Pharrell Williams Wants Chad Hugo's Lawsuit Tossed, Says He Can't Identify Disputed Songs

Pharrell Williams is asking a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit filed by his longtime Neptunes partner Chad Hugo, arguing that Hugo still cannot identify the songs or recordings at the center of his copyright claims despite repeatedly revising his complaint.

In an October 6, 2026, filing, Williams' attorneys argue that Hugo's latest complaint names just one track, EarthGang's "U Gotta," without specifying whether he claims rights to the musical composition, the sound recording, or both. Williams wants the entire lawsuit dismissed, including claims involving allegedly unpaid earnings from their decades-long music partnership.

The dispute is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California before Judge André Birotte Jr. Hugo filed the lawsuit on January 23, 2026, accusing Williams and other defendants of withholding money and failing to properly account for earnings generated through their longstanding partnership.

Williams' attorneys contend that the allegations have become less specific with each revision. According to the dismissal motion, Hugo's original complaint identified no individual songs and referred only to N.E.R.D.'s album No One Ever Really Dies. His first amended complaint subsequently listed eight songs that did not appear on that album, but all eight were removed from the second amended complaint filed in September.

The latest version names "U Gotta" without specifying the precise copyright interest Hugo asserts. Williams argues that this omission leaves the defendants unable to determine which protected works are actually in dispute or prepare a meaningful response to the allegations.

Under federal copyright law, a musical composition and a sound recording are separate protected works, even when they involve the same song. A person who writes or co-writes the underlying music may hold different rights from someone who performs on or produces a particular recording. Williams' attorneys maintain that Hugo must identify the works and contributions supporting his claims before the case can proceed.

The defense argues that the second amended complaint is so vague and ambiguous that the defendants cannot reasonably respond. The motion also questions how Hugo could remain uncertain about the specific works he claims to have created while asserting that he participated directly in their production.

Among the songs previously identified and subsequently removed were Rosalía's "Motomami" and "La Combi Versace," "Cash In Cash Out," and collaborations involving Tyler, the Creator and Latto. Their removal is central to Williams' argument that the complaint has failed to establish a sufficiently clear basis for the federal copyright claims.

Williams also wants Hugo's state-law claims dismissed, including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and inadequate financial accounting. His attorneys argue that those claims should not remain in federal court if the copyright allegations are dismissed. Whether the court can independently hear the remaining claims presents a separate question concerning federal jurisdiction.

The litigation follows decades of collaboration between Williams and Hugo, who formed the production duo The Neptunes and later co-founded N.E.R.D. Together, they helped produce music for major recording artists and built commercially successful projects spanning hip-hop, R&B and pop.

Hugo maintains that his contributions as a songwriter, producer, arranger and performer were essential to the partnership's success. His complaint alleges that Williams received greater public recognition while Hugo's creative work remained central to the music, commercial value and reputation of both groups.

The financial dispute extends beyond the individual tracks cited in the copyright allegations. Hugo claims he is owed damages potentially exceeding $1 million from No One Ever Really Dies alone. The 2017 N.E.R.D. album debuted at No. 10 on the Billboard 200 and has accumulated millions of streams, according to his complaint.

Those financial claims remain allegations, and the court has made no determination that Williams or the other defendants withheld money or violated Hugo's rights. The dismissal motion instead challenges whether the current pleading adequately identifies the copyrighted works and legal claims at issue.

Judge Birotte has yet to rule on Williams' request. The court's decision will determine whether Hugo can proceed with the current complaint, must revise his allegations again, or faces dismissal of some or all of his claims.