The girl group NewJeans, currently embroiled in a contract dispute with its agency ADOR, has removed all traces of its newly announced name “NJZ” from social media, signaling a halt to independent activities.
On Apr. 4, the members changed the handle of their Instagram account from “njz_official” to “mhdhh_friends” and took down the profile photo. All previous posts on the account were also deleted.
The social media account used by the parents of the NewJeans members to share official statements was likewise renamed “mhdhh_pr.” The string “mhdhh” is believed to represent the initials of each member’s name: “m” for Minji, “h” for Hanni, “d” for Danielle, “h” for Haerin, and the final “h” for Hyein.
The decision to remove the NJZ name from social media appears to be linked to a recent court ruling that bars the group from conducting independent activities.
On Mar. 21, the Seoul Central District Court granted an injunction filed by ADOR, a label under HYBE and NewJeans’ agency, against the five members—Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin, and Hyein. The court’s decision prohibits the members from independently promoting or entering into advertising contracts without ADOR’s consent until the first ruling in the main lawsuit is delivered.
Despite the court order, the members appeared under the NJZ name at ComplexCon Hong Kong 2025, held on Mar. 23 at AsiaWorld-Expo. During their performance of a new track titled “Pit Stop,” LED screens displayed the name NJZ rather than NewJeans, and merchandise branded with NJZ was sold around the venue. After the event, the group announced a temporary suspension of activities.
On Apr. 3, the first hearing for ADOR’s main lawsuit seeking confirmation of the validity of the exclusive contracts took place at the Seoul Central District Court’s Civil Division 41. During the session, ADOR said it “hopes to reach a settlement,” but the members’ representatives responded, “We don’t think that’s realistic right now. Given what they’re going through, they’re not in the right state of mind to even consider it.”
Addressing the members’ claim that trust has broken down between the two sides, the judge remarked, “A breakdown in trust usually involves something clear, like a failure to properly settle payments, but this is a unique situation. We’ll need to consider how trust should be interpreted in a long-term contract involving management and production.”
