So we’ve been covering the “Janice STFU” copyright dispute. ICYMI it has taken an interesting turn after producer Aviel Calev Hirschfield voluntarily withdrew his infringement lawsuit just 10 to 11 days after filing it in California. The abrupt dismissal, filed Tuesday, October 27, has sparked fresh scrutiny over the allegations, the evidence supporting them, and what prompted the producer to abandon his legal challenge so quickly.
The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Hirschfield could potentially refile his claims. No official explanation accompanied the withdrawal, and his attorney declined to comment.
Now, an online legal sleuth is digging into some curious details surrounding the short-lived lawsuit.
Listen, we don’t know if this creator is an actual lawyer, if he or she is qualified to speak on entertainment or copyright law or who this however the take is thoughtful and logical to say the least.
Okay, boom … X, creator @Lawyeredup1 examined potential weaknesses in Hirschfield’s complaint, particularly the digital evidence and the absence of certain individuals allegedly involved in transferring the disputed recording.
Get this, the creator was careful to acknowledge that the circumstances surrounding the dismissal remain unknown.
“A few things to note. It is unclear whether this dismissal was pursuant to a settlement. Thus, I cannot speculate either way.”
According to @Lawyeredup1, the lawsuit’s credibility largely depended on forensic technology capable of establishing when Hirschfield’s recording was created, edited, or modified. Digital timestamps, metadata, and individual audio stems could have helped determine whether the producer’s timeline supported his infringement allegations.
What’s interesting, the creator also highlighted Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires attorneys to conduct reasonable investigations before presenting factual allegations in court. In the commentator’s assessment, an independent technical examination of the original recording should have preceded the filing.
Another detail caught the online analyst’s attention: the individuals Hirschfield allegedly worked with while developing the track were never named as defendants.
According to the complaint:
“Avi had received audio files, containing music but no vocals, that were produced by Michael Mulé and Isaac De Boni—a prominent writing and producing duo known as FnZ.”
Hirschfield further alleged:
“With Drake in mind, in January 2026, in his home studio, Avi finished laying down his own vocals over FnZ’s music.”
The complaint continued:
“Avi “bounced” the recording and sent it back to FnZ and other producers who work with Drake.”
That sequence raised questions for @Lawyeredup1, who argued that FnZ should have been included as defendants given their alleged involvement in receiving the recording.
Their omission struck the creator as particularly suspicious because Hirschfield’s own account placed third parties at the center of how his recording allegedly reached Drake’s production circle.
The analysis also explored whether a private settlement might explain the sudden withdrawal. @Lawyeredup1 expressed skepticism, reasoning that Drake’s representatives would likely have insisted on a dismissal with prejudice if money or other consideration had exchanged hands.
That remains the creator’s interpretation, with no confirmed settlement or publicly established explanation for the withdrawal.
For now, Hirschfield’s copyright claims remain unproven, and the lawsuit has ended without a ruling on their merits. The speed of the dismissal, coupled with the questions highlighted in @Lawyeredup1’s breakdown, has added another intriguing chapter to an already unusual legal dispute.
