Landon Barker is opening up about his experience with Tourette Syndrome.

The rocker took to TikTok this week to reveal that he has a “very, very minor” case of the neurological disorder that causes a person to have involuntary physical or verbal tics. “I’ve had it for as long as I can remember, like pre-school,” he recalled. “I remember exactly because the teacher used to accuse me of rolling my eyes at her because one of my ticks was [moves eyes around] that. It was, like, a weird thing I do with my eyes.”

He added that nowadays, his tics manifest in movement of heck or jaw. “It really just acts up in nervous situations or nerve wracking environments for me,” he shared.

Barker joins a slew of celebrities who have opened up about having Tourette Syndrome, which affects about one in every 162 children, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Billie Eilish has shared her experience with the disorder throughout her career, telling David Letterman on his popular in-depth interview series, My Next Guest Needs No Introduction that she was diagnosed when she was 11 years old. “I never don’t tic at all, because the main tics that I do are constantly, like, I wiggle my ear back and forth and raise my eyebrow and click my jaw and flex this arm here and this arm there,” she says. “These are things you would never notice if you’re having a conversation with me, but for me, they’re very exhausting.”

While Eilish admitted that she use to “damn” her symptoms, she now feel like they are “part” of her. “I have made friends with it, so now I’m pretty confident in it,” she explains.

Lewis Capaldi revealed last year that his experience with Tourette Syndrome has an affect on his performing. “My tic is getting quite bad on stage now,” Capaldi said in an interview with The Times. “I’m trying to get on top of that. If I can’t, I’m f–ked. It’s easier when I play guitar, but I hate playing guitar. I know, I’m a walking contradiction.”

He also previously spoke about his struggles with Tourette’s in an Instagram Live. “The worst thing about it is when I’m excited I get it, when I’m stressed I get it, when I’m happy I get it,” he said at the time. “It happens all the time.”

A federal judge is allowing music publishers to move forward with a copyright lawsuit filed against X Corp. over allegations of widespread copyright infringement on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

In a split ruling Tuesday (Mar. 5), Judge Aleta A. Trauger tossed out major parts of the case, like the accusation that X itself directly infringed any music. But she allowed some of the lawsuit’s core allegations — that X essentially enabled illegal behavior by its users by refusing to crack down on them — to move ahead.

In one example, the judge ruled that the music companies could pursue their “particularly striking” allegation that Twitter had been less willing to crack down on users who had paid for “verified” status.

“If X Corp. truly did allow some users to effectively purchase the right to be able to infringe with less severe consequences, then that was plausibly an instance of promoting X/Twitter’s use to infringe copyright,” the judge wrote.

The case against Twitter was filed in June by dozens of music publishers, who claim that users on the Elon Musk-owned site had infringed over 1,700 songs from writers like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé — a claim that, if proven, could put the social media giant on the hook for $255 million in damages.

The case was organized by the National Music Publishers’ Association, which has long argued that Twitter is the last major social media service that refuses to license music. TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat have all allegedly entered into such deals with publishers, providing a library of licensed music for users to legally add to their posts. The lawsuit claimed that Twitter had, instead, effectively allowed its users to supply such music illegally.

The case was filed by Concord, Universal Music Publishing Group, peermusic, ABKCO Music, Anthem Entertainment, Big Machine Music, BMG Rights Management, Hipgnosis Songs Group, Kobalt Music Publishing America, Mayimba Music, Reservoir Media Management, Sony Music Publishing, Spirit Music Group, The Royalty Network, Ultra Music Publishing, Warner Chappell Music and Wixen Music Publishing.

Twitter moved to dismiss the lawsuit in August, arguing that social media sites clearly do not directly infringe copyrights when users upload illegal material. And they argued that digital services also cannot be sued for so-called secondary infringement unless they take active steps to aid the illicit behavior: “In this case, plaintiffs do not allege that X encouraged, induced, or took affirmative steps with the intent to foster the infringement of plaintiffs’ works,” the company’s lawyers wrote at the time.

In Tuesday’s ruling, Judge Trauger partly agreed with Twitter’s arguments. She easily dismissed the allegations of direct infringement, citing recent Supreme Court precedents, and also ruled that the company could not be held liable for “vicarious infringement” — meaning it profited directly from allowing illicit materials on the site. She also ruled that the music companies could not accuse X of so-called contributory infringement simply by offering tools that could sometimes be abused by infringers.

“Many of the supposedly problematic practices that the plaintiffs identify are unremarkable features of X/Twitter generally that X Corp. has simply failed to fence off completely from infringers,” the judge wrote. “The plaintiffs have not identified any basis for concluding that X Corp. was obligated to make its service worse for everyone, just to punish the people who misuse it.”

But Judge Trauger said other alleged conduct, if ultimately proven, could put Twitter on the hook for damages. One such claim, she said, is the allegation that X committed contributory infringement by failing to crack down on “severe serial infringers” who “openly and obviously used the service as a tool for repeatedly posting infringing content.”

“If … there was a class of X/Twitter users who were brazenly using the platform as an infringement tool, and X Corp. made the decision to unreasonably withhold enforcement of its own policies against those users … then X Corp. could plausibly be held contributorily liable,” the judge wrote.

Another claim Judge Trauger allowed to move forward was that X took too long to respond to takedown notices from copyright owners: “If X Corp. engaged in egregious delays in responding to valid takedown notices, or outright ignored some notices that were both facially and actually valid, that could support liability.”

Notably, Tuesday’s ruling did not address the thorny issue of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a federal law that provides sites like Twitter with immunity — a “safe harbor” — from litigation over material uploaded by their users, so long as they promptly remove it when asked. The music publishers say X clearly failed to do so; the site strongly denies that point.

Though X’s initial motion to dismiss the case did not invoke the DMCA, the company’s lawyers will undoubtedly do so at a later stage of the case now that some of the claims are moving forward. When they do so, the statute will provide X lawyers with another avenue for defeating the allegations that Judge Trauger refused to dismiss on Tuesday.

An attorney for X did not return a request for comment on Tuesday evening.

In a statement to Billboard, a spokeswoman for the NMPA said the group was “pleased” with the ruling: “The spread of rampant music piracy on the platform is obvious and unacceptable, and we look forward to securing just compensation for the songwriters and music publishers whose work is being stolen.”

The legendary late Frankie Ruiz returns to the top 10 on Billboard’s Tropical Airplay for the first time since 1998 — the year he died — thanks to his featured role on Victor Manuelle’s “Otra Noche Más,” which debuts at No. 9. It’s Ruiz’s seventh top 10, and Manuelle’s record-extending 65th.

“Otra Noche Más,” a tribute to the legacy of one of salsa’s biggest artists, integrates excerpts of Ruiz’s 1989 single, “Deseándote,” and musical arrangements by Junito Dávila.

“Otra” is Ruiz’s first entry on the chart since 2012, and debuts with 2 million audience impressions earned in the U.S. in the week ending Feb. 29, according to Luminate. The song was released Feb. 22 via Sony Music Latin.

The time-traveling collaboration previews Victor Manuelle’s upcoming album Retromántico, a project that pays homage to classic salsa of the 1990s.

“Otra Noche” becomes Ruiz’ seventh top 10 on Tropical Airplay. He was a prolific presence on the chart during the 90s, scoring six top 10s, including two No. 1s: his last being the seven-week champ “Ironía” in 1996.

Victor Manuelle, meanwhile, extends his record for the most top 10s on Tropical Airplay since the charted launched in 1994, with 65 top 10s. “Otra Noche” follows the Puerto Rican’s last chart hit, the No. 9-peaking “Esta Noche Te Conviene” in April 2023.

Top music law firm King Holmes Paterno & Soriano is firing back at a legal malpractice lawsuit filed by the band Sublime, arguing that the group has “falsely and maliciously” sued to get out of paying their hefty legal bills.

A month after Sublime sued its former attorneys — Howard King, Peter Paterno and Joseph M. Carlone — over allegations of a “pattern of self-dealing,” the firm filed a scathing countersuit Monday (Mar. 4). In it, they argue that the band still owes the firm $100,000 in fees after abruptly ending a decades-long attorney-client relationship.

“While Sublime had the right to terminate its lawyers at any time, it has no right to sidestep its responsibility to pay fees it incurred,” the firm wrote. “Yet, in an obvious and pathetic attempt to do exactly that, plaintiffs, presumably at the prodding of reputationally challenged new advisors, have cynically elected to file a trumped-up preemptive malpractice suit falsely and maliciously accusing the law firm of conflicts of interest they claim caused them unspecified damages.”

The filing from King Holmes aimed to rebut many of Sublime’s specific allegations, including the band’s accusation that the firm steered it into a merchandise deal without disclosing that the company was another one of the firm’s clients — a move Sublime claimed cost the band millions.

In Monday’s filing, the firm said it had disclosed that potential conflict of interest to the band members and that they had consented to the arrangement. King Holmes said it even invited the band members’ personal attorneys to be involved in the negotiations to avoid any doubt.

“At the request of Sublime and its partners, KHPS helped secure a state-of-the-art merchandising agreement with one of the world’s few most preeminent music merchandisers, which also was Sublime’s merchandiser of choice,” the firm wrote. “That merchandiser paid and continues to pay Sublime higher royalties on a much broader range of products and with other more favorable terms than its main competitor offered.”

King Holmes Paterno & Soriano touts an eye-popping list of music industry clients, from Dr. Dre to Pharrell Williams to Blink-182 to the Tupac Shakur estate. King famously represented Williams and Robin Thicke in the “Blurred Lines” copyright case; Paterno represented Metallica in its legal battles against Napster over internet piracy.

But in late January, Sublime boldly announced that it was no longer one of those clients by filing a malpractice lawsuit. In it, the band claimed that the firm had “failed in their ethical, fiduciary, and lawyerly obligations to protect the interests of their clients,” including by “playing both sides” on multiple occasions.

“Behind their façade as music industry power brokers, KHPS’ number one priority was not their client Sublime’s legal and business goals, but rather KHPS’ own financial and business interests,” the band’s new attorneys wrote. “Despite holding themselves out to the public as highly experienced in the business side of music, … defendants engaged in a pattern of self-dealing that was rife with potential and actual, conflicts of interest.”

The case was filed by Sublime’s surviving members, Eric Wilson and Bud Gaugh, as well as by the widow and son of Bradley Nowell, Sublime’s original lead singer who died of a drug overdose in 1996. The band’s corporate entities — Sublime Merchandising LLC and Jake And Troy Brand LLC — were also named as plaintiffs.

But in Monday’s countersuit, the firm said it had “diligently and loyally represented Sublime and its business interests” for decades, an arrangement from which the band “benefited greatly.” King Holmes said it had “successfully used its music industry knowledge and experience” to aid the band on a wide range of business ventures, from music deals to merchandising to film projects: “KHPS’ work empowered Sublime and its partners to preserve and capitalize on their most valuable assets, the band’s music and trademark.”

The firm went even further, suggesting that Sublime had perhaps been motivated by “predatory new advisors” to file baseless allegations in court.

“A cursory investigation done in good faith, had plaintiffs or their advisors cared to make the minimal effort needed to conduct one before pulling the litigation trigger, would have demonstrated what plaintiffs and their advisors already knew or should have known — that nothing could be further from the truth,” the firm wrote.

In technical terms, Monday’s filing accused Sublime and its surviving members of breach of contract and other related violations, saying they had violated their agreement by failing to pay the firm $108,852 in past-due legal bills. The case will be litigated alongside the original allegations filed in January.

An attorney for Sublime did not immediately return a request for comment.