismissed the incident as too minor to justify contract termination, citing Hanni’s comments in the KakaoTalk chat, which they claim suggest she wasn’t severely negatively affected.

However, this is a selective and misleading interpretation that ignores the far more serious aftermath. The real basis for seeking termination lies not in that single moment, but in the prolonged pattern of retaliation and harm that followed.

After the KakaoTalk conversation:

1. Hanni reported the incident to HR – She followed proper protocol and raised her concerns through the appropriate internal channels.

2. She was dismissed by the company – Rather than receiving support, she was made to feel as though she had overreacted or misinterpreted the situation, effectively gaslighting her and minimising her experience.

3. Key evidence was tampered with or deleted during a compromised investigation – This strongly suggests the company had no genuine intention of addressing the issue or preventing further bullying.

4. MHJ, who supported her, was removed from her leadership role – Following MHJ’s removal, ADOR withdrew all support for Hanni regarding the incident, leaving her—and the rest of NewJeans—completely isolated within the company.

5. Hanni and NewJeans faced increasing hostility – This hostility came from ADOR, HYBE, and its sub-labels, as well as from fandoms affiliated with other company-backed artists, creating a toxic environment both internally and online.

6. The retaliation continued for several months – This was not an isolated conflict, but a sustained campaign of institutional gaslighting, professional retaliation, and psychological pressure.

It’s important to note: Hanni and NewJeans did not seek contract termination immediately after. It is important to emphasise: Hanni and NewJeans did not seek contract termination immediately after the “ignore her” comment. That incident was only the beginning. What followed was a sustained period of mistreatment and betrayal that irreparably damaged the group’s trust in ADOR’s leadership.

While the “ignore her” remark alone may not have constituted legal grounds for termination, the months of retaliation, emotional harm, and breach of duty of care that followed clearly did.