Chlöe Bailey and Columbia Records Accused of ‘Exploiting’ Songwriter’s Contributions in Lawsuit

Legal Allegations Over Unpaid Songwriting Credits

Chlöe Bailey faces accusations of failing to compensate songwriter-producer Melvin Moore, who goes by “OneInThe4Rest” or simply “4Rest,” for his creative work on her “Trouble In Paradise” album. Moore affirms the case that Bailey and her two labels, Columbia Records and Parkwood Entertainment, did not give him the proper payment for his work on several songs. The problem is based on three specific songs: “Favorite,” “Same Lingerie,” and “Might as Well”—on the Bailey’s 2024 album. Moore argues that his unbridled inputs to the musician’s track bring about a trust breach, which the artist and her team caused by unethical behavior that has become a source of frustration. This quarrel brings up broader issue of fair compensation inside the music industry, with Moore holding the opinion that he has been treated unfairly.

In the lawsuit filed on February 20, Moore sues Bailey and her labels for engaging in tricks such as the non-payment of the bill he expected. The filing asserts that Bailey profited from Moore’s compositions and lyrical concepts but withheld both monetary compensation and professional acknowledgments. The lawsuit targets specifically Columbia Records and Parkwood Entertainment for their partisanship in letting those alleged breaches go on, and for failing to address Moore’s financial concerns. As the legal process continues, music industry experts have pointed to the fact that musicians and producers have to deal with very difficult and confusing negotiations that necessitate transparency and lucidity. Moore’s complaint shows what can happen if those processes do not work properly, leaving one party feeling exploited and undervalued.

Personal Involvement

The complaint further details Moore’s contention that his personal experiences heavily informed the disputed material. He states that the lyrics and narratives of the three tracks were derived from genuine relationships, emotions, and hardships he encountered, giving the songs an authentic core. This intimate connection, he insists, makes it especially unjust that Chlöe Bailey and her label capitalized on his work without seeking proper authorization. Moreover, Moore alleges that neither he nor his representatives were invited to engage in good-faith negotiations before the songs were released. According to his statements, this exclusion robbed him of any chance to safeguard his own interests. The lawsuit claims that failing to seek permission denied Moore recognition for the deeper emotional layers he contributed.

Within the legal filing, Moore specifically argues that Chlöe Bailey and her team neglected to grant him “proper professional writing credit.” He interprets this omission as a deliberate act that diminishes his role and the value of his input. In his account, these three tracks would not exist in their current form without his creative direction, yet he was left off official credits and denied financial reward for his work. This alleged oversight, Moore believes, points to a systemic pattern of disregarding behind-the-scenes collaborators once a project reaches commercial success. Such a claim resonates widely in an industry where credit disputes are far from uncommon, especially when multiple contributors shape a final recording.

Promotional Concerns

Moore also highlights numerous promotional efforts by Chlöe Bailey and the label that failed to include him in any public acknowledgment of his participation. He contends that marketing campaigns, social media teasers, and industry announcements all showcased the songs while overlooking his name. In the lawsuit, Moore calls attention to these instances as evidence of a larger campaign to obscure his role, thus depriving him of professional recognition. Seeing things from his point of view, these actions, all put together, shows Bailey and her team were using his songwriting skills without meeting their duties.

Throughout the lawsuit process, both parties are likely to provide more detailed information on their respective stands, but Moore’s request for fair compensation and acknowledgment has already led to wider discussions on ethics in music production. Moore, who is a Grammy nominee, has made name in the music industry through many projects with many different well-known musicians. Among the projects are those from G-Eazy, French Montana, Usher, Ty Dolla Sign, Chris Brown, 2 Chainz, John Legend, Jason Derulo, BTS, Kanye West, Trey Songz, and Drake.

In addition, he has developed as a music personality in the industry who has brought change to the world through his trendy songs be it a pop tune or a legendary one. His name consistently appears in liner notes on the back of the most popular albums, proving his multifaceted ability. Moore has become adept in addressing the intricacies of rights, credits, and payments in the music industry. Hence, the foundation of his decision to initiate a legal suit is the disputed compositions that he claims are still uncompensated. According to his own statements, the ongoing conflict represents more than a financial matter—it also speaks to fair recognition for his creative input.

No Official Comment

Representatives for Chlöe Bailey and Columbia Records have not yet replied to inquiries from Variety about Moore’s allegations. As a result, key details regarding their perspective remain unclear. Furthermore, no statement has been put forth to the public by Bailey, her legal team, or any other associated spokespersons. The media and fans themselves are also curious to find out what strategy Bailey’s camp will take to address or counter these claims. The silence so far has led to growing scrutiny, with many observers waiting to hear a formal denial or confirmation. Meanwhile, Moore’s accusations continue to circulate on various platforms, fueling debates about standard practices in producer and artist collaborations. The lack of immediate reaction keeps the focus squarely on Moore’s lawsuit and the extent of his allegations regarding unpaid royalties and songwriter credit.

In addition to the civil lawsuit, Moore’s representatives issued a cease and desist letter, explicitly stating he will not grant any rights for the disputed songs to Bailey or her label. The letter explains that Moore also refuses to grant a first-use mechanical license for the tracks in question, effectively blocking any continued commercial exploitation of his work until an agreement is reached. As part of the cease and desist demands, Moore seeks an immediate payment of $10,000 and calls for an abrupt halt to any unlicensed uses of his contributions. This official notice signals that Moore aims to enforce his rights swiftly, emphasizing the seriousness of his claims. By restricting the songs’ legal distribution, he raises the stakes for all parties involved. The cease and desist has increased pressure on Bailey’s team to respond, given the potential ramifications if Moore’s concerns remain unaddressed.

Royalty Negotiations

Within the scope of proposed negotiations, Moore has asked for a 2% royalty allocation per master, along with an additional publishing share. This request, as outlined in the lawsuit and cease and desist, highlights Moore’s insistence on receiving fair compensation for what he views as his critical role in shaping the disputed songs. Also, he insists on immediacy regarding the removal of titles from all digital music platforms, websites, blogs, and social media accounts. Through removal, Moore emphasizes his conviction that constant usage of these tunes by the public continues to be a violation of his intellectual property.

These terms represent a larger problem that frequently arises in the music business where complex collaborations can lead to disagreements about creative ownership and distribution rights. As spelled out in the civil lawsuit, Moore is asking for both real damages and punitive damages, which he feels comply fully with the law. Under these conditions, he is asking for up to $150,000 as compensation for each case of violation of copyright, in addition to a $5,000,000 penalty per song. These figures signal that Moore believes the alleged violations merit significant financial accountability.

In the eyes of the court, such high damages often signify a plaintiff’s attempt to address not only lost earnings but also reputational harm. The focus on punitive damages to some extent reveals Moore’s view that the alleged actions of Chlöe Bailey and her team were more of a crime or omission than a contractual misunderstanding. Jurists highlight that the case’s final decision may depend on a determination of whether any infringement was highly intentional. If the court backs Moore, the ruling would probably be a lesson to the music industry on how to deal with similar cases of songwriter compensation and the ethical treatment of creative professionals.