What Is the Bad Bunny Lawsuit?
The Bad Bunny lawsuit is a group of five separate civil cases against the Puerto Rican artist Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio and his companies, not a class action or federal MDL. The cases involve reggaeton copyright, unauthorized voice recordings, an alleged uncleared sample, and the use of a Puerto Rico house in a short film and a concert set.
Each case has its own court, plaintiff, and docket. A federal court in Los Angeles hears the dembow copyright case brought by the Jamaican producers Steely & Clevie, and a federal judge dismissed a separate sample case in March 2026. Courts in San Juan, Puerto Rico hear the other three.
Bad Bunny is a defendant in all five cases. This page keeps every proceeding labeled, because a ruling in one case does not decide any of the others.
Why Was the Bad Bunny Lawsuit Filed?
The Bad Bunny lawsuit was filed because five different plaintiffs say Bad Bunny or his companies used their music, voices, or property without permission or fair payment. The dembow plaintiffs say a 1989 instrumental called “Fish Market” is the source of the rhythm in more than a thousand reggaeton songs.
The two voice recording cases are connected only through their lawyers. Attorneys Jose Marxuach Fagot and Joanna Bocanegra Ocasio represent both Carliz De La Cruz Hernández and Tainaly Serrano Rivera, according to Billboard. The two women sued separately, over different recordings, years apart.
Serrano filed her case on January 5, 2026, the first anniversary of the album that contains one of the disputed songs, according to Complex. No source says the timing was planned.
What Harms Does the Bad Bunny Lawsuit Allege?
The Bad Bunny lawsuit alleges four distinct categories of harm across its five cases. Each item below names the cases that allege it, and none of these allegations has been proven.
Copyright Infringement
Copyright infringement is the use of protected creative work without the owner's permission, which lets the owner seek damages in court.
Two cases allege copyright infringement. In the dembow case, Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the heirs of Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson say the rhythm in roughly 1,800 to nearly 2,000 songs by more than 150 artists was copied from their 1989 track “Fish Market.”
In the sample case, the Nigerian producer Dera and the label emPawa Africa said “Enséñame a Bailar” from Un Verano Sin Ti used his 2019 track “Empty My Pocket” without clearance. A federal judge dismissed that case with prejudice in March 2026.
Violation of the Right of Publicity
A right of publicity is a person's legal control over the commercial use of their name, voice, or image.
Two Puerto Rico cases rest on the Right of Publicity Act. De La Cruz says her recorded “Bad Bunny, baby” tag appears on “Pa Ti” and “Dos Mil 16.” Serrano says her voice saying “Mira, puñeta, no me quiten el perreo” appears on “Solo de Mi” and “EoO.”
Complex reported that Serrano assigns $6 million of her $16 million demand to the publicity claim alone, the largest single line item in her complaint.
Unjust Enrichment
Unjust enrichment is a legal claim that one party profited at another person's expense in a way the law treats as unfair.
Román Carrasco Delgado, an 84-year-old Humacao homeowner, bases his case on unjust enrichment. He says a house he built by hand in the 1960s appeared in the short film that launched the album Debí Tirar Más Fotos, then served as the model for a life-size replica used across 30 concerts.
Serrano also pleads unjust enrichment, with $2 million of her demand assigned to it.
Emotional Distress
Emotional distress is a legal claim for serious mental suffering caused by another party's conduct, separate from financial loss.
De La Cruz says strangers comment on her social media about the tag and that she contacted multiple psychologists, as quoted by the BBC from her filing. Carrasco says visitors photograph his home daily and that he has become the subject of malicious comments.
What Is the Current Status of the Bad Bunny Lawsuit?
The current status of the Bad Bunny lawsuit is four pending proceedings and one dismissed case, each at a different stage as of October 19, 2026. No trial date, settlement, or damages award has been reported in any of them.
Steely & Clevie dembow copyright case
The dembow case is the largest proceeding, because it names more than 150 artists and units of all three major music companies, according to Billboard. On September 1, 2026, Judge André Birotte Jr. reversed his July 2026 order and granted the defendants summary judgment on the plaintiffs' broad arrangement theory.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles), reported as a federal court in Los Angeles |
| Judge | André Birotte Jr. |
| Plaintiffs | Cleveland "Clevie" Browne and the heirs of Wycliffe "Steely" Johnson |
| Case Number | Not confirmed in the sources reviewed |
| Filed | 2021 |
| Work at Issue | "Fish Market" (1989), alleged source of the dembow rhythm |
| Latest Ruling | September 1, 2026: no single copyrighted work contains the claimed combination of elements |
The ruling does not decide whether the dembow rhythm can be copyrighted. Claims that some songs directly sampled Steely & Clevie sound recordings remain pending, and the parties were ordered to confer on a schedule within 30 days.
Carliz De La Cruz Hernández v. Martínez Ocasio
The Puerto Rico Supreme Court ruled in July 2026 that De La Cruz may pursue claims over “Dos Mil 16” and returned the case to a trial court in San Juan. The court held that claims tied to “Pa Ti” are barred by the statute of limitations.
| Court | Court of First Instance, San Juan, after review by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico |
| Filed | March 2023 |
| Defendants | Bad Bunny, Rimas Entertainment, and manager Noah Kamil Assad Byrne |
| Damages Sought | At least $40 million |
| Supreme Court Ruling | July 8, 2026, as reported by news outlets |
| Surviving Claims | Claims over "Dos Mil 16" under Puerto Rico's publicity and image laws |
Newsweek reported that the court upheld the dismissal of claims against the manager, and that one justice dissented in a 25-page opinion. Outlets disagree on whether a moral rights claim survived, so this page does not state an outcome on that point.
Tainaly Serrano Rivera v. Martínez Ocasio
The Serrano case is in its earliest stage. People reported that Bad Bunny and Rimas Entertainment were called to appear in court in May 2026, and no later ruling or response has been reported.
| Court | Puerto Rico court, reported as San Juan |
| Filed | January 5, 2026 |
| Defendants | Bad Bunny, producer Roberto Rosado (La Paciencia), Rimas Entertainment, and others |
| Damages Sought | $16 million |
| Songs at Issue | "Solo de Mi" (2018) and "EoO" (2025) |
| Reported Outcome | None found |
Román Carrasco Delgado v. Martínez Ocasio (La Casita)
The house case concerns the home known as La Casita in Humacao. The Associated Press reported that Carrasco sued on September 17, 2025, and no ruling, hearing, or settlement has been reported since.
| Court | Court of First Instance, San Juan |
| Case Number | SJ2025CV08380, as shown in the complaint's document title |
| Filed | September 17, 2025 |
| Defendants | Bad Bunny, Rimas Entertainment LLC, Move Concerts PR INC, and A1 Productions LLC |
| Damages Sought | At least $1 million per the Associated Press; Metro Puerto Rico reported higher figures |
| Payment Alleged | Two checks totaling $5,200 |
Dera and emPawa Africa v. Bad Bunny (Enséñame a Bailar)
Judge Otis D. Wright II dismissed the sample case with prejudice on March 9, 2026, after the plaintiff stopped litigating without lawyers. With prejudice means the claim cannot be refiled.
| Court | Federal court, Judge Otis D. Wright II |
| Filed | May 2025 |
| Damages Sought | $25 million, according to AllHipHop |
| Outcome | Dismissed with prejudice, March 9, 2026 |
| Fee Request | $465,612 requested by Bad Bunny's side, denied August 20, 2026 |
How Much Is the Bad Bunny 40 Million Lawsuit Worth?
The Bad Bunny 40 million lawsuit seeks at least $40 million in damages, but no court has awarded any money and no settlement has been confirmed.
A damages demand is the plaintiff's own figure, not a prediction of what a court would award. Any real outcome would depend on the evidence, the claims that survive, and the law of the court involved.
The other Bad Bunny cases carry different demands. Serrano seeks $16 million, Dera and emPawa Africa sought $25 million before their case was dismissed, and the dembow plaintiffs have not stated a figure, though Billboard reported they could seek hundreds of millions of dollars.
Carrasco's demand is reported inconsistently. The Associated Press reported at least $1 million, while Metro Puerto Rico reported claims of at least $5 million for commercial use plus further amounts for emotional damages.
One outlet reported in January 2026 that the De La Cruz case had settled. The July 2026 Puerto Rico Supreme Court ruling shows that case is still active, so that report appears to be wrong.
Bad Bunny Lawsuit Updates
Here are the latest Bad Bunny lawsuit updates, covering rulings and filings across all five proceedings as they are confirmed. As of October 2026, four proceedings remain pending and one has been dismissed, with no settlement announced. Every verified development is listed in the timeline below, in order.
Bad Bunny Lawsuit Timeline of Events
Steely & Clevie File the Dembow Copyright Case
Cleveland "Clevie" Browne and the heirs of Wycliffe "Steely" Johnson sued Bad Bunny and dozens of other artists in federal court in Los Angeles. They claim the dembow rhythm in thousands of reggaeton songs was copied from their 1989 track "Fish Market."
Carliz De La Cruz Hernández Sues for $40 Million
Bad Bunny's former girlfriend filed a lawsuit in Puerto Rico over her recorded "Bad Bunny, baby" tag on "Pa Ti" and "Dos Mil 16." She sued Bad Bunny, Rimas Entertainment, and manager Noah Assad Byrne, according to the BBC.
Judge Birotte Denies the Motion to Dismiss the Dembow Case
Judge André Birotte Jr. refused to throw out the Steely & Clevie case, which allowed it to move into discovery. Bad Bunny's side had argued the musical elements at issue are not protectable.
Dera and emPawa Africa Sue Over Enséñame a Bailar
The Nigerian producer Dera and his label emPawa Africa filed a federal copyright case over an alleged uncleared sample from "Empty My Pocket." Bad Bunny's lawyers said the sample was licensed through Lakizo Entertainment.
Román Carrasco Sues Over La Casita
The 84-year-old Humacao homeowner filed suit in San Juan against Bad Bunny, Rimas Entertainment, Move Concerts PR, and A1 Productions. He alleges unjust enrichment over the use of his home in a short film and a concert set.
Dembow Summary Judgment Hearing Held
The federal court in Los Angeles heard the defendants' request for summary judgment in the dembow case. Billboard reported in February 2026 that a ruling could come within weeks.
Tainaly Serrano Rivera Files a $16 Million Case
Serrano sued Bad Bunny, producer Roberto Rosado, and Rimas Entertainment in Puerto Rico over a spoken line on "Solo de Mi" and "EoO." She alleges violations of publicity, privacy, and attribution rights, plus unjust enrichment.
Judge Wright Dismisses the Enséñame a Bailar Case
Judge Otis D. Wright II dismissed the sample case with prejudice after plaintiff Godfrey missed a March 6 deadline. His former lawyers had withdrawn in January over strategy disagreements.
Bad Bunny Asks emPawa Africa to Pay $465,612 in Legal Fees
Bad Bunny's lawyers filed a motion arguing the sample case was meritless from the beginning. The motion sought $465,612 in attorney fees from emPawa Africa.
Judge Birotte Sends the Dembow Case Toward a Jury
Judge Birotte denied summary judgment in July 2026 and held that a jury should decide whether the dembow rhythm is original and protectable. Competing expert opinions from both sides drove that decision.
Puerto Rico Supreme Court Revives Part of the De La Cruz Case
The Puerto Rico Supreme Court let De La Cruz pursue claims over "Dos Mil 16" and sent the case back to San Juan. The court held that claims over "Pa Ti" came too late under the statute of limitations.
Bad Bunny Asks Birotte to Reconsider the Dembow Ruling
Bad Bunny and Rimas Entertainment asked the judge to reconsider or certify the question for appeal to the Ninth Circuit. They argued the combination of elements the plaintiffs claim does not exist in any single work.
Judge Wright Denies Bad Bunny's Legal Fee Request
Judge Wright refused to make emPawa Africa pay $465,612 in fees. He wrote that fees would send the wrong message to copyright holders who test meritorious claims in open court.
Judge Birotte Reverses Course and Rejects the Broad Dembow Theory
Judge Birotte vacated part of his July order and granted the defendants summary judgment on the arrangement theory. He found Steely & Clevie had not identified a single copyrighted work containing the combination of elements they claim. Narrower sampling claims continue.
What Did Bad Bunny and His Companies Allegedly Know About the Disputed Material?
Bad Bunny and his companies allegedly knew about the disputed material before release in at least two of the five cases, according to the plaintiffs and one court finding. Every allegation below is unproven unless a court is named as the source.
De La Cruz alleges that Bad Bunny's representatives offered her $2,000 for the rights to her tag shortly before Un Verano Sin Ti came out, and that she refused. The album was released with her recording on it, per the BBC's account of the complaint.
In the sample case, Judge Wright wrote in August 2026 that the defendants admit they sampled the material but would not show the plaintiff proof of a license. Bad Bunny's lawyers say the rights were bought and the plaintiffs never produced evidence of ownership.
| Case | What the plaintiff alleges or the court noted | Defense position |
|---|---|---|
| De La Cruz | A $2,000 offer for the tag rights came before release and was refused | No response reported in the sources reviewed |
| Dera and emPawa Africa | Defendants used the sample but declined to show a license, per Judge Wright | Rights were bought through Lakizo Entertainment |
| Serrano | The producer asked for the recording in 2018 without explaining its use or offering a contract | No response reported in the sources reviewed |
| Carrasco | Officials asked him to sign a blank phone screen, and contracts were later attached | No response reported in the sources reviewed |
| Steely & Clevie | The rhythm was copied from "Fish Market" across thousands of songs | The claim would monopolize an entire genre and no single work contains the combination |
Is There a Bad Bunny NFL Lawsuit Over the Super Bowl Halftime Show?
No Bad Bunny NFL lawsuit over the Super Bowl halftime show turned up in the research for this page. Bad Bunny performed the Super Bowl LX halftime show on February 8, 2026, and the NFL confirmed it would not replace him despite political backlash.
Reported complaints came from politicians, not courts. Representative Andy Ogles sent a letter asking the House Energy and Commerce Committee to look into the NFL and NBCUniversal review process, and two other members suggested the FCC get involved. None of those steps is a lawsuit.
| Topic | Court case? | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Super Bowl LX halftime backlash | No lawsuit found | Political criticism and congressional letters only |
| Dembow copyright case | Yes | Federal case in Los Angeles, covered above |
| Voice recording and house cases | Yes | Three Puerto Rico proceedings, covered above |
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Bad Bunny lawsuit about?
The Bad Bunny lawsuit is five separate civil cases against Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio and his companies. They cover reggaeton copyright, two unauthorized voice recording claims, an alleged uncleared sample, and the use of a Humacao house in a short film and concerts.
Is the Bad Bunny lawsuit a class action or MDL?
The Bad Bunny lawsuit is not a class action or federal MDL. Each of the five cases has its own court and plaintiffs, and none has been consolidated with another.
What is the latest ruling in the Bad Bunny dembow lawsuit?
The latest ruling in the Bad Bunny dembow lawsuit came on September 1, 2026, when Judge André Birotte Jr. granted the defendants summary judgment on the plaintiffs' broad theory. Narrower claims that some songs directly sampled Steely & Clevie recordings remain pending.
Did Bad Bunny settle the $40 million lawsuit?
No, Bad Bunny has not settled the $40 million lawsuit brought by Carliz De La Cruz Hernández. The Puerto Rico Supreme Court let part of the case continue in July 2026, and no settlement has been confirmed.
Which Bad Bunny lawsuit involves the house in Puerto Rico?
The Bad Bunny lawsuit over the house in Puerto Rico is the case brought by Román Carrasco Delgado, who owns La Casita in Humacao. It is filed in the Court of First Instance in San Juan under case number SJ2025CV08380.
Did the court dismiss any Bad Bunny lawsuit?
Yes, one Bad Bunny lawsuit was dismissed. Judge Otis D. Wright II dismissed the Enséñame a Bailar sample case with prejudice on March 9, 2026, and later denied Bad Bunny's request for $465,612 in legal fees.