In the dazzling and fast-paced universe of celebrity endorsements, a brand partnership with a popular idol group can seem like a guaranteed path to market dominance, yet a simple oversight in a promotional jingle can quickly unravel a multi-million dollar campaign into a protracted and costly legal nightmare. The ensuing conflict often raises a critical question for all parties involved: when the music stops and the lawsuits begin, who is ultimately left to pay the price?
The High-Stakes World of Idol Endorsements
The relationship between global corporations and idol groups is a cornerstone of modern advertising, built on a foundation of immense financial investment and strategic brand alignment. These partnerships are designed to leverage an idol’s dedicated fanbase to drive sales and enhance brand image, creating a mutually beneficial ecosystem. Corporations invest heavily for access to this influence, while entertainment agencies secure lucrative contracts that fund their artists’ activities and fuel their growth.
However, the operational complexity of these large-scale campaigns often creates vulnerabilities. In a typical endorsement agreement, the brand outlines the promotional goals, but delegates the creative execution, including the production of advertising materials, to the idol’s agency. This division of labor is efficient but places the burden of due diligence, such as securing licenses for music and other intellectual property, squarely on the agency’s shoulders. When this responsibility is neglected, the initial fallout often lands on the brand, not the agency that made the mistake.
From Brand Anthem to Legal Battle
When a Catchy Jingle Becomes a Costly Lawsuit
This exact scenario unfolded during a promotional partnership between the idol group SNH48 and the food brand Wanchai Ferry, owned by the multinational corporation General Mills. As part of their collaboration, a promotional song was used to engage fans and promote the product. The campaign appeared to be a standard, effective use of celebrity endorsement to capture consumer attention.
The problem arose when it was discovered that the song used, “Hao Yunlai,” was incorporated into the campaign without the proper authorization from the copyright holder. This oversight by SNH48’s agency, Siba Media, which was responsible for clearing all creative assets, triggered a copyright infringement lawsuit in 2019. Critically, the legal action was not filed against the agency but directly against General Mills, the corporate face of the campaign.
The Financial Fallout A Deep Dive into the Damages
In May 2023, the initial court case concluded with a verdict against General Mills. The company was found liable for the infringement and ordered to pay 335,500 yuan in damages to the song’s rightful owner. This ruling represented the first direct financial consequence of the agency’s failure, placing an immediate and significant burden on the brand.
This initial judgment, however, was merely the opening act in a more intricate dispute. While the copyright issue was settled, the verdict ignited a secondary conflict centered on the contract between General Mills and Siba Media. The question shifted from who infringed the copyright to who was contractually obligated to cover the total financial cost of that infringement.
Untangling the Web of Contractual Responsibility
Following the court’s decision, General Mills turned to Siba Media for indemnification, as stipulated in their partnership agreement. Siba Media eventually paid the 335,500-yuan penalty, acknowledging its role in the copyright oversight. This payment, however, did not close the matter, as it failed to account for the other significant expenses General Mills had incurred.
The core of the new dispute was Siba Media’s refusal to reimburse General Mills for its substantial legal fees, which amounted to approximately 300,000 yuan. The agency contested this obligation, arguing that the legal costs were “excessive” and therefore not covered under their agreement. This refusal prompted General Mills to file a second, separate lawsuit aimed directly at Siba Media to recover the costs of defending a lawsuit that originated from the agency’s error.
The Court’s Verdict Setting a Precedent for Agency Accountability
The subsequent legal battle hinged on the interpretation of the indemnification clause within the endorsement contract. General Mills contended that its agreement with Siba Media required the agency to cover all financial losses stemming from its breach of contract, which naturally included the costs of legal defense. Siba Media, in contrast, sought to limit its liability to only the direct damages awarded to the copyright holder.
Ultimately, the court delivered a decisive verdict in favor of General Mills. It ruled that Siba Media was fully responsible for all financial consequences of its failure and ordered the agency to reimburse the food company for over 320,000 yuan in damages and associated legal fees. This decision closed any ambiguity, establishing a clear precedent that an agency’s accountability extends beyond direct fines to encompass the entire financial fallout of its contractual failures.
Redefining the Rules of Engagement for Brands and Agencies
The resolution of the dispute between General Mills and Siba Media sends a clear message throughout the advertising and entertainment industries. It highlights the profound financial risks associated with inadequate copyright clearance and serves as a powerful case study on the importance of contractual clarity. For brands, it reinforces the necessity of airtight indemnification clauses that leave no room for interpretation regarding liability.
Moving forward from 2025, this verdict is expected to influence how endorsement contracts are structured. Brands are likely to demand more explicit terms that detail an agency’s responsibility for all potential costs, from litigation fees to public relations damage control. In response, talent agencies will face increased pressure to strengthen their internal review and rights clearance processes, as the financial penalty for a mistake is now demonstrably absolute.
The Final Tally Lessons in Liability and Due Diligence
The lengthy legal conflict between Siba Media and General Mills began with a simple copyright oversight but evolved into a significant contractual showdown. The final court ruling did more than just settle a financial disagreement; it clarified the scope of agency responsibility in brand partnerships, confirming that liability is not a matter for negotiation after the fact.
This case ultimately affirmed that the party contracted to perform due diligence bears the complete financial burden when it fails. The journey from a promotional jingle to a courtroom verdict provided a definitive and costly lesson: in the world of high-stakes endorsements, responsibility for clearing creative rights includes paying for every single consequence of getting it wrong, down to the last legal bill.
