Interscope Claims Summer Walker Will Owe $50 Million if She Walks Away From Record Deal
The label sued Friday after the singer-songwriter said she was terminating her contract under a California labor law
Summer Walker and Interscope Records are embroiled in a legal battle over the termination of her record deal. Walker, who signed a joint agreement with Universal Music Group (UMG) subsidiary and management company LVRN in 2017, delivered a termination notice to Interscope in August. Interscope retaliated by filing a lawsuit on October 9, according to Billboard.
The lawsuit claims that if Walker breaches the agreement, she would be responsible for $50 million in damages for failing to release all promised albums. Walker is invoking California's seven-year statute, a 1944 law that permits individuals to exit personal services contracts after that period. The statute was amended in 1987, allowing record labels to sue artists for damages if they leave after seven years but before completing all album commitments.
Under this law, labels have only 45 days to initiate such lawsuits in response to contract termination notices. Interscope's lawsuit, filed at the end of the 45-day window, alleges that Walker has only delivered three projects out of the five-album commitment she made in 2017: her 2019 debut album Over It, which peaked at No. 2 on the Billboard 200, the 2021 chart-topper Still Over It, and another No. 2 album, Finally Over It, released in 2025.
Interscope's legal team stated that they remain hopeful for an amicable resolution but are compelled to file the lawsuit due to the statutory deadline. Walker's representatives have yet to comment on the matter. Historically, labels have employed similar damages lawsuits when artists attempt to terminate their record deals under the seven-year statute.
Warner Bros. Records utilized this tactic in a 2016 dispute with heavy metal band Avenged Sevenfold, and MCA employed the same strategy against R&B groups New Edition and Bell Biv DeVoe in the 1990s. There have been multiple unsuccessful attempts in the California legislature to repeal the 1987 amendment, with artist advocates arguing that the potential for substantial damages discourages artists from invoking the seven-year statute to terminate their record deals.
The record industry contends that the provision safeguards labels' contractual rights and maintains the stability of dealmaking.
Written by urgent.news from Billboard's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
This story
This is one outlet's version. Read the fullest account.
