Jennie Kim of BLACKPINK has emerged victorious in a legal case against a man who falsely claimed to be her biological father and published a book based on that fabricated relationship.
According to court documents obtained by Woman Sense, the Uijeongbu District Court Goyang Branch ruled on May 9, 2025 (KST), that the claim made by a man identified only as “A” was entirely unfounded. The court stated there was “no supporting evidence for the defendant’s claim aside from his own statements,” while Jennie’s official family registry clearly identified another man as her legal father.
The controversy first erupted after A published an AI-generated novel that not only used Jennie’s real name and likeness on the cover but also claimed, in the prologue, that she was his daughter. The book’s release quickly gained traction online, sparking baseless speculation about Jennie’s family background and supposed ties to wealth and influence.
In response, Jennie—who has consistently kept details about her family private—pursued legal action. On September 6, 2024, her agency OA Entertainment announced its intention to take strong legal measures. Later, on December 24, 2024, the agency filed an injunction with the Uijeongbu District Court Goyang Branch, naming both A and his publishing company, referred to as “B,” as defendants. The high-profile law firm Yulchon represented Jennie in the case.
The court ultimately ruled in favor of the BLACKPINK star, concluding that A’s claims and publication had caused reputational damage and contributed to the spread of false information. As part of the ruling, the court ordered all existing copies of the book to be destroyed and permanently barred A from mentioning Jennie in any context—whether in print, online, or in personal communication tools like KakaoTalk.
While the court did not impose monetary penalties or authorize provisional enforcement—citing the absence of property-related claims—it did mandate that the defendants bear all legal expenses incurred.
The verdict marks a critical precedent in the fight against the misuse of AI-generated content and the impersonation of public figures. As technology continues to evolve, the case highlights the growing need for legal safeguards to protect individuals from misinformation and digital defamation.
