Jennie of BLACKPINK has won a legal battle against a man who falsely claimed to be her biological father and published a book based on that claim. A South Korean court ruled the allegation to be entirely false and ordered all related publications to be destroyed.
According to court documents exclusively obtained by Woman Sense, a monthly Korean magazine, the Uijeongbu District Court Goyang Branch ruled on May 9 KST that the claim by a man identified as A that he is Jennie’s father is groundless.
“There is no supporting evidence for the defendant’s claim aside from his own statements,” the court stated. “Meanwhile, the plaintiff’s official family registry clearly identifies another man as her father. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the defendant’s claim is untrue.”
The controversy began when A published an AI-generated novel that featured Jennie’s name and logo on the cover. In the prologue, he asserted that Jennie was his daughter. The book soon circulated among fans, fueling online rumors that Jennie came from a wealthy or influential family — rumors that were completely unfounded.
Jennie, who has never publicly spoken about her father, responded by taking legal action. On September 6, 2024 KST, her agency OA Entertainment announced plans to pursue legal proceedings against A.
Subsequently, on December 24, 2024 KST, OA Entertainment filed an injunction at the Uijeongbu District Court Goyang Branch to prohibit further distribution of the publication, naming both A and his publishing company B as defendants. Leading Korean law firm Yulchon represented Jennie in the case.
In its ruling, the court sided with Jennie, finding that A’s actions had led to the spread of false information and reputational harm. The court ordered that all existing copies of the book be destroyed and prohibited A from referencing Jennie in any form, including on social media platforms like KakaoTalk or in interviews.
Although the court acknowledged the violation of Jennie’s personal rights, it did not impose a fine or authorize provisional enforcement, as the case did not involve property claims. The defendants were ordered to cover all legal costs.
The verdict underscores the legal consequences of impersonating public figures and spreading misinformation — particularly in a digital era where AI-generated content can blur the lines between fiction and fact.
SHARE
