A Texas millionaire has been ordered to repay $3 million worth of Katy Perry’s legal fees after losing to the pop star in a yearslong legal battle over a California mansion sale.

In a Thursday (May 28) court order, obtained and first reported by Billboard, a Los Angeles judge said Perry is entitled to an attorney fee refund on top of the $2 million judgment she already won from 1800Flowers founder Carl Westcott. Perry, through her business manager Bernie Gudvi, spent five years fighting in court over a $15 million contract for Westcott’s 9,285-square-foot home in Montecito, Calif.

Judge Joseph Lipner ruled in January that Westcott improperly tried to back out of the deal by claiming, without evidence, that he was not in his right mind when he inked the sales contract because of painkillers from a recent back surgery. On Thursday, the judge said this also means Gudvi and Perry are entitled to recover legal expenses for their troubles.

However, Judge Lipner did not grant the full $4.5 million in fees sought by Gudvi and Perry for nearly 5,000 billable hours of work by more than a dozen attorneys at the elite law firm Greenberg Traurig. That figure, said the judge, is “extremely high for a case of this nature.”

“There is nothing wrong with Gudvi agreeing to pay these fees,” wrote Judge Lipner. “Nor is there anything improper about Gudvi and his counsel agreeing to staff the case so heavily with attorneys and have them spend thousands of hours litigating. As Gudvi pointed out, Gudvi represents the interests of a celebrity client, Elizabeth Hudson, also known as Katy Perry. Gudvi and his principal have the resources to litigate the case in this manner and may appropriately choose to do so. The problems arise when a party seeks to shift those fees to the other party who did not make those choices.”

The judge thus ordered Westcott to repay a lower figure of $3 million in legal fees. This amount will now get added to the complex balance sheet between the adversaries; Perry’s reps have already paid $9 million to Westcott out of the original $15 million purchase price of the Montecito home, and Judge Lipner deducted $2 million from the remaining $6 million balance as Westcott’s penalty in the January judgment.

Reps for Perry and Westcott did not immediately return requests for comment on Thursday’s ruling.

The saga dates back to July 2020, when Gudvi signed a contract on Perry’s behalf to buy the Montecito home that Westcott had recently purchased. A month later, Westcott sued to invalidate the deal, alleging he had been too foggy from painkillers to properly consent.

The case went to a bench trial in 2023, and Judge Lipner ruled that Westcott was indeed in his right mind when he made the deal. Among other things, the judge noted that Westcott was cogent in communications with a real estate agent and had rejected a lower offer from former California first lady Maria Shriver just days before selling to Perry.

A second-phase trial was held to determine damages last year, and Judge Lipner ultimately awarded $2 million to Perry’s team. This number accounts for the money Perry could have earned if she’d been able to rent out the Montecito house during the yearslong legal battle when it was sitting empty.  

Westcott is appealing the judgment.

And then there were three, maybe. After announcing the throwback lineup for the Great American State Fair concert on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. earlier this week, organizers have been hit by a raft of cancellations. At press time, it appeared that nearly two-thirds of the nine acts originally revealed on the poster for the series of shows slated to take place from June 25-July 10 to celebrate the nation’s 250th anniversary had dropped out.

And though former Poison singer Bret Michaels, Morris Day & the Time, Young MC, Milli Vanilli, Martina McBride, the Commodores have all said they will not be participating despite being announced as part of the lineup, two of the remaining acts on the diminished bill vociferously confirmed their participation over the last 24 hours.

In a cheerful Instagram post on Thursday (May 28), MAGA-friendly 90s rapper Vanilla Ice said he’s all-in on the event operated by Freedom 250, a not-for-profit organization created by a Trump administration task force to plan and lead the U.S.’s official semiquincentennial anniversary celebrations.

“America is turning 250, let’s go! I’m super honored to do this concert with everybody,” said a smiling Ice (born Robert Matthew Van Winkle), 58, while walking through a construction site to the strains of his 1990 Billboard Hot 100 No. 1 single, “Ice Ice Baby.”

“We’re gonna bring back the ’90s, put your dancin’ shoes on, you’ll be happy, trust me. It’s all about enjoying the great times of 250 years,” he said. “This is a magical event that’s gonna happen and very rare. I’m honored man, this is gonna be epic!”

In the accompanying caption, Ice hinted at the division sown by the announcement of the shows, writing, “This is to bring us all together. I’m tired of all the news channels dividing this country. We are all one. This is not a political platform. This is celebrating America’s birthday. Nothing too serious just enjoying some fun, dancing and great memories.”

Some of the comments begged to differ, though. “Being connected to the current administration is simply NOT a good look, no matter how you try to spin it. If it’s truly about celebrating America, then find a different venue,” wrote one commenter, with another adding, “How can you perform for the President? The corruption and laws broken are off the chain man. You’re a smart good dude. Don’t do it.”

In a somewhat mixed message, pointedly delivered from atop a toilet seat, C+C Music Factory rapper Freedom Williams said he won’t back down after claiming his phone blew up with friends asking why he would sign on to an event put on by the Trump administration.

“I don’t give a f–k about Trump. I don’t give a f–k about Trump’s family,” Williams said in his expletive-filled rant, explaining that he got a call from his agent three months ago asking if he was available for a show on June 25 in D.C., though he noted that Trump was not mentioned at the time. “I know the type of f–king anarchy he creates. But the day I let you motherf–kers tell me what to do is the day I die … I will vote for f–king Genghis Khan, Hitler, and motherf–king Ivan the Terrible before I let you n–gas tell me what to motherf–king do.”

Williams said he initially opted to cancel, but once he heard more of the blowback about the lineup, the MC behind “Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)” changed his mind. The full seven-minute monologue included swipes at former President Barack Obama and Trump’s harsh immigration crackdown, as well as a clear message to Williams’ detractors.

“You know who 90% of the people was at our shows? White people. You know who 70% of those white people probably voted for? Republicans,” he said. So you n–gas don’t f–king count. You need to stop being on social media thinking that your f–king opinion matters. It don’t. Go talk to your mama. Your mama opinion matters. Only to you.” Williams then dared keyboard warriors to keep pushing him, revealing what controversial booking he might take next time.

“I’ll do the motherf–king show in North Korea,” he said defiantly of the totalitarian state and U.S. antagonist. “Pissing on a f–king American flag. Smoking a Cuban cigar. Drinking Venezuelan wine. Playing golf with motherf–king Kim Il-Jun. With an Iranian b–ch on my lap. While Trump’s standing there with his d–k in his hand, that’s how much of a f–k I give what you n–gas think.”

Michael joined the rush of acts fleeing the lineup ion Thursday when he wrote, “what was presented to us as a celebration of our country has evolved into something much more divisive than what I agreed to be a part of. Concerns have also been raised regarding the safety of my fans, band, crew, family and myself, including threats that are completely unfounded and unforgivable.”

On the day the shows were announced, Morris Day quickly denied his “Jungle Love” band would be appearing, writing on Instagram, “Contrary To Rumor, Morris Day & The Time Will Not Be Performing At The ‘GREAT AMERICAN STATE FAIR. It’s a no for me.” Similarly, “Bust a Move” rapper Young M.C. weighed in the next day, posting on his socials, “I HAVE INFORMED MY AGENTS THAT I WILL NOT BE PERFORMING AT THE FREEDOM 250 EVENT. The artists were never told about any political involvement with the event. And despite the claims by the organizers that the event is non-partisan, SPIN magazine describes it as Trump-backed. I hope to perform in D.C. in the near future at an event that is not so politically charged.”

“Girl You Know It’s True” act Milli Vanilli also bailed on Thursday, with the actual studio singers behind the disgraced lip synch duo explaining, “The original/real vocalists of Milli Vanilli, Jodie Rocco, Linda Rocco, Brad Howell, John Davis, and Charles Shaw will NOT be performing their hits live at The Great American State Fair. Others using the name ‘Milli Vanilli’ that appear on the advertisement should be considered a tribute band with no association vocally or musically to our sound or songs.”

Country star Martina McBride was also quick to distance herself on Thursday, writing on Instagram, “I was presented with the opportunity to perform at a nonpartisan event but that turned out to be misleading. I asked lots of questions and was assured this was a nonpartisan event that was meant to celebrate ALL 50 states. In my mind I thought this was a great way to celebrate the states and also bring people together in the way that only music can … Yesterday things started changing and what we were told is, not what is happening.”

While Vanilla Ice and C+C’s Williams appear to still be on board, another of the announced performers, rapper Flo Rida, has not commented so far and organizers have not said how they will fill the now-vacant performance slots for the 16-day festival.

Latto returned with what she’s billed as her “retirement album” as Big Mama hit streaming services on Friday (May 29).

Fan chatter on social media began buzzing after listening to “Gimme Dat,” which saw plenty of theories about Latto appearing to take a jab at Cardi B and challenging the Bronx rapper to get into the booth.

“Talkin’ ’bout buying Big Mama a bag like my n—a ain’t already bought it/ Like my n—a ain’t comin’ off racks/ Big bank over here, big facts/ Wish a b—h would get in that booth/ I’m callin’ up PlaqueBoyMax,” she raps on the track.

“latto really dared cardi b ass to get in the booth in retaliation and told her ghost writer to send his reader,” one person wrote on X, while another added, “omg latto dissed cardi b on her album bc of that leaked call with ice spice, let me give big mama a few streams tonight”

Billboard has reached out to Cardi B for comment.

The first part about “buying Big Mama a bag” is what aligns this closest to Cardi. Back in September 2025, the Grammy-winning rapper apologized to Latto for dissing her on a leaked phone call with Ice Spice’s manager, James Rosemond Jr. Cardi was furious and referenced Latto, who previously had beef with Ice Spice, on multiple occasions during the call. “I ain’t p—y a– Latto,” she said at the time. “I’m not Latto. I’ma beat her the f–k up!”

The “WAP” rapper faced the music and didn’t back down, as she owned up to her mistake and publicly apologized to Latto while promising to buy her a new designer bag.

“I was ranting and hot at the moment but I f-k with Latto HEAVY,” she wrote on X at the time. “I respect everything about her including her team thats so sweet.. AND NOPE! I’m not too prideful to apologize to somebody I really respect so this my public apology and now ima privately buy her a bag.”

Latto and Cardi had a good working relationship before the leaked call, which Latto didn’t publicly address at the time. The leaked call came just days after Latto hopped on Cardi’s “ErrTime (Remix)” and they previously teamed for the “Put It on Da Floor (Remix),” which reached No. 13 on the Billboard Hot 100.

Listen to “Gimme Dat” below.

Back in May 2024, when then-Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the U.S. Department of Justice had filed a sweeping antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation, he didn’t exactly mince words: “It is time to break it up.” 

And now two years later, after a coalition of states decisively won that case, they’re asking the judge for exactly what Garland promised: A court order forcing Live Nation to sell Ticketmaster. They say it’s the only way to end the company’s harmful monopoly over live music. 

But such a ruling would be extraordinary, in the truest sense of the word. Breakup orders (known as “structural remedies” in antitrust law parlance) on the scale of Live Nation and Ticketmaster have been granted only a few times over the last century. Experts tell Billboard they can be effective, but that judges view them as a drastic, last-ditch option. 

“There’s often been anxiety on the part of judges about restructuring industries,” says William E. Kovacic, a law professor at George Washington University and a former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. “The power is there. Judges have the capacity to put a bold structural remedy in place. But they’re looking for assurances that it’s going to do more good than harm.” 

A federal judge famously ordered John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil be broken up into dozens of companies in 1911 — a landmark ruling of the trustbusting era that eventually spawned today’s oil giants ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips. Then in 1982, AT&T agreed to a settlement in a federal antitrust case that saw the massive national telephone monopoly broken up into “Baby Bells” across different regions of the country. 

Microsoft almost got broken up. After a judge ruled it had violated antitrust law by crushing competition for computer software, he ordered the tech giant split in two — with one firm to own Windows, the other owning apps like Word and Internet Explorer. But that ruling was overturned on appeal a year later, and Microsoft later signed a settlement that restricted its conduct instead of carving it up. 

Courts are wary of breakup orders for a few reasons. Federal district judges are single individuals, with the power to decide only specific disputes based on facts that are presented to them. They lack the broad investigative powers and administrative resources available to legislators and executive agencies to tackle complex policy problems.  

And breaking up a modern company is certainly complex. It’s hard for a judge to figure out how to cleanly split up units that have long been intertwined, or divide intangible assets like shared data and intellectual property. It’s harder yet for them to know with any kind of certainty that doing so will yield the pro-competitive economic effects that are the goal of antitrust law. 

Though a judge ruled in 2024 that Google had illegally monopolized the market for online search, he later flatly refused demands to break the company up. In doing so, he offered a candid glimpse into how judges view such scenarios: “The court is asked to gaze into a crystal ball and look to the future. Not exactly a judge’s forte.” 

More common than breakups are “behavioral remedies,” which allow a monopolist to remain whole but require it to abide by rules aimed at restoring fair competition. In Live Nation’s case, they would likely include restrictions on forcing venues to exclusively use Ticketmaster, and a ban on retaliating against those that use rival ticketing services, as well as compliance and monitoring provisions.

Such restrictions are seen as a far less severe option than permanently splitting a company in half, and legal precedents say judges should only consider breakups if those more measured injunctions won’t restore competition. Behavioral remedies are what came from the Microsoft and Google cases, and they’re what Live Nation agreed to when it signed a surprise settlement with the DOJ in March. 

A coalition of state attorneys general said those terms were too weak and pushed ahead with the case with the explicit goal of seeking a breakup, resulting in last month’s verdict. But Live Nation says that option is not even legally on the table. 

“The jury verdict in this case cannot support a request for divesting Ticketmaster from Live Nation,” the company’s executive vp of corporate & regulatory affairs, Dan Wall, said last week. “The states’ request for a breakup is performative and political.” 

That claim is supported by the weight of history. But experts say Live Nation’s own history could still change the calculus. Unlike earlier cases involving companies that grew naturally into behemoths, Live Nation and Ticketmaster were separate firms for many years, and were only combined in 2010 via merger. The states will likely argue that this makes it far easier for the judge to split them back up. 

“I think that will be a decided plus factor for the states,” says Kovacic. “These were discrete business operations that were self-contained. That’s different from an enterprise that grew organically where the assets in question are deeply intertwined.” 

That argument goes both ways, of course. Just 16 years ago, Live Nation got the explicit blessing of federal regulators to buy Ticketmaster after an extensive investigation into the deal and the economic impact it would have. Shouldn’t that count for something? But critics say that’s actually just more evidence that a breakup is the only option left. 

The feds only approved the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger after the company signed a consent decree — binding restrictions designed to allay fears that the newly-created company would hurt competition. In the years after, Live Nation was found to have repeatedly violated those terms, so much so that the DOJ extended the decree for another five years in 2019. And now, of course, a jury has found that the company operated as an illegal monopoly anyway. 

If the judge must consider whether more limited behavioral remedies will fix the problem before he even considers structural remedies, the states could very well argue that such regulatory restrictions have already been tried — and that they clearly didn’t work. 

“They had these conditions in the consent decree, and Live Nation violated them anyway,” says Matthew L. Cantor, a veteran antitrust litigator who represented StubHub in a 2015 lawsuit against Ticketmaster. “They tried that. Been there, done that. So what’s on the table now? Divestiture is on the table.” 

Following April’s verdict, Live Nation and the states will now spend months arguing over the appropriate remedies the company should face. The judge has said a ruling on these issues likely won’t happen until at least early next year.  

If he follows the historical trends and opts against a breakup, that ruling will be met with widespread disappointment from Live Nation’s critics, many of whom blame the company’s dominance for the broader issue of skyrocketing concert ticket prices. Live Nation & Ticketmaster Face New Restrictions isn’t exactly the headline they’re looking for. 

But Kovacic says that a more limited outcome could still prove effective at restoring competition to the live music industry if implemented correctly and, crucially, enforced rigorously. He says that many people were upset when Microsoft was left intact in 2002, but that the restrictions imposed on the company look much better two decades later. 

“It had an important inhibiting effect on Microsoft, and it gave breathing room to upstart companies like Google and Facebook to come into the market to get a foothold and to prosper,” Kovacic says. “Cases like Microsoft might give the court confidence here that behavioral solutions can work, and with good reason.”