Lead: On February 26, 2026, members of Mount Westmore — Snoop Dogg, Ice Cube, Too Short and E-40 — filed a countersuit alleging their former licensing partner, Westside Merchandising, made false promises, failed to provide reliable accounting and withheld hundreds of thousands in payments. The dispute follows an earlier breach-of-contract suit Westside brought in November 2024; both actions are active in court. The filings cite specific sales figures and advance payments as the bases for competing claims.
Key Takeaways
- Mount Westmore (Snoop Dogg, Ice Cube, Too Short, E-40) filed a countersuit on Feb. 26, 2026 alleging fraud and unpaid monies by Westside Merchandising.
- The group’s filings say reported sales included $808,000 from concert dates, over $90,000 from retail stores and $13,000 in e-commerce sales.
- The rappers received an upfront advance but claim Westside still owes “hundreds of thousands” under the licensing agreement.
- Westside previously sued the artists in Nov. 2024, asserting it paid more than $1.3 million and that the artists did not deliver on a planned 60-date tour.
- Both sides have pushed motions; the amended complaint and counterclaims are ongoing and subject to discovery disputes in court.
- Westside’s counsel has publicly denounced the countersuit and framed the artists’ filings as diversionary; Westside maintains it suffered over $1.3 million in losses.
Background
Mount Westmore — formed in 2020 by Snoop Dogg, Ice Cube, Too Short and E-40 — licensed merchandise rights to a company identified in court papers as Westside Merchandising. The deal, according to the artists’ countersuit, promised broad retail partnerships beyond tour sales and projected significant retail revenue streams. Merchandising agreements of this scale commonly include advances, minimum guarantees and reporting obligations intended to ensure transparency for brand owners.
In November 2024 Westside filed a breach-of-contract suit, alleging the artists agreed to let Westside produce merch for a tour the company expected to run roughly 60 dates. Westside contends that only a limited number of shows took place, undermining projected sales, and that it paid in excess of $1.3 million while the artists failed to perform contractually required obligations. The two parallel complaints reflect a dispute over performance expectations, accounting practices and allocation of financial risk.
Main Event
In the Feb. 26, 2026 countersuit, Mount Westmore alleges Westside induced the group to sign by promising extensive retail distribution and by downplaying the emphasis on concert-only sales. The artists say Westside later failed to deliver detailed accounting required under the contract and that the statements provided did not match internal expectations or verbal promises. Those alleged misrepresentations are central to the fraud claim.
The artists’ filing details reported sales broken down by channel and points to discrepancies between amounts the group anticipated and the sums actually reported. Though the group accepted a substantial advance, they assert Westside nonetheless failed to remit additional sums owed and concealed accounting information that would clarify payments and royalties due. The counterclaim seeks unspecified damages and discovery into Westside’s books.
Westside’s earlier complaint framed the dispute differently: it asserts that the company invested more than $1.3 million to produce merchandise for a 60-date tour that largely did not occur, and that the artists materially breached their obligations by performing only a small number of shows. That complaint remains active alongside the artists’ countersuit, with both sides exchanging motions and discovery requests.
Analysis & Implications
The litigation highlights recurring risks in celebrity merchandising: reliance on projected tour schedules, advance payments and the opacity of accounting practices when third parties handle production and sales. When tours are scaled back or promotional plans change, disputes over who bears the loss often arise — here crystallizing into competing legal theories of breach and fraud.
For Mount Westmore, alleging fraud rather than only breach raises the stakes: fraud claims can support broader remedies, punitive damages in some jurisdictions and more aggressive discovery into intent and internal communications. However, fraud also requires proof of knowingly false statements and reliance, which can be harder to establish than breach of an express contract term.
From Westside’s perspective, claiming over $1.3 million in outlays places pressure on the company to show it fulfilled contractual obligations and that any shortfalls stem from the artists’ performance rather than accounting failure. The outcome will likely hinge on documentary evidence — contracts, invoices, internal retail agreements and contemporaneous correspondence — rather than public statements.
Comparison & Data
| Channel | Reported Sales (per artists’ filing) |
|---|---|
| Concert dates | $808,000 |
| Retail stores | $90,000+ |
| E-commerce | $13,000 |
The sales figures cited by Mount Westmore show concentration in concert sales versus retail and e-commerce, a distribution that undercuts Westside’s earlier claim of wide retail reach. If the parties’ records align with these figures, the dispute may focus less on gross receipts and more on contractual allocation, accounting methodology and the timing of payments.
Reactions & Quotes
“The countersuit is full of falsehoods and fabrication, and reeks of desperation,”
John Fowler, counsel for Westside Merchandising (as quoted to TMZ)
Fowler’s statement frames the countersuit as a tactical response to Westside’s amended complaint and reasserts Westside’s position that it suffered more than $1.3 million in losses. He also pointed to court rulings denying certain motions by the artists’ side and criticized opposing counsel’s conduct on the record.
“Reported sales included roughly $808,000 from concert dates, about $90,000 from stores and $13,000 in e-commerce,”
Mount Westmore filing (Feb. 2026), summarized
The artists use the sales breakdown to argue the partner misrepresented the scope of retail distribution and accounting practices. The filings do not publicly disclose the full contract or all supporting documents; those will be subject to discovery requests in ongoing proceedings.
Unconfirmed
- Whether Westside actually held the retail distribution agreements it claimed is not independently verified in public filings; the companies referenced in the filings have not provided public confirmations.
- The precise size of the advance the artists received is not specified in the public summaries and therefore the net balance owed (if any) remains unclear.
- Allegations about internal communications demonstrating intent are referenced in motions but the underlying documents have not been publicly released as of this writing.
Bottom Line
This dispute between Mount Westmore and Westside Merchandising centers on divergent narratives: the artists allege deception, withheld accounting and unpaid fees, while Westside says it invested heavily and was shortchanged by limited tour activity. The case underscores the importance of detailed contract terms and transparent accounting in celebrity merchandising deals.
Because both parties have filed competing claims and the disputes involve contract interpretation, documentary evidence produced in discovery — contracts, invoices, retail agreements and internal emails — will likely determine the outcome. Observers should watch for forthcoming court filings and any produced financial records that clarify revenue flows and payment obligations.