snoop dogg ice cube mount westmore getty 2

Snoop Dogg and Ice Cube are going after a former business partner for alleged fraud … TMZ has learned.

The rappers — along with Too Short and E-40 — formed a rap group called Mount Westmore in 2020. They entered into a licensing deal with a company called Westside Merchandising … which they claim made false promises about their business in order to have them sign with them over a bigger merch company.

mount westmore MNRK Music Group-Def Jam Recordings
MNRK Music Group / Def Jam Recordings

The suit claims Westside Merchandise said it could make the rappers a ton of money through retail stores it had partnerships with, and they would not focus on strictly sales at concerts.

Snoop and Ice Cube said Westside failed to provide accounting. The reports they did read said the merch sold $808K in sales from concert dates, more than $90K from stores, and $13K in e-commerce sales.

The rappers were paid a hefty advance, but they claim Westside still failed to pay hundreds of thousands owed on the contract. They are suing for unspecified damages.

snoop dogg ice cube sub getty

Westside first sued Snoop, Ice, E-40 and Too Short for breach of contract in November 2024.

The company claimed the rappers agreed to allow Westside to make all the merch for their tour. However, they claimed the 60-date tour didn’t happen, and the rappers only performed a handful of shows. Westside said it paid over $1.3 million, but the rappers failed to keep their end of the bargain. Both cases are ongoing.

Michael Jackson-HULU-INLINE
Westside’s lawyer, John Fowler, tells TMZ … “The countersuit is full of falsehoods and fabrication, and reeks of desperation. The purpose is clearly to distract from their own fraud and contractual breaches which are outlined very clearly in our own amended complaint. To date, the other side has lost every motion they’ve brought in this case, and they are trying to cover up the mounting losses by filing a frivolous claim. The case is simple: the other side defrauded my client out of over $1.3 million, and caused many millions more in damages for failing to perform the services they promised. The Court has repeatedly denied the other side’s attempts to shield itself from basic discovery, even accusing the opposing lawyers of ‘borderline insubordination’ on the record. We look forward to trying this case.”