A controversial video posted recently by the YouTube channel Ace Frehley: The Untold Legacy alleges that during the 1996 KISS reunion tour, Simmons and Stanley’s lawyers trapped Frehley under a contract that left him receiving only half of what the original members were earning. According to the video, “1996, in a backstage room at Madison Square Garden… the master contract trap was set — Ace just signed away his portion.” The figure cited is roughly $15 million, described as “money that would never be paid back.”
In response, radio host Eddie Trunk—who had previously worked closely with Frehley—issued his own assessment on X (formerly Twitter): “As we know, people can literally make up anything online and post it. And sadly a TON do.” He added, “I didn’t listen to this all through, but it lost me 2 minutes in when it says KISS fired Ace. They didn’t. He left. So right there I’m out as far as legitimacy.”
No official response from Simmons, Stanley or KISS has been publicly confirmed regarding the $15 million allegation. The band is still dealing with the fallout from Frehley’s death on October 16 2025, which has further complicated any accounts of money, legacy and loyalty.
The claims strike at the heart of long-standing tensions: Frehley’s reduced financial participation during reunion tours, his repeated statements regarding feeling sidelined, and the business structuring of KISS itself. The video suggests that while KISS generated enormous revenue from brand licensing, tours and merch in the late 1990s and 2000s, Frehley’s cut remained significantly smaller. (Video transcript: “Ace’s signature went on the line… but what he got back was half of what the other original members kept.”)
Industry insiders say that claims of mis-split tour profits are common in legacy acts, but verifying them is notoriously difficult. Contracts are often sealed under non-disclosure or involve pro-rata percentages that are not publicly disclosed. As one entertainment lawyer put it: “Unless you have the actual contract and an audit trail, these allegations remain speculative—but they can fuel real reputational damage.”
For now, the matter remains in the court of public opinion — fans, journalists and historians are re-examining Frehley’s role, his departure, and the financial fairness behind one of rock’s most enduring brands.
