EXCLUSIVE: Three 6 Mafia Sue $uicideboy$ Again Over Alleged Theft Of 36 Songs 

Memphis rap icons DJ Paul and Juicy J are dragging $uicideboy$ back to court, accusing them of stealing 36 Three 6 Mafia songs just four years after suing them over similar claims. 

The legendary Three 6 Mafia producers/founders allege $uicideboy$ jacked dozens of their songs and even used their titles and group members’ identities to build their careers.  

In the complaint obtained by AllHipHop, DJ Paul and Juicy J claim “the Suicideboys have made a career stealing and profiting from Plaintiffs’ copyrighted material.” Furthermore, they accuse the New Orleans duo of “repeatedly and shamelessly appropriating Plaintiffs’ artistic and cultural identities.” 

Their lawsuit claims $uicideboy$ have “illegally sampled and stolen” at least 36 Three 6 Mafia songs in addition to the “than 35 songs” DJ Paul and Juicy J previously sued for.  

Their complaint states $uicideboy$ are not sampling the songs “for any new or transformative purposes,” accusing them of “doing so to trade off and profit from Three 6 Mafia’s original, authentic sound and hard-earned success in the hip hop industry.” 

$uicideboy$ Allegedly Copying Three 6 Mafia Song Titles

DJ Paul and Juicy J cite multiple instances of $uicideboy$ allegedly jacking the song title in addition to the track.  

“While Plaintiffs have released songs entitled “Mask and Da Glock,” “Smoked Out, Loced Out,” and “Break Da Law,” Defendants have also released songs entitled “Ma$k and da GlocK,” “Smoked Out, Loced Out,” and “BREAKDALAW2K16,” that copy and infringe upon Plaintiffs’ earlier original works,” the filing states. 

DJ Paul and Juicy J referenced $uicideboy$ publicly stating that they “look[ed] forward to a mutually beneficial relationship” following the 2020 lawsuit. 

However, the Three 6 Mafia members dismissed the statement as “empty words” as $uicideboy$ continued “to willfully steal” from them. 

The complaint states DJ Paul and Juicy J attempted to resolve the matter after discovering the duo were “back to their old ways” but were unsuccessful.  

“Old habits die hard,” the lawsuit states. “Plaintiffs had no choice but to bring an action to redress and stop Defendants’ willful infringement.”