"Ignore Her" Incident

In response, HYBE, Belift Lab, and the new ADOR management have denied or downplayed the incident, tampered with evidence, and tried to defame Hanni using false claims and manipulated materials.

The incident shows that NewJeans is being treated unfairly within HYBE and is not being properly protected.

2024-05-27: Hanni faced workplace bullying from the Belift Lab Manager

After completing her styling, Hanni was waiting in the fourth-floor hallway near the shared hair and makeup area. Multiple artists share this area under HYBE.

As she waited, she encountered three ILLIT members and their managers twice. The first encounter occurred when they arrived at the floor from the elevator, and the second encounter occurred 5-10 minutes later when they were leaving through the same spot.

Entering Encounter:

Hanni greeted three ILLIT members and their manager as they arrived on the floor.
Hanni stated that ILLIT members returned her greeting; this was confirmed by CCTV footage provided by Belift Lab.
However, the footage also showed the manager walking past Hanni and Danielle without acknowledging them, contrasting with ADOR staff bowing respectfully to ILLIT.

“The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where we get our hair and makeup done, so a lot of other artists and staff come and go there. One day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and some staff from another team passed by. We greeted each other.” - Hanni (2024-09-11 NewJeans Emergency Livestream)

Exiting Encounter:

Approximately 5–10 minutes later, as ILLIT members exited, Hanni overheard their manager instructing them to ignore her, loud enough for her to hear.
This interaction was excluded from the CCTV footage provided by Belift Lab.

“But when they came back out a bit later, I heard one of their managers say, 'Ignore her,' right in front of me. I could hear and see everything clearly. Even now, I still don’t understand why I had to go through that.” - Hanni (2024-09-11 NewJeans Emergency Livestream)

2024-06-01: Hanni reported the incident to Min Hee-Jin

2024-06-01 Kakao Talk Chat Between Hanni and Min Hee-Jin

Hanni privately reported the incident to ADOR CEO Min Hee-Jin on Kakao Talk.

These private chats would be revealed to the public without consent by ADOR on 2024-03-07.

2024-06-13: Incident officially reported to ADOR and HYBE HR

NewJeans' parents formally reported the incident to ADOR management and subsequently HYBE HR, requesting an investigation.

2024-06-19: First meeting

A meeting was held between NewJeans' parents, ADOR representatives, and Belift Lab.

Hanni and ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin could not attend due to scheduled activities in Japan.

HYBE presented its investigation results, claiming no problematic behaviours were observed in the footage, but the actual footage was not shown during this meeting.

2024-06-25: End of CCTV retention period

HYBE claimed that footage had been automatically deleted due to technical limitations after its standard 30-day retention period expired.

NewJeans’ parents later criticised HYBE for failing to preserve critical evidence despite being notified well within the retention period.

On the same day, NewJeans’ parents emailed HYBE to follow up on the incident with no avail.

2024-07-10, 2024-07-20: Follow-up attempts from parents

NewJeans' parents repeatedly emailed HYBE expressing frustration over the lack of progress in resolving the issue. These follow-ups would continue to September.

“I reviewed the emails we sent, and from June 13th to June 25th, July 10th, July 20th, and even through September, we have been communicating and requesting via email almost every week.” - NewJeans’ parents (2024-10-09 NewJeans Parents Interview with Ilgan Sports)

2024-08-14: Second meeting

Hanni reviewed CCTV footage for the first time during this meeting with a manager, immediately after her activities in Japan concluded.

“Hanni was extremely busy preparing for the Tokyo Dome fan concert and Japanese activities at the time. “Once the activities in Japan wrapped up, she went to check the footage.” - NewJeans’ parents (2024-10-09 NewJeans Parents Interview with Ilgan Sports)

Belift Lab presented an 8-second clip showing ILLIT members bowing during their entering encounter with Danielle and an ADOR manager present. No footage of the exiting encounter—when the incident actually happened—was shown.

“When I first reported the issue, they said there was no evidence, but they mentioned that there was CCTV footage. However, they said it only showed the greeting scene. I couldn’t understand why they only had footage of the greeting when I had explained the entire situation. I told them I wanted to see the footage myself, and I did. It was only an 8-second clip showing the greeting, and the footage from 5-10 minutes later was missing.” - Hanni (2024-10-15 National Assembly Audit: Environment and Labor Committee)

A security personnel admitted additional footage existed which shows the exiting encounter without greeting, but claimed it had been deleted because it was deemed “unnecessary”.

The security guard was reportedly nervous and avoided eye contact with Hanni during this conversation. Hanni recorded this interaction.

“During the meeting, only two people—the head of CCTV protection and the head of security—were present. I kept asking why the later footage was missing because I had clearly explained the situation. Throughout the meeting, their explanation kept changing, and they even accidentally admitted that the footage had been deleted. I became anxious because, as a foreigner, even though I try my best to understand Korean, I can never be 100% sure I’ve grasped everything. So I recorded the meeting to make sure I didn’t miss anything important. I have evidence of them lying.” - Hanni (2024-10-15 National Assembly Audit: Environment and Labor Committee)

“A security guard told her, “There’s a scene where you greet the person as they enter and another where you pass them without greeting again. We didn’t keep the latter scene because we thought greeting once was enough.” The guard reportedly couldn’t make eye contact with Hanni while explaining this, and appeared nervous.” - NewJeans’ parents (2024-10-09 NewJeans Parents Interview with Ilgan Sports)

2024-08-27: ADOR management changes

Min Hee-jin, ADOR's founding CEO and an advocate for Hanni, was removed from her position and replaced by Kim Joo-young, HYBE Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO).

Min protested this decision as a violation of her shareholder agreement, guaranteeing a five-year term as CEO.

Following this change, ADOR ceased support for Hanni and began supporting Belift Lab’s narrative.

2024-09-11: NewJeans Emergency Livestream

2024-09-11 NewJeans Emergency Livestream

NewJeans held an unsanctioned livestream where they publicly revealed their mistreatment under HYBE management.

Hanni recounted her experience with workplace harassment stemming from the “Ignore Her” incident, but did not identify ILLIT or any specific group involved.

Her primary concern was addressing systemic bullying from other sub-labels under HYBE and expressing frustration over ADOR’s new management siding with Belift Lab against her.

“When I saw that [ADOR CEO Kim Joo-yong] was trying to move on from that matter, I realised that the person who protected us is gone. I realised that we have no higher-ups that care about us anymore. I told her honestly but she made me feel like a liar.” - Hanni

2024-09-12: Identification of ILLIT by HYBE

HYBE responded to the 2024-09-11 NewJeans Emergency Livestream through the media outlet Hankook Kyungjae.

1. HYBE claimed that no problematic behaviours were found in CCTV footage

HYBE confirmed Hanni’s account that she and ILLIT members greeted each other in the entering encounter and were captured in the footage, and denied that anything else was found in the 7-8 minutes of the CCTV footage.

“HYBE’s side showed that as a result of checking the CCTV for 7 to 8 minutes where the situation was captured at that time, the scene of Hanni and the members of ILLIT greeting each other was captured, and the possibility of the problem was not found, such as the manager making a statement on the problem.”

While they claimed that they had 7-8 minutes of CCTV footage, they would later claim that the CCTV footage had expired/deleted, and then only provide 8 seconds of it to the court and public.

2. HYBE unnecessarily implicated ILLIT as the group involved in the controversy

This is the first time ILLIT was identified as the group involved towards the public since Hanni made the effort to conceal the identity of the group in the livestream.

2024-09-13: Fan report to the Ministry of Employment and Labor

Sports Chosun Article; Korea JoongAng Daily Article; Maeil Business Newspaper Article

An anonymous fan submitted the complaint through South Korea’s People’s e-Office and the Seoul Western Employment and Labor Office. They accused HYBE and ADOR of workplace harassment and demanded an investigation into violations of labor laws.

The complaint highlighted Hanni’s account of a manager instructing ILLIT members to ignore her and broader systemic issues within HYBE labels.

According to the labor rights group “Workplace Bullying 119” or “Gapjil 119”, Hanni’s being ignored by her colleagues at HYBE could be considered workplace harassment under South Korean labor laws.

The Ministry of Employment and Labor confirmed receiving over 100 complaints related to NewJeans following the livestream.

2024-09-23: Meeting with Kim Joo-young

NewJeans members and their parents met with ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young following their requests during their September livestream.

Members reiterated their demands for accountability regarding workplace harassment claims.

However, Kim Joo-young reportedly responded with vague and evasive answers. Parents were particularly unsettled when Kim became emotional and cried in front of the members as an attempt at emotional manipulation, causing distress to some members..

“During the meeting on the 23rd, CEO Kim Joo-young suddenly shed tears while speaking in front of the NewJeans members. It was very surprising. For the members, who lack much social experience, especially for the representative to show such emotional behavior in a meeting where various issues were being discussed, it could lead the kids to feel guilty. Moreover, we were discussing the harm we had suffered. In fact, during that meeting, one member cried, saying, 'Why are you making us the bad guys?'” - NewJeans’ parents (2024-10-07 NewJeans Parents Interview with Ilgan Sports)

2024-10-07 NewJeans parents interview with Ilgan Sports

2024-10-07 NewJeans Parents Interview with Ilgan Sports

The parents of NewJeans members raised serious concerns about HYBE’s mishandling of the internal investigation into the incident.

In this interview, they accused HYBE of concealment and selective deletion of CCTV footage, using stalling tactics, and the conflict of interest in allowing Belift Lab—label of the alleged perpetrator—to control key parts of the process.

1. HYBE concealed CCTV footage

HYBE is accused of concealing crucial CCTV evidence related to the “ignore her” incident. This marks the first time it has been publicly revealed that a portion of the footage is missing.

Previously, HYBE’s official statement to Hankook Kyungjae on September 12, 2024, claimed that 7–8 minutes of footage were available. However, the parents have now revealed that the most critical portion of the footage—where the alleged “ignore her” instruction occurred—was not preserved.

1.1 HYBE gave inconsistent accounts regarding missing footage

HYBE initially claimed the CCTV footage was automatically deleted after 30 days due to technical limitations (a stance they have continued to uphold).
A security staff member told the parents that a superior had instructed them to delete the footage.
That superior later blamed a now-resigned employee for the deletion.

"When I asked why that particular scene was deleted, they said it was deleted by someone who had resigned, and thus they didn't know the reason. The security team made excuses saying it was the fault of a superior who gave them the task and confirmation, while the superior blamed the resigned employee, which was chaotic."

This web of conflicting explanations undermines the credibility of HYBE’s internal process and suggests a possible cover-up—or at the very least, a serious lack of accountability.

1.2 HYBE selectively retained and deleted footage

The parents also questioned why only certain footage was retained if the 30-day retention limit was truly automatic. Specifically:

The entering encounter—where ILLIT members bowed to Hanni—was preserved.
The exiting encounter—where Hanni overheard the manager instructing others to "ignore her"—was deleted.

"Strangely, only the CCTV footage of Hanni greeting someone remains, while the problematic 'ignore' video she mentioned has been deleted."

The parents argued that if the footage was truly unrecoverable due to the 30-day limit, then all footage from that day should have been missing—not just the incriminating portion. This points to selective retention and deletion.

"It's absurd that not all footage from the date of the incident was missing. They only showed us about eight seconds of footage of Hanni greeting other artist members and claimed that all footage from other time slots was deleted. It raises the question of why they would leave only the non-problematic scenes. It feels disrespectful and unpleasant."

This suggests that HYBE intentionally manipulated evidence, retaining only footage that supported their narrative (i.e., that no bullying occurred during the entering encounter), while deleting footage that contradicted it (i.e., the exiting encounter involving the manager’s alleged instruction).

2. HYBE introduced CCTV as a stalling tactic

The introduction of CCTV was never intended to aid in resolving the issue, but rather to complicate the process, delay confrontation, and eventually provide a convenient excuse once the footage expired.

2.1 HYBE dragged out the investigation past 30 days

Hanni and the parents formally raised the issue 9 business days before the CCTV footage was set to expire and followed up on it multiple times. Despite this, HYBE delayed the investigation and ultimately claimed the footage was lost due to technical retention limits.

"We have records of our communication via email. Yet, we received an absurd response saying that CCTV footage is deleted after 30 days. When we asked them to restore it, they replied that recovering deleted footage is technically difficult."

These point to a deliberate stalling strategy, where HYBE postponed meaningful action just long enough for the evidence to be conveniently deleted.

"It has already been four months since the incident. We raised the issue in June, but there seems to be no signs of resolution, and only recently did they say they would check the CCTV."

2.2 HYBE refused to let the victim’s side review the footage

HYBE refused to let the parents view the CCTV footage from the date of the incident. When the parents asked to see the footage, HYBE claimed that a month’s worth had already been reviewed, so there was no need for them to see it.

This excuse made no sense. The issue was tied to a specific date, not a broad period, and the relevant footage could have been located easily.

“Then I suggested that we should have been allowed to view all the footage from that date, but they said they had already reviewed a month's worth of footage. I found that answer ridiculous and retorted, 'If you had been given a specific date, why not just look for that date and not others?' I kept thinking the responses were strange.”

HYBE's use of a flimsy excuse to deny access to the footage was deeply unfair. HYBE gave full control over the footage to Belift Lab, the party accused of wrongdoing, while completely denying access to the victim’s side.

In a situation where the burden of proof already falls heavily on the victim, refusing them the ability to verify the evidence—while letting the accused decide what’s relevant—is not just biased, but fundamentally unjust. It ensured that Hanni and her parents had no way to prove what really happened with the footage, while the other side controlled the narrative with their cherry-picked evidence.

2.3 HYBE downplayed the relevance of CCTV after the fact

Despite being the party that introduced the idea of reviewing CCTV, HYBE later attempted to minimize its importance, ignoring the nonverbal context—such as body language—that could have clarified the situation.

"When CEO Kim Joo-young said, 'The CCTV footage doesn't have sound, so it might be difficult for the security team to identify it,' I replied, 'Even without sound, the atmosphere, gestures, and situations can convey a lot, can't they?'"

This contradiction shows that HYBE was not genuinely committed to resolving the matter: they first positioned the CCTV as central to the investigation, only to dismiss its relevance when it became inconvenient.

2.4 HYBE blamed Hanni for the deletion of evidence

Perhaps most egregiously, HYBE executives—including CHRO and new ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young—blamed Hanni for the missing footage, despite the following facts:

Hanni never asked them to check CCTV in the first place—her request was for a meeting with the manager involved.
She did not know about the 30-day retention limit.
Despite this, she spoke up 9 business days before the footage was set to expire.
She clearly explained what happened, giving HYBE the chance to review and retain footage of the exiting encounter.
HYBE deliberately delayed the investigation, allowed the offending party to conduct its own internal inquiry, and ultimately let the critical footage expire.

Yet, they still had the audacity to blame Hanni for supposedly “speaking up too late.” This gaslighting made Hanni feel responsible for the loss of evidence.

"Previously, CEO Kim Joo-young also told Hanni, 'If this kind of incident occurs, you should have spoken up quickly; the video was already deleted a month later.' However, Hanni clearly spoke up early, and we raised the issue immediately. Yet, receiving such a response might have made Hanni think, 'Does that mean I did something wrong?'"

This misplaced blame added emotional strain to the victim as an attempt to discourage her from seeking further resolution and created a false narrative that shifted responsibility away from those in power.

Moreover, this is not just emotionally manipulative—it is a lie. The issue was raised with ample time to preserve the evidence, but HYBE's own delays ensured it would be lost.

3. Conflict of interest: HYBE's bias toward Belift Lab

The parents criticised HYBE for allowing Belift Lab—the label representing the alleged perpetrators—to control the investigation process, including the review and retention of CCTV footage, despite the clear conflict of interest.

"If this is an issue between subordinate labels, shouldn't HYBE maintain neutrality in the investigation? Moreover, isn't it right for the department responsible for workplace harassment to handle it? ... Yet, they were looking for relevant materials from Belift Lab.

3.1 Belift Lab investigated themselves

Instead of assigning HYBE’s HR department or ADOR to oversee the matter, HYBE allowed Belift Lab to manage the CCTV review themselves.

Requests to find this CCTV footage should have been made directly by Ador to the security team, or through the workplace harassment department at HYBE. Why would the Ador board request Belift Lab to look for it? My suspicions have only increased.”

This decision gave Belift control over what footage was retained or discarded—effectively allowing the accused to investigate themselves. Such a process lacks any credibility.

This is essentially like asking the perpetrator to find the evidence footage. In the end, they claimed the scene containing the problematic 'ignore' had been deleted, and when I suggested doing a forensic recovery, they said it was impossible due to technical issues, leaving me wondering how I could possibly trust that.”

3.2 Belift Lab only sought footage that favoured their narrative

Further undermining their credibility, internal communications reveal that Belift Lab appeared relieved when only irrelevant, non-problematic footage was found. They failed to retrieve—or even attempt to retrieve—the exiting encounter, which was the one Hanni had clearly identified as the moment the incident occurred.

"In the Slack communication between Belift Lab and the security team, there was a message where a security officer said, 'I found the scene of them greeting,' and Belift Lab responded, 'That's a relief.' I don't understand the intention behind showing that message."

This response implies that Belift was more concerned with optics than fact-finding, reinforcing the suspicion that they were not neutral investigators but interested parties.

3.3. Kim Joo-young refused to advocate for Hanni

HYBE CHRO and new ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young was also criticised for siding with Belift Lab and failing to advocate for Hanni. Failing both her duty as an impartial CHRO of the company and as an executive for ADOR, who is responsible for NewJeans’ well-being.

Despite the issue being raised in a timely manner, Kim deflected blame onto Hanni, falsely claiming she reported the incident too late. She further attempted to emotionally pressure Hanni into backing down.

"During the meeting on the 23rd, Hanni explained to CEO Kim Joo-young, 'Since you said only the victims can confirm, on the day I visited the security team to check the CCTV, the security staff couldn't make eye contact with me and were fidgeting with their hands.' In response, CEO Kim Joo-young said something like, 'I'm looking at you directly,' which left Hanni feeling very surprised."

4. Ongoing concerns

The parents expressed ongoing concern that these issues would be concealed over time, and they felt resigned due to the lack of resolution.

"We have protested and discussed various issues with the newly changed management of ADOR, but nothing has been resolved over the past few months, and we are now almost in a state of giving up and resignation, which makes us more worried about the future."

2024-10-07: Belift Lab Statement

On the same day, Ilgan Sports published an interview with NewJeans’ parents, Belift Lab released a statement. A close reading of the statement reveals contradictions that inadvertently support Hanni’s claims.

2024-10-07 Belift Lab Statement

1. Belift Lab denied accusations against their manager

In the statement, Belift Lab denied allegations that ILLIT’s manager instructed members to ignore Hanni.

“The protocol team (manager) of ILLIT did not make the comment “ignore them” in reference to NewJeans members”.

2. Belift Lab distorted the nature of Hanni’s claim

Belift Lab’s statement misrepresented Hanni’s concerns. They reframed the issue as accusations against ILLIT members for not greeting her.

“We strongly urge an end to the unfounded controversies that seek to damage the reputation of our newly debuted artist… the members of ILLIT have never passed by NewJeans members without greeting them.”

Since Hanni explicitly said that the members greeted her, there was no need to emphasise this in their statement.

This distortion was criticised to be a clear attempt at using their rookie artists to deflect criticism back on Hanni, as they would garner more sympathy than an adult manager.

3. Contradictory statements on the number and duration of encounters

The statement contained a key contradiction that proves Belift Lab lied.

Belift Lab first claimed there was only one encounter between ILLIT and NewJeans on 2024-05-27, referencing CCTV footage they obtained.

“On the footage from May 27, we identified a single encounter between ILLIT and NewJeans... We obtained a copy of this footage.”

But later in the same statement, they acknowledged that the two groups had crossed paths for over 5 minutes.

“It was verified that the two groups crossed paths for only about five minutes on May 27 at the HYBE building.”

Their admission that the groups crossed paths for about five minutes corroborates Hanni’s recollection of a exiting encounter after a 5–10 minute interval.

However, the CCTV footage they referenced shows that the encounter lasted only 8 seconds. This directly contradicts their earlier claim that there was only one encounter.

These inconsistencies prove that Belift Lab was aware of footage of an exiting encounter after around 5 minutes, but chose not to obtain or disclose it, while publicly insisting only one encounter occurred.

This selective presentation of evidence and shifting narrative points to a clear attempt to cover up what happened during the second encounter, indirectly supporting Hanni’s account of workplace harassment.

2024-10-09 NewJeans parents interview with Ilgan Sports

2024-10-09 NewJeans Parents Interview with Ilgan Sports

In response to Belift Lab’s statement, NewJeans’ parents gave a follow-up interview to Ilgan Sports on 2024-10-08, which was published on 2024-10-09.

1. Addressing Belift Lab’s false statement

The parents accused Belift Lab of distorting facts to damage NewJeans’ reputation.

"Belift Lab made a statement on the 7th, but there were so many factual errors in it.”

1.1. Hanni maintained ILLIT’s anonymity contrary to Belift Lab’s statement

The parents rejected Belift Lab’s claim that Hanni and the parents had harmed ILLIT’s reputation. They stressed that both label and artist names were kept anonymous until HYBE publicly identified ILLIT to sway public opinion.

"We’ve tried to resolve this issue internally within the company. We never mentioned specific labels or artists externally. It’s Belift Lab’s false statement that is defaming NewJeans and us.”

1.2. Belift Lab distorted Hanni’s claims

The parents criticised Belift Lab for deliberately reframing the issue, shifting public focus from workplace harassment by the manager to fabricated complaints about greetings among idols.

They clarified that Hanni never criticised the ILLIT members. Her issue was solely with the manager, who instructed the idols to ignore her.

“Belift Lab’s statement claims that greetings between labels are ‘a matter of good faith,’ but that distorts the issue. Hanni never raised an issue about someone not greeting her. The issue is that another artist’s manager told their artist to ignore Hanni."

The parents highlighted that the greeting issue was a distraction from the real concern: the unfair and dismissive internal handling of issues involving NewJeans.

We didn’t raise the issue over 'greetings'; our concern is about HYBE's unfair treatment of NewJeans."

The way HYBE and Belift Lab are trying to minimise it into being about greetings from fellow idols, when this incident was brought up as an example of both management bullying NewJeans and the overall company handling of these types of incidents, is a malicious attempt to make Hanni’s concern seem trivial.

2. Belift Lab’s false claims surrounding the review of CCTV footage

NewJeans' parents firmly denied Belift Lab’s claim that Min Hee-jin and her team watched the CCTV footage and later changed their position.

2.1. Belift Lab falsely claimed that Min Hee-jin’s team reviewed the footage

2.1.1. Only Hanni and one manager were allowed to review the footage

Belift Lab’s statement falsely implied that a formal team under Min Hee-jin had reviewed the CCTV footage and subsequently altered their stance. However, HYBE’s own internal restrictions only allowed Hanni to view the footage accompanied by a manager.

"HYBE initially told us that only the person involved could review the footage, so Hanni and one manager watched it together."

This establishes that there was no wider internal review conducted by ADOR or any formal “team”.

2.1.2. Min Hee-jin was not involved in the footage review at all

Min Hee-jin was never involved in reviewing the footage. Belift Lab’s reference to “Min Hee-jin’s team” was therefore knowingly misleading and mischaracterized the situation.

"Belift Lab’s claim that Min Hee-jin’s team made a new argument after reviewing the footage on August 14th is a blatant lie, as we hadn’t seen any footage prior to that date. Moreover, Min Hee-jin wasn’t involved, but they’re misleading the public by referring to ‘Min Hee-jin’s team.’"

2.2. Hanni didn’t have the opportunity to review relevant footage

2.2.1. Hanni only saw the footage after the critical parts were deleted

Due to HYBE’s internal policy and NewJeans’ overseas schedules, no one outside of Belift Lab was able to review the CCTV footage until Hanni concluded her overseas activities.

"Hanni was extremely busy preparing for the Tokyo Dome fan concert and Japanese activities at the time. Once the activities in Japan wrapped up, she went to check the footage."

By the time she was finally able to review it, crucial parts — particularly the exiting encounter during which the manager gave the offensive instruction — had already been deleted.

2.2.3. The footage Hanni reviewed was from the entering encounter, not the second

The footage shown to Hanni shows Danielle and an ADOR manager, confirming it was from the entering encounter. The exiting encounter — when the bully occurred — was already deleted from the footage. This is even though Hanni made it very clear that she was alone when the bullying happened.

"When we first raised this issue, we clearly explained that the incident happened while Hanni was alone. Yet, the footage HYBE showed Hanni on August 14th was of her with her ADOR manager and Danielle. Yet, the footage HYBE showed Hanni on August 14th was of her with her ADOR manager and Danielle."

Hanni later reiterated during her 2024-10-15 National Assembly Audit testimony that she had viewed this footage and that it was irrelevant to the core issue.

Despite prior warnings from both Hanni and the parents that the footage was unrelated, the same 8-second clip was later submitted by ADOR during the 2025-03-07 injunction court proceedings and misleadingly presented as though it was the only time the two parties had crossed paths.

2.3. Security personnel admitted HYBE deleted CCTV of the bullying

2.3.1. The exiting encounter was deliberately omitted

A security staff member told Hanni that a second clip did exist — one that captured the exiting encounter — but it had been discarded because it was considered “unnecessary”.

"There’s a scene where you greet the person as they enter and another where you pass them without greeting again. We didn’t keep the latter scene because we thought greeting once was enough."

The excuse that the second clip was “unnecessary” makes no sense. It’s like saying CCTV of someone walking past a bank is more important than footage of the same person coming back 5-10 minutes later and robbing it. In any proper investigation, the part that shows the actual wrongdoing is what matters most.

This constituted a direct admission that the most relevant part of the footage had been intentionally excluded from the record.

Hanni later revealed during her 2024-10-15 National Assembly Audit testimony that she recorded this interaction.

2.3.2. The security guard showed signs of nervousness

The security guard who disclosed this appeared visibly nervous and avoided eye contact during the interaction.

"The guard reportedly couldn’t make eye contact with Hanni while explaining this and appeared nervous."

This raised further concerns that the deletion was not simply a procedural oversight but part of a conscious effort to conceal material evidence. The guard’s discomfort reinforced the suspicion that the decision to discard the footage was controversial or unethical.

2.4. The Fabrication Was Strategic and Misleading

Taken together, the deletion of critical footage, the substitution of unrelated footage, and the false claim that a team led by Min Hee-jin had changed its position demonstrate not just internal mismanagement but a deliberate attempt to distort the truth.

“We only want to ensure that our children don’t have to go through this again. Yet, I don’t understand why they keep making up stories.”

3. HYBE management made it difficult for the victim to seek justice

Instead of helping uncover the truth, HYBE created obstacles that frustrated efforts to investigate and seek accountability.

3.1. Management seems unwilling to pursue the issue

When NewJeans' parents formally raised the matter by emailing ADOR’s board of directors. CEO Kim Joo-young’s initial reaction was passive and uncommitted.

“On June 13th, NewJeans' parents officially raised the issue by sending an email to ADOR’s board of directors. At the time, CEO Kim Joo-young’s response was lukewarm.”

3.2. HYBE and Belift Lab blocked all efforts to investigate

After learning that crucial CCTV footage had been deleted, the parents proposed alternative ways to identify the manager involved in the incident. One such suggestion was to have Hanni review internal staff photos. However, HYBE and Belift Lab refused, citing privacy concerns.

“We had to ask several times for photos of the Belift Lab managers involved, but we never received a response. They claimed that showing photos would be a human rights violation.”

This justification raises serious questions. It is unclear how an internal review conducted by a victim in a closed, non-public setting would constitute a violation of anyone’s privacy. The purpose was solely to establish the facts of a potential wrongdoing, not to expose their identity to the public.

Even when the parents revised their request to accommodate privacy sensitivities — asking only for the identity of the manager on duty at the time — the companies still failed to provide an answer.

“So we asked them to at least identify the manager who was on duty at the time of the incident. However, we never received a clear answer.”

This lack of transparency prevented Hanni and her parents from verifying key facts, ultimately protecting those potentially responsible rather than supporting the victim.

3.3. ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young ignored critical witness testimony

The parents accused ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young of failing to act on new evidence and instead cooperating with Belift Lab in selectively presenting facts.

Kim promised to re-investigate the matter when a new witness came forward. Yet, Belift Lab’s follow-up statement omitted the very details that the new testimony had helped clarify.

“CEO Kim promised to re-investigate since a new witness had come forward. But “Belift Lab’s statement only mentions the scene where the artist greeted Hanni with a 90-degree bow, omitting the part where they passed without greeting.”

3.4. Poor communication and persistent unresponsiveness

The parents also documented their consistent efforts to engage through official communication channels, only to be met with delays, vague replies, or complete silence. This extended over several months.

“I reviewed the emails we sent, and from June 13th to June 25th, July 10th, July 20th, and even through September, we have been communicating and requesting via email almost every week.”

4. ADOR's new CEO, Kim Joo-young, refused to protect Hanni, forcing parents to speak out for themselves

4.1. Kim Joo-young denied requests for a public rebuttal

NewJeans’ parents asked ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young to issue a clear, public statement to refute Belift Lab’s inaccuracies, citing concerns about inter-label conflicts as a reason to remain silent.

“We even asked CEO Kim to release a statement from ADOR about Belift Lab’s lies, but she refused, citing concerns about conflicts between labels.”

Kim holds the dual roles of Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) of HYBE and CEO of ADOR. This presents a clear conflict of interest. Rather than prioritising the welfare of ADOR’s artists, her responses reveal that she places “inter-label harmony” — in reality, Belift Lab’s corporate interests — above Hanni’s well-being.

This illustrates that she is unfit to serve as ADOR CEO, whose primary responsibility must be to safeguard the members from bullying, slander, and harassment.

“Even if we release a statement based on the explanations given by the parents and Hanni, there’s a high chance of further rebuttals, and that would lead to a vicious cycle of back-and-forth responses.”

This excuse effectively silenced the parents’ efforts to clear Hanni’s name and correct misinformation, leaving the victim isolated and vulnerable.

4.2. Parents felt abandoned and forced to go public

Frustrated and unsupported, the parents felt they had no choice but to speak out publicly. They conveyed their sense of abandonment and desperation:

“The company refuses to fight against these lies, so where and how can we speak the truth?”

Their decision to approach Ilgan Sports on 2024-10-07 was a last resort, driven by the lack of internal resolution despite months of persistent efforts. This highlights a critical failure by ADOR’s leadership to protect its artists from damaging falsehoods.

4.3. CEO Kim criticised parents for going public despite ongoing internal efforts

After the interview with Ilgan Sports on 2024-10-07, CEO Kim expressed displeasure, accusing the parents of not consulting ADOR before speaking to the media:

“CEO Kim said she was taken aback by the interview because we didn’t consult with the company.”

However, the parents emphasised that they had made numerous attempts to engage internally with no meaningful response.

“We have been asking for a resolution for so long, and nothing has been done. That’s why we responded to the press request.”

This appears to be an attempt to silence NewJeans and their parents, discouraging them from speaking out about their experience and the mishandling of the issue. It reveals an unwillingness to accept accountability or foster open dialogue. This silencing tactic compounds the emotional toll on the parents and NewJeans, leaving them feeling marginalised and powerless.

2024-10-15 National Assembly Audit: Environment and Labor Committee

Hanni and HYBE CHRO / new ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young testified before South Korea’s National Assembly. The session addressed workplace harassment and the legal and cultural gaps affecting artists like Hanni, who fall outside standard labour protections.

Hanni's Testimony

1. The “Ignore Her” incident and subsequent actions from HYBE

1.1. Hanni’s experience during the “Ignore Her” incident

Hanni recounted her experience during the “Ignore Her” incident. Once again, Hanni did not mention any group or label names, focusing solely on the manager’s action and the work environment.

“As they walked by, the manager made eye contact with me and told the members following her, ‘Pretend you didn’t see her, just ignore her.’

I didn’t understand why I had to experience that. And I don’t understand why someone in that position would say something like that in a work environment. But this wasn’t the first time something like this had happened.” - Hanni

1.2 Hanni’s experience during the subsequent investigation and cover-up

1.2.1 Kim Joo-young dismissed Hanni’s concern

Hanni reported the incident to HYBE’s CHRO, then ADOR board member, and now ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young, but was told to endure the harassment due to the loss of evidence

“I was told that since there was no evidence, there was nothing they could do, and they just wanted to let it go.” – Hanni

She expressed that if she did not speak out publicly, the issue would be quietly brushed aside, as had happened before.

“I felt that if I didn’t speak out today, it would just be quietly brushed under the rug, as it has been before. This kind of thing could happen to anyone.” - Hanni

1.2.2 Deletion of CCTV footage and second meeting

Hanni recounted how the CCTV footage of the incident during the exiting encounter was missing, while the 8-second footage of the entering encounter was deliberately kept.

“When I first reported the issue, they said there was no evidence, but they mentioned that there was CCTV footage. However, they said it only showed the greeting scene.

I couldn’t understand why they only had footage of the greeting when I had explained the entire situation. I told them I wanted to see the footage myself, and I did. It was only an 8-second clip showing the greeting, and the footage from 5-10 minutes later was missing.” - Hanni

During a meeting with security personnel on 2024-08-14, explanations for the missing footage kept changing, and someone admitted the footage had been deleted. Hanni recorded the meeting due to language barriers.

1.2.3 ADOR's new management enables harassment

In response to Kim Joo-young saying that she did her best, Hanni stated that HYBE and ADOR, after the management change, did not do their best and lacked the will to fight for the artists.

“I’m sorry, but I don’t think they did their best. There were definitely more things they could have done. From the beginning, they said they would protect us, but if they really wanted to protect us, they would have had to fight for us. But since they had no will to fight or take any real action, I don’t think they can claim they did their best.” – Hanni

She insisted that the issue be resolved quickly rather than being brushed aside with promises of future improvement.

“Well, I know too well that if I just say I hope they will try harder in the future, this issue will be brushed aside. Before talking about the future, I hope they will resolve this issue.” – Hanni

2. Pattern of hostile behaviours targeting NewJeans

Hanni described a persistent, hard-to-define atmosphere of disrespect and exclusion within HYBE and its sub-labels, which targeted NewJeans since their debut.

She emphasised that the “Ignore Her” incident was not an isolated event, but rather part of a broader pattern of hostility and cold treatment from management and staff, making it clear that HYBE had despised NewJeans since their debut.

“There was always a certain atmosphere in the company, but it was hard to pinpoint or explain. And it was difficult to tell anyone about it because only those who experienced it would truly understand. To be honest, I thought it might have just been my own feelings. But after recent events… I realized that the atmosphere wasn’t just in my head. I became certain that there are people in the company who don’t like us.” - Hanni

2.1 NewJeans have been constantly ignored since their debut

From the start of her career, Hanni recalled being routinely ignored by senior staff and management, even when she greeted them. She noted that while Korean culture values respect for elders, ignoring greetings is disrespectful on a human level.

“It wasn’t just that one event…. From the very beginning of my debut, I encountered a number of higher-ups. Every time I greeted them, they never responded. From living in Korea, I’ve come to understand that it’s part of the culture to be respectful to those who are older. But not responding to a greeting—regardless of rank—just seemed disrespectful, even from a human perspective.” - Hanni

2.2 Other instances of bullying

Hanni pointed to multiple recent events that confirmed her sense of being targeted. These included seeing NewJeans mocked by company employees on the Blind app and learning that HYBE’s PR team had asked a journalist to downplay NewJeans’ achievements in Japan. These actions, she said, made it clear that the company’s animosity was not just her imagination.

“But after recent events—like the incident with that manager, and seeing NewJeans being criticized on the Blind app by company employees, as well as hearing a recording of a PR team leader trying to lower the success of our Japan debut—I realized that the atmosphere wasn’t just in my head. I became certain that there are people in the company who don’t like us.” - Hanni

Hanni’s testimony is further supported by public displays of hostility, such as negative comments about NewJeans by HYBE employees on social media and internal platforms.

2.3 Perceived reasons for mistreatment

Hanni suggested that NewJeans’ different debut path and success led to hostility within the company, possibly exacerbated by shareholder disputes.

“We debuted differently. Normally, there’s a set path in the company. But we debuted in a different way. And because we succeeded, I think they’re trying to bring us down.” – Hanni

She acknowledged that the conflict between CEO Min Heejin and CEO Bang Si-hyuk might be related, but that doesn’t mean she and her bandmates should endure workplace bullying for it.

“It can’t be unrelated. Because they do have a relationship. But setting that aside, they didn’t need to bring it into work. But like I said before, they keep doing this, so I felt like I couldn’t just stay silent anymore.” – Hanni

3. Advocacy on artists’ rights and systemic change

3.1 Speaking out for all K-pop artists and trainees

Hanni made it clear her decision to testify was motivated by a desire to protect not only herself and her group but also all those who might be vulnerable in the industry, especially trainees, juniors, and peers who lack a public voice.

“This kind of thing could happen to anyone. So I decided to speak up, hoping that neither seniors, juniors, peers, nor trainees would have to experience this kind of treatment.” – Hanni

She also stressed that the fundamental issue is not about legal status, contracts, or fame, but about treating all individuals, whether artists, trainees, or staff, with basic human dignity. She called for a shift in perspective within the industry to recognize this shared humanity.

“First of all, the contracts between artists and trainees can differ, right? But one thing that doesn’t change is that we are all human. I feel like a lot of people miss that point. I hope people take another look at it.” – Hanni

She argued that many of the industry’s most persistent problems—including workplace harassment—could be prevented if everyone, regardless of position, simply respected each other as people.

“While I know that no law can solve all the problems in the world, I feel that… if we respect each other as humans, at the very least, issues like workplace harassment and other sensitive matters wouldn’t exist.” – Hanni

Hanni expressed gratitude for the attention on this issue and hopes that her testimony would help improve protections for all workers in the industry.

“I’ve seen that many people are concerned for us, and I’m very thankful. … What I want to say here is that there’s no need to feel sorry. … I truly appreciate it, and you’ve all worked so hard.” – Hanni

3.2 The need for a culture of accountability

Hanni also criticised the tendency of those in power to avoid responsibility, emphasising that genuine respect and accountability are essential for a healthy work environment.

“On the contrary, the people who should be apologising should come forward confidently if they’ve done nothing wrong, without avoiding accountability, but instead, they keep dodging situations like this, which is really frustrating.” – Hanni

Kim Joo-young’s Testimony

1. Response to “Ignore Her” incident

1.1. Mishandling of the harassment incident and evidence

Kim Joo-young stated she was first informed of the “ignore her” incident by Hanni’s parents on 2024-06-13. She claimed that, as an ADOR board member, she took all possible steps: requesting a review of the CCTV footage, asking the relevant label (Belift Lab) to investigate, and checking whether the footage could be restored.

“I was first informed on June 13th by the informant’s parents when I was still a board member at ADOR. … I requested to check the CCTV footage. The manager in question is not from ADOR but from another company under a different CEO. Nonetheless, I requested that the relevant label investigate whether such incidents had occurred between the artist and the manager. Additionally, I even checked if the CCTV footage, which had expired, could be restored. I took all possible steps within my capacity.” – Kim Joo-young

She maintained that the only footage available was an 8-second clip showing the greeting, and the rest had expired after 30 days per data protection policy.

“The only footage we were able to secure was the one showing the manager greeting someone, and we kept that footage. I want to clarify that the other footage wasn’t deleted; it simply expired after 30 days according to the standard personal data protection guidelines, so it’s not recoverable.” – Kim Joo-young

1.1.1. Counter-Argument: Gaslighting despite ample time to secure evidence

Both Kim and NewJeans’ parents confirmed the incident was reported on 2024-06-13—9 working days before the CCTV retention period ended. There was ample time to secure the footage if HYBE had acted promptly. The loss of evidence was completely due to HYBE’s delay and mishandling.

Despite this, Hanni had experienced gaslighting from Kim-Joo-young, where she blamed the loss of evidence footage on Hanni for supposedly reporting the incident too late.

“CEO Kim Jooyoung had previously told Hanni, ‘You should have reported this earlier; the footage was already deleted after a month.’ But Hanni had clearly spoken up early on, and we also raised the issue immediately. Despite that, we got such a response, so Hanni must have thought, ‘Are they saying I did something wrong?’” - NewJeans’ parents (2024-10-07 NewJeans Parents Interview with Ilgan Sports)

1.1.2. Counter-Argument: Inconsistent explanations for CCTV and possible cover-up

While Kim Joo-young maintained that the footage was deleted due to the 30-day data retention policy, Hanni and NewJeans’ parents have been given other explanations on why the footage was deleted. Notably, Hanni had testified minutes before that a security personnel member admitted that the footage was deliberately deleted on the record.

“I kept asking why the later footage was missing because I had clearly explained the situation. Throughout the meeting, their explanation kept changing, and they even accidentally admitted that the footage had been deleted… I recorded the meeting to make sure I didn’t miss anything important. I have evidence of them lying.” – Hanni

Despite this, Kim Joo-Young reportedly tried to emotionally intimidate Hanni into letting it go.

“During the meeting on the 23rd, Hanni explained to CEO Kim Joo-young, 'Since you said only the victims can confirm, on the day I visited the security team to check the CCTV, the security staff couldn't make eye contact with me and were fidgeting with their hands.' In response, CEO Kim Joo-young said something like, 'I'm looking at you directly,' which left Hanni feeling very surprised." - NewJeans’ parents (2024-10-07 NewJeans Parents Interview with Ilgan Sports)

1.1.3. Counter-Argument: Why was Belift Lab allowed to investigate themselves and control evidence?

Despite being HYBE’s CHRO, Kim left the investigation and evidence handling to Belift Lab—the label accused of wrongdoing—instead of having ADOR or HYBE’s HR department review the footage or conduct the investigation themselves.

“I requested that the relevant label (Belift Lab) investigate whether such incidents had occurred between the artist and the manager.” – Kim Joo-young

This created a clear conflict of interest and undermined the credibility of the process.

“If this is an issue between subordinate labels, shouldn't HYBE maintain neutrality in the investigation? Moreover, isn't it right for the department responsible for workplace harassment to handle it? ... Yet, they were looking for relevant materials from Belift Lab.

As HYBE’s CHRO, Kim Joo-young was fully responsible for investigating suspected workplace bullying across all sub-labels. By allowing Belift Lab to have full control over the evidence and investigation, she failed to ensure impartiality and transparency, raising serious doubts about the integrity of the process.

2. Deflection of responsibility as HYBE CHRO

Throughout her testimony, Kim Joo-young repeatedly tried to limit her accountability to her role as ADOR board member or CEO, despite also being HYBE’s current CHRO—a position with responsibility for labor, artist welfare, and workplace culture across all HYBE sub-labels, and authority to conduct investigations. When pressed by lawmakers, she avoided direct answers about her CHRO duties and HYBE’s HR obligations.

Park Hong-bae: “Are you still the Chief Human Resources Officer at HYBE?”
Kim Joo-young: “Yes, that’s correct.”

Park Hong-bae: “Have you ever apologized to the artists in your capacity as CHRO?”

Kim Joo-young: “...When I meet with artists, I try my best to assist them and show respect as a corporate executive of Ador.”

Park Hong-bae: “As CHRO, you also bear responsibility, so I believe you should apologize.”

Kim Joo-young: “Yes, if there is a need for an apology, I will make one.”

Kim’s insistence on responding as ADOR CEO, rather than as HYBE CHRO, is a clear attempt to avoid accountability. As CHRO, she should have intervened at the parent company’s level, ensured an impartial investigation, and taken responsibility for HR failures across all labels.

2.1. Use of corporate structure as an excuse

Kim repeatedly cited HYBE’s multi-label structure as a reason for inaction, claiming that each label operates as a separate legal entity. She claimed this made it difficult for her as she cannot intervene directly across subsidiaries as an ADOR board member — even though, as CHRO, she oversees HR matters for all sub-labels under HYBE.

“The manager in question is not from ADOR but from another company under a different CEO. … As independent subsidiaries, I made every effort, but it was difficult to enforce anything on the other company’s manager.” – Kim Joo-young

Lawmakers challenged this excuse:

HYBE is a centralised company with multiple sub-labels, and the “separate entity” excuse is not credible.
As CHRO, Kim has the authority and duty to enforce standards and mediate disputes across HYBE’s sub-label, especially in cases of workplace bullying.

Kim Joo-young: “The manager in question is not from ADOR but from another company under a different CEO. … As independent subsidiaries, I made every effort, but it was difficult to enforce anything on the other company’s manager.”

Park Jeong: “At the group level, isn’t there room for mediation from higher-ups? If two separate companies can’t resolve it, surely there are higher-ranking officials like the chairman who could mediate?”

Kim Joo-young: “As independent subsidiaries, I made every effort, but it was difficult to enforce anything on the other company’s manager.”

Park Hong-bae: “In the past, entertainment companies did not operate with numerous subsidiary companies under a single corporation, did they? But now, even if they are physically together, the companies are divided legally. If the other managers from different subsidiaries say something, how can we respond if your management has the attitude of ‘That's a different company; we can't engage’?”

Kim Joo-young: “Yes, I take your criticism to heart.”

Kim’s reliance on corporate structure as an excuse highlights a deeper issue of accountability at HYBE.

Despite sharing the same parent company, work environment, and HR department, HYBE treats its sub-labels as separate entities when it suits them.

This unique sub-label system, unlike other K-pop companies, creates a loophole where cross-label offenses are difficult to address properly. This structure allows HYBE to sidestep responsibility by compartmentalising its subsidiaries, even though they operate under the same umbrella.

3. The impact of corporate conflict

Kim acknowledged that ongoing disputes among HYBE’s major shareholders might be affecting the company atmosphere and said employees were told to focus on their work.

“Yes, from the perspective of the employees... The company has informed employees that this is a legal matter currently under judicial review, so we ask everyone to focus on their work in their respective positions.” – Kim Joo-young

Kim did not address how such a hostile environment may have enabled or escalated bullying and exclusion, nor did she outline any concrete steps to protect artists and staff from the fallout of corporate conflict.

Hanni also noted that the cold treatment toward NewJeans predated the shareholder dispute, but the conflict intensified the negative atmosphere and made open hostility more common.

4. Contradictions on artist status and anti-bullying policy

Kim initially distinguished between artists and employees, but was forced to admit that HYBE’s code of conduct includes artists as “members” and that telling Hanni to be ignored would violate the code.

Park Hong-bae: “Did you say that HYBE members are employees?”

Kim Joo-young: “Yes, that’s right.”

Park Hong-bae: “So, artists are not considered members?”

Kim Joo-young: “Our Code of Conduct encompasses all members, including artists, and emphasizes the importance of respect among members and external partners when collaborating.”

Park Hong-bae: “I have the code here. It clearly states that ‘HYBE members include the company, artists, and other members.’”

Kim Joo-young: “...In a broad sense, yes, you could say that.”

Park Hong-bae: “There is no broad definition mentioned in the code. It specifies that ‘HYBE members must protect the affiliated artists and respect their personal rights and must refer to the artists by their appropriate titles.’ Therefore, if Hanni Pham was told to be ignored, that would be a violation of this code, right?”

Kim Joo-young: “...If it is true that she was told to be ignored, then yes, that would be a violation of the code.”

Kim’s shifting answers and reluctance to admit clear violations of company policy further undermine her credibility and highlight a pattern of minimising or deflecting responsibility, which corroborates Hanni’s accusation of a systematic lack of accountability within HYBE.

5. Commitment to improvement

Kim promised to listen more closely to artists, strengthen communication, and cooperate with the ongoing investigation by the Ministry of Employment and Labor. She asked for trust and time as the new CEO of ADOR.

“We will listen more carefully to Hanni and other artists, and we will work to protect their rights and ensure that they can pursue their dreams and hopes to the fullest. … If you trust me and give me a little more time, I will work to build a better company, one that contributes to society and responds to the love of K-pop fans.” – Kim Joo-young

These promises have been made before in previous scandals, but without structural change, they risk being empty words. The lack of concrete action or accountability to date raises doubts about HYBE’s willingness to address root causes.

True improvement requires not just listening, but implementing enforceable protections and transparent processes for artists and workers.

6. Response to employee death allegation

Kim confirmed that in 2022-09, a HYBE employee collapsed at work and later died, claiming it was due to a personal health condition, not overwork, and denied any attempt to cover up the incident.

“Yes, in September, the individual went to the rest area around 5 p.m., saying they would take a break. Unfortunately, they collapsed, and we found them and took them to the hospital. They passed away a few days later due to a personal health condition.” – Kim Joo-young
“There was absolutely no attempt to cover up the incident at HYBE. Such a thing would never happen.” – Kim Joo-young
“That was the decision of the family.” – Kim Joo-young

Lawmakers and some HYBE employees questioned this explanation, pointing out that regardless of pre-existing conditions, the death occurred after an intensive period of overwork.

In addition to that, since HYBE failed to file an industrial accident claim, a subsequent autopsy was not performed, and there is no way to conclusively determine the true cause of death.

This reflects a broader pattern of inadequate transparency and accountability in HYBE’s handling of labor and safety issues.

2024-11-13: Certified legal notice sent by NewJeans

All five members of NewJeans jointly sent a formal legal notice, known in Korea as a "certificate of contents," to their agency ADOR. This document, titled “Request for Rectification of Exclusive Contract Violations,” outlined several demands and gave ADOR a 14-day deadline to address what the group considered major breaches of their exclusive contract. The notice warned that failure to resolve these issues would result in NewJeans terminating their contracts with ADOR.

Their demands include:

Identify and take action against the person who decided and instructed to “abandon NewJeans.”
An official apology from the manager of BELIFT LAB, who made remarks involving Hanni, saying, “Ignore her.”
Measures regarding inappropriate remarks made by a HYBE PR staff member.
Deletion of videos and photos of NewJeans used without consent.
Assess and address the damage NewJeans suffered due to “album push out.”
Resolve the dispute with Director Shin Woo Seok of Dolphiners Films and the issue of existing projects disappearing.
Preserve NewJeans’ unique identity and works.
Reinstate former CEO Min Hee Jin

2024-11-14: ADOR's acknowledgement of legal notice

ADOR issued a public statement acknowledging receipt of NewJeans’ legal notice but provided no concrete actions or commitments.

2024-11-15: Belift Lab CEO Kim Tae-ho interview

2024-11-15 Kim Tae-ho Interview with OSEN

Belift Lab CEO Kim Tae-ho gave an interview to OSEN, and he addressed several controversies related to NewJeans, including the “Ignore Her” incident.

He once again denied that anyone had instructed ILLIT members to ignore Hanni.

“Once again, I would like to clarify that no one told the ILLIT members to 'ignore' anyone.”

According to Kim Tae-ho, the controversy had a significant emotional impact on ILLIT.

“They were especially shocked by the 'ignore her' controversy. The members know very well what happened during that incident. They asked, ‘Why are they going this far?’ ‘Did the CEO do something wrong?’ ‘Did we do something wrong?’ It seemed like they were scared to go on stage.”

Notably, neither Hanni nor anyone involved has ever accused ILLIT members themselves of any wrongdoing in the "ignore her" incident. Her concern was directed solely at the behaviour of ILLIT’s manager, not the group members.

The interview took place during ILLIT’s comeback promotions, which some interpreted as an attempt to generate sympathy for the group rather than directly address the allegation.

2024-11-20: Fan complaint dismissed by the Ministry of Employment and Labor

2024-11-21 BBC Article

The Ministry of Employment and Labor dismissed allegations of workplace harassment against Hanni, stating she does not qualify as a worker under South Korea’s Labor Standards Act.

2024-11-27: Empty response from ADOR before deadline

2024-11-27 ADOR Statement

Hours before NewJeans' 14-day ultimatum expired at midnight, ADOR issued a public statement appearing to side with Hanni regarding the “Ignore Her” incident.

ADOR’s statement Summary

The statement was framed as a formal clarification “in accordance with measures following the artist's certification of contents,” indicating that it was triggered by legal action.

ADOR publicly affirmed trust in Hanni’s version of events, rejected Belift Lab’s denials, and called for “mutual respect” to avoid further “unnecessary controversy.” The agency claimed it had refrained from speaking earlier out of concern that factual disputes would harm its artists. However, the statement lacked any concrete measures or accountability mechanisms, offering only general regret and appeals for respect.

1. The statement was issued too late to be seen as sincere

Publishing the statement on the final day of NewJeans’ 14-day ultimatum raises questions about ADOR’s sincerity. Rather than showing proactive concern for Hanni, the timing suggests the statement was made to fulfill a legal obligation and mitigate reputational risk.

"This position statement is being issued in accordance with measures following the artist's certification of contents."

The reference to formal legal demands reveals that the agency did not act out of internal conviction or urgency, but in response to external pressure.

2. ADOR admitted it failed to act to protect HYBE’s image

ADOR openly admitted that it refrained from speaking out earlier because it did not want to cause “unnecessary controversy.” This shows that the agency was more concerned with maintaining a façade of harmony within the HYBE ecosystem than protecting its own artist.

"ADOR has maintained a cautious stance until now, concerned that disputes over factual matters might cause unnecessary controversy surrounding ADOR's artists. However, despite ADOR's efforts, the related controversy has not been resolved, so we are now clarifying ADOR's position."

This admission indicates that ADOR placed a higher value on inter-label relations and public perception than on timely advocacy for Hanni’s well-being.

3. ADOR offered vague condemnations instead of real solutions

While ADOR expressed regret and affirmed Hanni’s credibility, it did not propose any practical steps to address the harm caused or to prevent similar incidents in the future. There was no mention of internal investigation, disciplinary action, or procedural safeguards.

"ADOR and its staff fully trust our artist's account and sincerely regret the harm that Hanni has experienced."

"We hope that Belift Lab will not take Hanni's distress lightly and will demonstrate mutual respect..."

These statements are emotionally sympathetic but lack the substance necessary for accountability or institutional change. NewJeans members later cited ADOR’s “insufficient and vague” response as a key reason for terminating their contracts.

4. ADOR downplayed the incident as a mere 'controversy'

Throughout the statement, ADOR framed the matter as a “controversy” rather than naming it as potential mistreatment or misconduct. This rhetorical choice minimises the seriousness of the incident and shifts attention away from accountability.

"Concerned that disputes over factual matters might cause unnecessary controversy surrounding ADOR's artists."

By describing the situation in terms of controversy management, ADOR focused on public image and not on the harm experienced by their artist

5. ADOR contradicted its own support in court

Despite publicly claiming to support Hanni, ADOR later introduced irrelevant or decontextualised evidence during court proceedings in an apparent effort to undermine her account. This included using unrelated CCTV footage and cherry-picked messages, contradicting the trust they had previously expressed.

"Belift Lab's claims are completely different from NewJeans member Hanni's statement."

"It is an excessively harsh and strict standard to require that Hanni must recall every detail... This places too severe a burden on the victim."

ADOR's later actions in court clearly conflicted with these stated principles, revealing a willingness to prioritise corporate self-defence over artist welfare.

6. A clear conflict of interest undermines ADOR’s independence

The statement’s reluctance to confront Belift Lab also reflects a deeper structural issue: a conflict of interest at the leadership level. Kim Joo-young, ADOR’s new CEO, also holds the role of HYBE’s Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO). This dual appointment creates a built-in tension between advocating for ADOR’s artists and preserving internal harmony across HYBE’s corporate structure.

As CHRO of HYBE, Kim is positioned to manage human resources and inter-label relationships company-wide. As CEO of ADOR, he is supposed to defend and represent the interests of a single artist group—NewJeans. These roles are inherently incompatible. His failure to act assertively on Hanni’s behalf suggests that this conflict of interest was not merely theoretical, but operationally damaging.

2025-03-07: ADOR presents debunked CCTV footage and edited KakaoTalk messages in the injunction court

During the injunction court hearing, ADOR presented evidence to counter Hanni’s claims about the "Ignore Her" incident, including the same 8-second footage of the first counter provided by Belift Lab, and hacked and heavily edited Kakao Talk chat history between Hani and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin.

Previously debunked CCTV footage from the entering encounter

The CCTV footage presented by ADOR, which was sourced from Belift Lab, only showed an 8-second clip of the entering encounter. It notably excluded the second encounter—the one in which the "Ignore her" incident occurred.

Both NJZ’s parents and Hanni had previously raised this specific issue with HYBE and ADOR, both privately and publicly. They expressed frustration that only the non-problematic footage was preserved and shared, while the footage showing the actual incident was either deleted or deliberately withheld.

This selective footage proves nothing. It’s like showing a man calmly walking past a bank—it doesn’t prove he didn’t return later to rob it. The release of this limited clip seems intended more for media manipulation than for establishing the manager’s innocence.

If the manager were truly innocent, wouldn’t it make more sense to release all available footage of their interactions?

Hacked and edited KakaoTalk messages

ADOR submitted KakaoTalk messages exchanged between Hanni and Min Hee-jin shortly after the incident (2024-06-02). In response, MHDHH also released similar screenshots.

However, the versions made public are incomplete, and some HYBE-affiliated media outlets have been selectively reporting the chats, using them as part of a media campaign against Hanni.

1. Chat Log

The chat log below has been reconstructed using screenshots from both The KakaoTalk conversation between Hanni and Min Hee-jin consists of a series of private messages exchanged when Hanni reported the "Ignore Her" workplace bullying incident to Min Hee-jin, who was her boss at the time. These chats were made public during the injunction hearing on 2025-03-07, after HYBE and ADOR unlawfully extracted them from Min Hee-jin’s work laptop and released them without the consent of either party.

MHDHH was subsequently forced to include portions of these chats in their court submissions to respond.

The chat log below has been reconstructed using screenshots released by both ADOR and MHDHH. Wherever possible, we have arranged the messages in the correct order.

Please note:

We cannot guarantee complete accuracy, as ADOR’s screenshots are heavily edited, with missing timestamps and messages stitched out of sequence.
Messages have been numbered for ease of reference; however, this does not imply chronological order or that the full conversation is presented.
Additional leaked messages exist, but we have chosen not to include those with entirely erased timestamps, as their context cannot be reliably established.

PM 10:32

1. Hanni: Well... I was just out in the 4th floor hallway practicing some dance moves, you know where the elevator room is?

2. Hanni: There, three ILLIT members and their manager came out, and I greeted them as usual!!

3. Hanni: The four of them went into the styling room while I stayed in the hallway!!

4. Hanni: Since it was almost time to leave

PM 10:33

5. Hanni: But then about 5-10 minutes later...?

PM 10:34

6. Hanni: Those four came out of the styling room again, and I heard the door open, followed by their manager

7. Hanni: saying, Just pretend you don't know her and walk past.

PM 10:35

8. Hanni: I can't remember if those were the exact words, but it was something like that.

PM 10:36 (Partial timestamp visible)

9. Hanni: 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"

PM 10:36

10. MHJ: While you were greeting them?

11. MHJ: Was the manager telling them not to accept your greeting

12. MHJ: ?

13. Hanni: "Another one gave an awkward greeting while avoiding my eyes, and the last one did greet me but seemed very hesitant"

14. Hanni [Reply to “Was the manager telling them not to accept your greeting”]: I'm not sure

15. Hanni: Of course I did (greet them)!! I did!!

PM 10:37

16. MHJ: [unknown - chat bubble cropped out]

17. Hanni [Reply to: "But what's the part you're most certain about?"]: That the manager said those words…

18. MHJ: “Ignore her”

19. MHJ: This?

20. Hanni: Well...there's really no need for us to be like this with each other

PM 10:38

21. Hanni: Personally, it felt weird when the manager said something like that

PM 10:39

22. MHJ: The words were said loud enough to hear

23. MHJ: Then everyone ignored you?

24. Hanni: Yes... That's what they said as they were coming out after I heard the door open

25. MHJ: Did all the ILLIT members ignore you?

PM 11:04

26. Hanni: 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

(No Specific Timestamps Visible) - These messages appear to be stitched together in the screenshots with no clear timestamps, making it impossible to determine their exact timing or order:

27. Hanni: So rather than feeling bad, it was honestly... kind of funny,

28. Hanni: It just made me think once again, 'Ah, we're really working with such great people'

PM 11:18

29. Hanni: I really don't care about them at all

30. Hanni: So if you're worried about that, don't be!

Sources:

ADOR’s Court Submission

2025-03-07 Injunction Court Presentations

Released chat messages #1–30, but not in the correct order.
Selectively cropped and rearranged, disrupting the natural flow of the conversation and altering its original meaning.
Annotate with red arrows and boxes to draw attention to selective parts of the dialogue while ignoring crucial surrounding context.

MHDHH’s Court Submission

2025-03-07 Injunction Court Presentations

Shared messages #1–9, in correct order.
Redacted part of message #9 regarding the behaviour of an ILLIT member.

Chosun Biz Publication

2025-03-07 Chosun Biz Coverage of Injunction Court

Published partial chats (#1–9 and #17–25)
Omitted key middle and concluding messages, but presented as a completed conversation
Editorial commentary distorted the meaning of the messages in 2 HYBE-favoring articles.

IlganSports Article

2025-03-07 Ilgan Sports Injunction Court Coverage

Released both screenshots provided by ADOR and MHDHH (messages #1–30).
Gave readers a complete view without omissions.

2. ADOR presented edited chat logs to the court

2025-03-07 Injunction Court Presentations

Chat log screenshots provided by ADOR were split across four separate screenshots, with clear signs of manipulation to construct a narrative favorable to themselves, downplaying the incident, and misrepresenting Hanni’s experience.

2.1. Selective cropping and omission

The screenshot shows clear signs of messages being selected, cropped out, or omitted:

Message #20 (appearing in both screenshots 2 & 3) appears out of sequence.
Messages #26–30 (screenshot 4) are visibly stitched together.
Message #16 (top of screenshot 3) shows a cropped speech bubble, hiding part of the conversation. This also means we cannot confirm if there are messages between message #15 and #16.

These omissions are especially suspicious given that ADOR was already violating privacy by releasing these messages, yet still withheld parts that likely undermined their narrative.

2.2. Reordering messages and distorting contexts

Messages were shown out of chronological order, disrupting the natural flow and separating cause from effect.

Identical messages appeared with different preceding texts across versions, changing their meaning.

Message #20 appeared in different locations in different screenshots (Screenshot 2 & 3)..

This heavily altered how viewers interpreted the conversation..

2.3. Mismatched or missing timestamps

These messages were stitched together and presented as one continuous thought, though they were likely sent at different times.

All messages between 11:04–11:18, where Hanni reflects on the situation, lacked timestamps.
On Screenshot #2, it appears that Hanni’s Message #20 follows directly after Message #15, with only a one-minute gap shown in the timestamp. Viewed in isolation, this seems natural. However, Screenshot #3 reveals that at least four messages were omitted between those two.

The absence or manipulation of timestamps further obscured the actual timeline and message flow.

2.4. Segmented and misleading presentation

ADOR presented the four screenshots out of order and without context, falsely implying continuity:

Screenshots #1 (messages 1–9) and #3 (messages 17–25) were shown together on one slide.
Screenshots #2 (messages 10–16, 20) and #4 (messages 26–30) were shown on another.

Despite these being non-sequential and incomplete, ADOR presented them as if they formed a coherent, uninterrupted conversation.

2.5. Misleading visual annotations

ADOR added red arrows, boxes, and highlights to draw attention to selected lines—while ignoring the surrounding context.

These visual cues directed viewers toward ADOR’s preferred interpretation, while minimising or obscuring evidence that contradicted their version of events.

3. ADOR’s intention to distort the KKT chat conversation

3. ADOR distorted the KKT chat conversation

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.

3.1. 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.

3.1.1. 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.

3.1.2. 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.

3.1.2.1 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.

3.1.2.2. 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.

3.1.2.3. 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.

3.1.3. 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.

3.2. 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.

3.2.1. 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.

3.2.2. 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.

3.2.3. 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.

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)

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

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

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

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

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.

3.3. 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.

3.3.1. 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.

3.3.2. 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.

3.3.2.1. “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 behavior 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.

3.3.2.2. 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.

3.3.2.3. 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.

3.4 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:

They reframed a clear case of managerial misconduct into a muddled interpersonal misunderstanding between peers.
They victimise the ILLIT members as victims, and reframe Hanni as the aggressor accusing them of wrongdoing.
They weaponised the ILLIT fandom to continue harassing and defaming Hanni into silence.

3.4.1 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.

3.4.2 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.

3.4.3. 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.

3.4.4. 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.

3.5. 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:

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

4. Media-play with even more selectively cherry-picked and edited chats

2025-03-07 Chosun Biz Coverage of Injunction Court

Chosun Biz, a HYBE-aligned publication, submitted Screenshot 1 (messages #1–9) and Screenshot 3 (messages #17–25), presenting them as a continuous conversation without clarifying that a significant middle section was omitted.

They also published a summary of the KKT in the editorial that heavily distorts both basic facts of the incident and the nature of the conversation between Hanni and Min Hee-Jin:

Exaggeration of Hanni’s uncertainty about wording
Misleading framing of MHJ’s questioning
Misuse of Hanni’s “I’m not sure” to suggest broader uncertainty
False framing around the “Ignore Her. This?” exchange

Please read [Analysis] 2025-03-07 Chosun Biz Coverage of Injunction Court for a more in-depth analysis

2025-03–07: Hanni’s Instagram Story Response

2025-03-07 njz_official Instagram Story by Hanni

Hanni publicly criticised ADOR and HYBE on Instagram for distorting evidence to fit their narrative.

She accused them of selectively presenting parts of her KakaoTalk messages to misrepresent her stance.

“I remember everything clearly. I wanted to say it in court earlier, but I held back.

how can u take one part of a conversation and shift the meaning of it to benefit your point of view when I was the one that wrote that message.

whilst you present yourself as company

that wants the best for us.

Please stop tormenting me, ADOR and HYBE.”

She also stated that she has restrained herself from speaking out to avoid escalating the situation, but warned that if further false assumptions are made, she will no longer remain silent.

"i have a lot to say but i’ve been holding back simply because i don’t see the need to have to escalate this issue any bigger than it already is. but if you think u have the audacity to make even more false assumptions about us than you already have.... than i won’t stay quiet"

2025-03-21: Injunction Court Ruling

2025-03-23 Seoul Central District Court 50th Civil Division: Court Ruling

The Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of ADOR, granting an injunction that reinforced the agency's control over NJZs' activities.

The court ruled there was no conclusive proof that ILLIT’s manager instructed members to ignore Hanni during their 27 May 2024 encounter.
The injunction ruling prioritised ADOR’s contractual rights over interpersonal disputes. The court stated that even if the incident occurred, it did not justify unilateral contract termination.
NJZ announced plans to appeal, stating the court's decision "did not sufficiently take into account the fact that the members' trust in ADOR has been destroyed.

2025-03-26: BBC Interview

2025-03-26 NJZ Interview with BBC

Hanni addressed the “Ignore Her” incident during the interview.

She accused ADOR of withholding crucial evidence related to the incident. She expressed frustration that only partial CCTV footage and selected messages were made public to misrepresent the situation.

“ADOR did not reveal the entire truth of the incident, but only released some CCTV footage that was favorable to them.” - Hanni

Hanni also expressed concern about the situation’s impact on ILLIT, but maintained her stance against workplace harassment, emphasising the need to speak out for a safe environment for all employees.

"To be completely honest, we're not that comfortable about constantly bringing up the situation, because we know it involves another team, and we don't want to affect that team in any way, 'cause, you know, there's no need for that. There really is no need for that. But if you don't express how you're feeling and what you're thinking, people don't know. And people would have just believed what was going on in the media." - Hanni

2025-07-24: Main Lawsuit Second Hearing

2025-07-25 Team Bunnies Trial Content Excerpt

During the main trial’s second hearing, MHDHH’s side re-emphasised the key point of the “Ignore Her” incident once again. They clarified that the controversy is not about a simple matter of greeting, but about systematic ostracism and the mishandling of evidence by HYBE affiliates.

Hanni never took issue with someone not greeting her.

“What concerns us is that the controversy over Hanni’s greeting might be perceived as a childish issue about hierarchy or etiquette between senior and junior idols, and we’re worried about that. But that’s not the case.”

The “Ignore Her” incident was cited as an example of wider systematic ostracism and disregard towards NewJeans within HYBE affiliates.

“The greeting controversy was mentioned as evidence of systematic ostracism and disregard towards the defendants within HYBE affiliates.”

New ADOR deliberately misrepresented Hanni’s concerns as a petty complaint about a greeting, to trivialise the matter, in an attempt to dismiss her claims and damage her reputation with the public.

“We’re not saying the failure to greet is the serious issue; we’re highlighting the series of events that occurred in the process of discarding that evidence. Therefore, ADOR has misunderstood the crux of the issue.”

HYBE — and by extension, the new ADOR management — manipulated evidence to portray Hanni as a liar. This is contradictory to their public claims that they want to protect their only artists.

“What we take issue with is not the act of not greeting itself, but the fact that in the process of explaining and clarifying the situation, they deleted a video that could have proven Hanni’s claims and portrayed Hanni as a liar.”

2025-07-24 StarNews Coverage of Main Lawsuit Third Hearing

MHDHH’s lawyers also pointed out that the footage released to the public during the 2025-03-07 Injunction Court was from the wrong encounter.

“There’s footage of them [ILLIT and the manager] entering, but why was the footage of them leaving deleted?” - MHDHH’s lawyers

Hanni and her parents had already raised the same issue back in October 2024.

“It was only an 8-second clip showing the greeting, and the footage from 5–10 minutes later was missing.”- Hanni (2024-10-15 National Assembly)

“It's absurd that not all footage from the date of the incident was missing. They only showed us about eight seconds of footage of Hanni greeting other artist members and claimed that all footage from other time slots was deleted.” - NewJeans’ parents (2024-10-07 Ilgan Sports Interview)

“When we first raised this issue, we clearly explained that the incident happened while Hanni was alone. Yet, the footage HYBE showed Hanni on August 14th was of her with her ADOR manager and Danielle” - NewJeans’ parents (2024-10-09 Ilgan Sports Interview)

They argued that ADOR’s decision to release the CCTV footage, knowing it only part of the incident, was a deliberate attempt to make Hanni look like a liar.

“It made Hanni look like a liar. How must the members feel? How can we return to an agency that treats its artists as liars instead of protecting them?” - MHDHH’s lawyers

This shows that the trust between ADOR and all five members of MHDHH has been broken, since ADOR was willing to distort the truth to damage a member’s reputation, leading to serious harm and cyberbullying through media play.

In response, ADOR claimed that the correct footage was not deleted but had simply expired, effectively admitting that they had publicised the wrong footage in a way that portrayed Hanni as dishonest.

“This is not grounds for contract termination, and there was no reason to delete CCTV footage. It was simply deleted after the 30-day retention period.” - ADOR

This reinforced the core concern that ADOR has no regard for the members’ reputation or well-being.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse