Beyoncé's Company Demands Sanctions Over Allegedly False Claims in 'Alien Superstar' Lawsuit

Beyoncé's entertainment company is seeking sanctions against a music copyright owner and his attorney, accusing them of making contradictory ownership claims in a renewed lawsuit over the singer's 2022 hit "Alien Superstar."

In court papers filed Thursday, October 15, 2026, Parkwood Entertainment asked a California federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit and impose monetary penalties on Shuji Hirose and his attorney, DaShawn Hayes. The company called the claims "objectively baseless," arguing that Hirose changed his account of who owned the song sampled on Beyoncé's Renaissance album.

The dispute centers on "Moonraker," a 1998 track by John Holiday whose spoken-word introduction appears in "Alien Superstar." Parkwood licensed the sample directly from Holiday, paying him $10,000 and a 0.5% royalty share. Hirose claims he owns the underlying rights and should have been involved in the agreement.

Parkwood argues that Hirose's ownership claims have shifted throughout the litigation. His original complaint asserted that a 2008 copyright assignment gave him 50% of the publishing rights to "Moonraker." An amended filing claimed 100% ownership, raising questions about whether Holiday retained the authority to license the song.

The distinction is central to Parkwood's defense. Under copyright law, a co-owner can generally grant a nonexclusive license without another co-owner's permission. Parkwood maintains that Holiday's retained interest was sufficient to authorize the sample, undermining Hirose's infringement claims.

The conflicting accounts had already drawn judicial scrutiny. In March 2026, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong identified contradictions between Hirose's original and amended complaints, including the competing claims of 50% and 100% ownership.

The first lawsuit was dismissed on June 26 after another federal judge found that Hirose Enterprises LLC did not legally exist when it filed the case in July 2025. The company was formed eight days later. That ruling addressed the plaintiff's legal standing rather than whether Beyoncé's song infringed any copyright.

Hirose filed a new lawsuit in August, naming Parkwood, Beyoncé, Holiday, Sony Music and Warner Chappell among the defendants. The renewed complaint again challenges the sampling agreement and includes a breach of contract claim against Holiday.

Parkwood's attorneys at Latham & Watkins contend that the latest allegations cannot be reconciled with Hirose's earlier statements. They argue that pursuing claims based on contradictory assertions warrants dismissal and financial sanctions against both Hirose and Hayes. The accusations remain allegations before the court.

The motions are expected to be addressed at a hearing in February 2027. The judge will consider Parkwood's request to dismiss the renewed lawsuit and whether the alleged conduct warrants penalties.