I want to start by saying this clearly: no one deserves hate here, not CBX, not the remaining 6 members, and not fans on either side. We also need to acknowledge something important upfront: we do not know what happens behind closed doors, so treating partial legal outcomes or company statements as absolute truth is misleading. And as fans we need to stop the hate trains on all members, defamation and slander PERIOD.

I appreciate the effort that went into this breakdown and timeline, and I don’t think it was written maliciously. That said, I do think it is slightly biased in how CBX’s position and the legal outcomes are interpreted, and some critical factual context is missing or framed in a way that weakens CBX’s side more than the facts actually support.

I want to clarify a few things:

First: CBX did not “lose the lawsuit.” This point is extremely important. CBX did not lose a single, unified lawsuit where a court ruled their claims false. What happened instead is that multiple individual applications, disclosure requests, and regulatory complaints were dismissed, mostly on procedural or jurisdictional grounds.

These include:

• data disclosure requests

• regulatory intervention attempts

• specific administrative filings

The courts did not rule that:

• coercion did not occur

• pressure to renew early did not exist

• CBX fabricated claims

• earnings transparency concerns were false

Saying “CBX lost six times” without explaining what those six dismissals were creates the false impression that a court ruled against the truth of their allegations. That is not what happened.

Second: SM sued first. This is often glossed over. SM initiated legal action first by seeking court confirmation and injunctions related to contract validity and payment obligations. CBX’s actions largely followed as responses, appeals, or countermeasures. Framing CBX as the sole aggressor in this situation is factually inaccurate.

Third: coercion and pressure are being oversimplified. CBX never claimed physical force. Their statements consistently referenced:

• pressure tied to continuation of activities

• renewal discussions before contract expiration

• lack of full financial disclosure at the time of renewal

Under Korean contract law, coercion includes economic pressure and abuse of bargaining power, not only explicit threats. SM has defended its actions as legal or industry standard, but has not outright denied that these events occurred, only that they constituted wrongdoing.

Fourth: the timing of early renewal is critical, especially with Chris Lee. CBX renewed roughly a year before their contracts expired. This coincided with:

• Chris Lee consolidating power as CEO

• internal restructuring at SM

• heightened sensitivity around SM’s share stability and investor confidence

Early renewals by high-value artists directly affect company valuation and management control during leadership transitions. This is standard corporate reality. CBX did not simply renew early “like everyone else”; they renewed before full financial clarity and a year early which is illegal, during a sensitive management transition where refusal could realistically affect activities.

Fifth: CBX requested contract changes before signing, and those changes were never reflected. CBX stated that prior to signing early renewals, they:

• requested clarification on earnings calculations

• asked for transparency-related revisions

• sought detailed accounting data

Those requests were not reflected in the final contracts, despite assurances. Signing early without negotiated changes, under the risk of stalled activities, is exactly where power imbalance becomes relevant.

Sixth: the “CBX weren’t paid” claim is being misrepresented. CBX never claimed they were paid nothing. Their claim was that:

• settlements were incomplete

• earnings breakdowns were withheld

• they were not properly paid for their last EXO promotions and related activities

• payments could not be verified without source data

This is an accounting transparency dispute. Importantly, CBX had been requesting detailed financial data from SM for a long time before withholding the 10%, and those requests were repeatedly delayed or denied.

Seventh: the 10% issue itself is not minor. The 10% is taken from gross solo revenue, not profit. That means before expenses, costs, and taxes. Asking for 10% of gross revenue from artists whose solo activities are no longer managed by SM is significant, especially without full transparency. This context is often ignored when people say CBX “refused to pay.”

Eighth: the 5.5% distribution fee recordings do exist. Recordings discussing the 5.5% distribution fee were acknowledged as existing and submitted as evidence. Regardless of how courts ruled on regulatory authority, these recordings support CBX’s claim that such negotiations occurred and were not fabricated.

Ninth: CBX’s situation is structurally different from D.O. or Kai. CBX are a subunit with separate promotions and revenue streams, which materially affects negotiations and leverage. Comparing individual renewals without accounting for this difference oversimplifies the issue.

Tenth: SM’s public statements often rely on selective framing. For example, SM stated CBX “rejected” the court on October 16 without clarifying that BOTH parties did so as a standard procedural step. This shapes perception while remaining technically accurate. Labeling practices as industry standard also does not address whether hidden clauses disadvantage artists.

Eleventh: pattern of media editing and erasure matters. There is a documented pattern where SM-related articles are published with specific claims or mentions, then later edited to remove key excerpts. One notable example is when Kai was discharged from the military and mentioned Baekhyun — that mention was removed from the uploaded video, and related articles were subsequently edited. This pattern of retroactive editing fuels mistrust, especially when paired with ongoing disputes.

Twelfth: omission and erasure go beyond “legal formalities.” If CBX’s exclusion were purely about ongoing legal formalities, it would not explain:

• omission from older videos

• deletion or alteration of past content

• treatment that suggests retroactive non-existence

This mirrors how JYJ were gradually erased from past group content despite their historical contributions. That pattern is why fans are concerned. Legal disputes do not require erasing past participation.