Exhibit 2 [June 11, 2026, ADOR v. Danielle Court Hearing]: The Contradictory Notice Period.
โข The Vague Projection: ADOR issued a 14-day notice to "correct the past," citing a highly subjective "loss of trust" instead of a concrete contract breach.
โข Unprofessional Stonewalling: When Danielle asked how to comply, ADOR deflected all corporate accountability with a vague response of, "Only you know what you did. Fix it yourself."
โข The Double-Bind Trap: By hiding the goalposts, ADOR set up a toxic psychological trap. They intentionally induced a state of learned helplessness so they could use the inevitable "failure to correct" as an excuse to terminate her contract and sue.
Takeaway: This is textbook corporate gaslighting. Demanding someone fix a problem while refusing to tell them what the problem actually is is incredibly unprofessional and done in complete bad faith to guarantee she would fail. ADOR never wanted her to "fix" anything.
What HYBE has done to them: stolen three years of their career, sued them, leaked their personal information, bought off TAG PR and published thousands of articles to smear them, dismantled their entire team, insulted and harassed them...
FRAUDOR is going to lose due to judicial estoppel. How can you sue someone for 30M over something that directly contradicts what you just won in court for two months before?
3) (Seems most important) Ador terminating Danielle based on breach of trust due to things that happened before the ruling goes against Ador's own testimony in court last year (since Ador argued that trust was not breached and they wanted the members back).
Danielle's lawyers are arguing that they are contradicting their previous testimony at the October 2025 ruling in which they said that trust was not broken, which is "Judicial Estoppel."
the audacity of ador claiming theyโre being harassed when they support inhumane slave contracts that leave idols facing lawsuits worth millions for trying to leave with valid reasons, even after theyโve repaid their trainee debt and earned the company massive profits. all because they signed a piece of paper as teenagers. these idols arenโt even protected by basic workersโ rights. the fact that this system is even considered legal is insane to me
6
At 41:00, the creator directs severe cyberbullying at a non-public figure (the artist's mother), threatening that unreleased materials could socially "cancel" her. This malicious intimidation and defamation of a family member severely violates YouTube's harassment policies.
5
At 38:19, the uploader maliciously sows discord among group members, calling some "stupid" and falsely speculating the target's actions are driven by "money." This baseless slander is designed to incite fan wars and targeted harassment against the young artist.
4
At 18:11, the creator spreads baseless rumors about a former CEO seeking a "100 billion KRW investment" without factual sources. Broadcasting unverified, speculative gossip to damage personal and professional reputations violates policies against harassment and defamation.
3
At 03:38, the creator ignores official articles to spread unverified gossip from other cyber-wreckers about a third party's gender. This shows clear malicious intent to create sensationalized fake news and incite public mockery, violating anti-harassment guidelines.
2
At 16:00, the video maliciously frames contract "backdating" as fraudulent and illegal. By directly connecting this to the artist's team without evidence, the creator defames them as potential criminals to incite mass hatred and cyberbullying.
This screenshot has a bunch of things wrong with it, starting with Reddit. NewJeans and their parentsโ complaint was internal, HYBE made everything public. NewJeans has the right to defend their brand and file complaints to HYBE through the companyโs private channels.
29. Defendant: The fact that Adore claimed the relationship of trust remained intact until the final judgment, yet terminated the contract after winning the case on the grounds that the trust had been broken, constitutes a violation of the doctrine of estoppel.