Lil Baby performing live. Photo Credit: Alex1337 w
Back in April, Lil Baby sued hemp brand Bay Smokes over a marketing partnership turned sour. Now, we have a full-fledged legal battle on our hands, as the self-proclaimed “#1 online dispensary” has fired back with a countersuit.
Both the original complaint (technically levied by The Holding Company, which manages Lil Baby’s IP) and the counteraction center on an October 2024 agreement. As described by the plaintiff, the WHAM-focused pact afforded Bay Smokes “only a limited and conditional license…to market specified hemp derived products” with Lil Baby’s trademarks.
(Before becoming widely known as the title of Lil Baby’s 2025 album, WHAM, an acronym for “who hard as me,” started “as a childhood nickname for” the Atlanta-born rapper, per the detail-oriented suit.)
But in the end, the company is said to have violated the contract by allegedly “creating unauthorized products and promotional content”; “marketing and selling illegal cannabis products”; “concealing sales”; and falsely representing to third parties that it controlled the rights in question.
“Erotic videos” factor into the latter allegation; Bay Smokes’ two co-founders allegedly promoted the company in the adult clips “while simultaneously claiming” to control Lil Baby’s trademarks, copyrights, and brand.
Moreover, though alleged control misrepresentations are bad for business in general, they’re perhaps more problematic here; Lil Baby and Snoop Dogg are currently building out their Dr. Bombay ice cream brand.
This is, of course, the short version of the involved action, which further explores a variety of allegations, revolving around lab-test results for one of the products, concerning “above permissible amounts of THC” as well as “unsafe levels of contamination.”
Besides denying all these allegations, Bay Smokes in its newly filed answer introduced multiple breach of contract counterclaims.
First, Team Lil Baby allegedly breached their agreement’s confidentiality clause by shedding light on specifics, pertaining to “pricing and margin information” and more, “none of which are required or needed to be included,” in the suit.
Similarly, The Holding Company allegedly violated a non-disparagement provision, in part with the above-noted “allegations of product contamination.” Said allegations are allegedly “directly contradicted by Bay Smokes’s” subsequent lab test of the same product batch.
Next, the plaintiff violated the branding deal’s mandatory arbitration agreement by suing, according to Bay Smokes, which is also calling on The Holding Company to cough up an alleged $206,421 overpayment.
In a nutshell, the counter-plaintiff identified that figure in a late-April audit of Lil Baby’s marketing services, soon after formally moving to terminate their contract.
With that, it’ll be worth continuing to track the intensifying courtroom confrontation, which doubles as a good reminder of lucrative brand partnerships’ potential pitfalls.