Avicii’s former manager Ash Pournouri has filed legal action in Sweden against Avicii AB, a company linked to the estate of Tim Bergling, over how he was portrayed in the 2017 documentary Avicii: True Stories. The case centers on claims that the film, along with later media references to it, presented a misleading account of Ash Pournouri’s role during Avicii’s career. According to publicly reported court filings and statements, the legal action is not focused on financial compensation but instead seeks a judicial review of how factual responsibility and decision making were presented.

The dispute traces back to 2016, when Ash Pournouri ended his professional relationship with Tim Bergling, two years before Bergling’s death in April 2018. Avicii: True Stories, released in September 2017, documents Bergling’s struggles with touring, health issues, and creative pressure, using footage recorded largely during the final period of their working relationship. While the film does not explicitly assign legal responsibility, its framing led many viewers to associate Ash Pournouri with decisions surrounding touring schedules and workload during that time.

Following Tim Bergling’s death, Avicii: True Stories became a primary reference point for books, long-form journalism, and retrospective media coverage examining his life and career. Over time, the documentary’s framing was repeatedly cited and summarized across different platforms, often without clear distinction between periods before and after the 2016 management split. Ash Pournouri has argued that this repetition gradually solidified a simplified public narrative that did not fully reflect contractual timelines or evolving management structures. He has maintained that the continued circulation of this interpretation limited opportunities for clarification outside of formal legal review.

In 2024, Ash Pournouri escalated the matter legally by filing a defamation case in Sweden against Levan Tsikurishvili, the director of Avicii: True Stories. That case focused specifically on the documentary’s editing and contextual presentation. The current lawsuit expands the scope by involving Avicii AB, with the aim of addressing how the documentary and its ongoing use in media discourse have influenced public perception. Court proceedings are expected to examine documentation, timelines, and decision-making authority rather than personal interpretation.

The case has reopened broader discussion within the electronic music industry about how documentaries shape long-term narratives around artists and their collaborators. As music documentaries increasingly function as historical reference points for global audiences, the dispute highlights the impact of framing, chronology, and omission in posthumous storytelling. While the legal process is still ongoing, the outcome may influence how future artist documentaries approach responsibility, context, and representation.