Avicii Estate Faces Lawsuit from Former Manager Ash Pournouri

Avicii performing live. Photo Credit: Shawn Tron

Ash Pournouri is suing the Avicii estate in Sweden, claiming he’s been “overwhelmed with misdirected attacks” and reputational damage due to inaccurate portrayals of his role in the late artist’s life.

Pournouri, who managed Avicii (real name Tim Bergling) until 2016, confirmed the litigation on Instagram earlier this week. Regional reports followed before the complaint, filed against several companies associated with the Avicii estate, began making a stateside media splash.

Besides describing the action as “the final resort,” Pournouri framed the litigation as an attempt “to correct an inaccurate and incomplete public narrative concerning events within my professional environment around Avicii.”

Without diving too far into that multifaceted narrative here, months after Avicii’s 2018 passing, his stepfather called out Pournouri’s “greed.” In more words, the individual accused Pournouri of forcing Avicii to maintain a grueling tour schedule, which allegedly took an immense physical and mental toll.

According to the legal documents themselves, the same narrative can also be traced to Avicii’s 2021 biography and, among other things, Netflix’s Avicii – I’m Tim (2024) documentary.

Though there are many angles to Pournouri’s arguments – read on for his complete remarks – the plaintiff emphasized his desire to set the record straight, pledged to donate any awarded damages “directly to real charitable causes,” and confirmed plans to release a variety of firsthand documents.

Additionally, Pournouri floated the possibility of releasing “hours of unedited recordings” depending on how the legal battle unfolds.

“There are hours of unedited recordings,” he wrote. “I’m holding them back – not as leverage, but because I know what public destruction feels like. I won’t do to others what was done to me. However, if the response is more denial, the footage follows. Uncut. With dates.”

Regarding relief, Pournouri is seeking a “declaratory ruling on the facts” and, more interestingly, “responsible stewardship” standards for the Avicii brand.

“I want responsible stewardship,” Pournouri explained. “Either enforceable standards with independent oversight, or consent rights on defined categories to protect the legacy. This is about integrity, not ownership for its own sake.”

Here’s the full message Pournouri posted to Instagram announcing the lawsuit:

Today I have, together with Nord Advokater and leading King’s Counsel Zafar Ali and Kartik Sharma of 23 Essex Street Chambers, initiated legal proceedings in the Swedish courts, solely to set the factual record straight. The purpose of this action is not to seek financial compensation or any other form of relief, but to correct an inaccurate and incomplete public narrative concerning events within my professional environment around Avicii that has been allowed to go unchallenged for a long time and has gained renewed global circulation.

Why am I doing this at all?

Because a false public record cemented as truth. I’ve pleaded with those involved to avoid this, while absorbing all blame. I waited over 7 years for others to correct it. They did not. I’ve been overwhelmed with misdirected attacks and questions I can’t answer as they were intended for those who were actually present. I am putting primary sources on the record so people can see the facts for themselves.

Why not keep it private or mediate?

I tried for years. In every way. My private, repeated requests to speak up went nowhere. I kept quiet out of respect for Tim and his family, but the same courtesy was not shown to me. The public record is public. It has to be corrected where it lives. Court is the only venue that compels the truth to surface.

Why do it through court?

It’s the final resort. Court creates disclosure, sworn testimony, and an official record. It prevents PR spin, prohibits editing for story or profit, forces documents into daylight, and results in outcomes grounded in factual reality, not mere narratives. My legal team has a witness list of around 50 individuals, many previously silenced by fear or forced to sign NDAs, and several written witness statements have already been prepared, ready to be called upon to testify if necessary.

Are you attacking the family?

No. I am correcting the public record. I will stick to verifiable facts. Some of what comes out will be uncomfortable. That reflects the correction and disclosure of circumstances kept from the public, and that concealment has caused me significant harm and public blame. This is not an intent to attack. It’s just time to let the facts speak.

What do I want to gain?

Clarity and accountability. A complete factual record. Guardrails for how the legacy is handled.

What remedies are you seeking?

A declaratory ruling on the facts. Injunctive relief that sets use and stewardship standards. Corrections and retractions where needed. An independent audit of commercialization tied to charity claims.

Are you suing for money?

Swedish court procedure requires a nominal damages figure to process a declaratory case. Legal costs are sought. Although I have suffered considerable harm, any damages awarded go directly to real charitable causes. I take nothing personally. This is about the record, not profit.

Are you releasing audio or video?

There are hours of unedited recordings. I’m holding them back – not as leverage, but because I know what public destruction feels like. I won’t do to others what was done to me. However, if the response is more denial, the footage follows. Uncut. With dates.

Respect Tim / Let him rest

I am limiting disclosures to what is necessary to establish facts. Focus on decisions, documents, and timelines, not private or medical details.

I stayed quiet out of respect for Tim and his family. Respect also means not allowing a false record to become the legacy. It is all kept factual.

What are your non-negotiables?

Facts on the record. Written corrections where the public was misled. Enforceable stewardship standards. Transparency around any ‘charity’ claims.

Do you want control of the brand?

I want responsible stewardship. Either enforceable standards with independent oversight, or consent rights on defined categories to protect the legacy. This is about integrity, not ownership for its own sake.

How do you feel the legacy should be handled?

Clear rules for use of name and brand. A documented approval process for sensitive and commercial uses. Independent oversight. Transparency reports. No ‘charity’ messaging without audited flows.

You pressured him / exploited him.

I will not argue in comments. I will publish contemporaneous material: emails, messages, agreements, dates. Read them. Judge for yourself.

You weren’t there at the end.

Correct. Our professional partnership ended in 2016, two years before he passed. The materials show what happened while I was there, and what changed after.

What happens if headlines misframe this again?

The documents hub and the court record will exist for anyone to read. I will point back to sources. I will publish corrections where needed.

Why the step-by-step release?

Context first, then documents. It reduces sensationalism by trolls and tabloid press, protects privacy, and makes the material easy to verify for anyone who is looking for the factual truth.

Why believe you?

Don’t. Read the documents. Decide for yourself.

— Ash