Scott has hit back at a lawsuit filed last month against him by promoters PJAM, who claimed he skipped out on a pre-Super Bowl gig in Minneapolis on February 3rd.
Travis Scott has reacted to a lawsuit regarding a no-show for a pre-Super Bowl gig in Minneapolis earlier this year by countersuing the event’s promoters PJAM, with his lawyer claiming that the company is trying to “shake him down”.
The 25 year old rapper, real name Jacques Webster, was hit last month with a lawsuit for breach of contract by entertainments company PJAM for cancelling a scheduled performance at Myth Live in Minnesota the night before the Super Bowl LII on February 3rd, and for allegedly not paying back a $150,000 advance for the show.
However, in legal documents obtained by music news site Pitchfork, Scott is claiming that PJAM never agreed upon a travel itinerary for the gig because it wasn’t able to pay for the transportation, as well as the remaining $50,000 of his $200,000 performance fee (though he did receive the advance, he confirmed).
Travis Scott performing at Coachella 2017
The rapper also argues that PJAM breached a confidentiality clause in the contract by informing news site TMZ beforehand about the gig.
Scott had to be in Las Vegas later that same night for an appearance at the Cosmopolitan Hotel’s Marquee nightclub, and coupled with the press exposure he was receiving regarding the impending birth of his daughter, Stormi, whom he shares with Kylie Jenner, made the planting of a story with the title ‘Working a Double Shift Super Bowl LII Weekend’ constituted a breach of that clause, according to his argument.
He is seeking damages plus the rest of his performance fee.
Power lawyer Howard King made a statement to Variety on Wednesday night (April 18th) in which he slammed PJAM as “three wannabe promoters”.
“In an obvious effort to shake Travis down and avoid the consequences of their breaches, they filed a spurious lawsuit while spreading specious falsehoods in the press,” King’s statement read. “Rather than suing, these so-called promoters should have apologized and taken responsibility for their inability to provide the agreed-upon transportation.”