What Is the Cher Mary Bono Royalties Lawsuit?
The Cher Mary Bono royalties lawsuit is a federal contract and copyright dispute in which Cher sued Mary Bono, the widow of Sonny Bono, over Cher's 50% share of royalties from Sonny & Cher songs, not a class action, MDL, or personal-injury claim.
The case is captioned Cher v. Mary Bono (No. 2:21-cv-08157-JAK-RAO) and is assigned to U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt in the Central District of California. Cher filed it on October 13, 2021, and press reports at the time said it sought at least $1 million in damages. Cher is represented by the media law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, and the royalties at issue come from songs such as "I Got You Babe," "The Beat Goes On," and "Baby Don't Go."
The dispute traces to a Marriage Settlement Agreement that Cher and Sonny Bono signed on August 10, 1978, which the Los Angeles Superior Court approved. Under it, Cher received an "undivided 50% interest" in the recording royalties and in the royalties from compositions Sonny wrote or acquired before their separation. The agreement also let Sonny or his designated administrator keep a 10% administration fee, and it made third-party agreements about those royalties subject to Cher's approval, which could not be unreasonably withheld.
“On October 13, 2021, Cher ("Plaintiff") brought this action against Mary Bono ("Defendant"), the widow of Salvatore Bono ("Sonny"). [...] The FAC advances two causes of action arising from a dispute over royalties for musical compositions and recordings: (1) declaratory relief as to the effect of 17 U.S.C. § 304(c) termination on Plaintiff's rights; and (2) breach of contract.”
Source: U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Cher v. Mary Bono, No. 2:21-cv-08157-JAK-RAO, Document 107, Civil Minutes, Order re Motions for Summary Judgment (May 29, 2024), Section I (Introduction).
Why Was the Cher Mary Bono Royalties Lawsuit Filed?
The Cher Mary Bono royalties lawsuit was filed because Mary Bono stopped paying Cher her share of Sonny Bono's song royalties after invoking the federal copyright termination right.
In 2016, Mary Bono issued a Notice of Termination under 17 U.S.C. section 304(c) to music publishers that held rights in songs Sonny had written or co-written. The termination dates ranged from 2018 to 2026, and according to Cher's court filings the notice was issued without her knowledge or consent. The notice did not mention the 1978 divorce agreement. After the terminations took effect, Mary Bono stopped paying Cher her 50% share of the U.S. composition royalties, and beginning in September 2021 she told Cher she no longer had a share of the recording royalties or any approval rights.
The termination right lets an author's widow and surviving children end certain transfers or licenses of copyright made before January 1, 1978, by giving the grantee advance written notice. Mary Bono's position, as the court summarized it, was that this federal right overrides state contract law, so the 1978 agreement no longer had any effect on the royalties.
What Harms Does the Cher Mary Bono Royalties Lawsuit Allege?
The Cher Mary Bono royalties lawsuit alleges three related harms, all financial or contractual rather than physical: withheld composition royalties, loss of contractual approval rights, and breach of the 1978 divorce settlement.
Withheld Composition Royalties
Composition royalties are payments owed to the writers and owners of a song itself, as distinct from payments tied to a particular recording of that song.
Cher alleges that Mary Bono cut off her 50% share of the U.S. composition royalties once the 2016 terminations took effect. The parties agreed in the summary judgment record that the publishing administrator Wixen Music Publishing paid at least $187,000 of composition royalties to Sonny's heirs after the terminations, and that at least $93,500 of that amount went to Mary Bono. Cher says that money would have gone to her under the 1978 agreement.
Loss of Contractual Approval Rights
An approval right is a contract term that requires one party to get another party's consent before entering certain agreements.
Cher alleges the September 2021 notice also stripped her of the approval rights the 1978 agreement gave her over third-party deals involving the royalties. Those rights mattered for practical reasons: they let Cher object to who would administer Sonny's song royalties and on what terms, including how large an administration fee that person could collect.
Breach of the 1978 Marriage Settlement Agreement
Breach of contract is a legal claim that one party failed to do something a binding agreement required.
Cher's second cause of action alleges Mary Bono breached the 1978 agreement by refusing to honor Cher's royalty and approval rights. The court described this claim as resting on the same alleged violation as the declaratory relief claim, so the two had to be resolved consistently. That is why Cher pled one set of facts under two labels, a request for a declaration about the termination notice and a damages claim for the unpaid money.
What Is the Current Status of the Cher Mary Bono Royalties Lawsuit?
The current status of the Cher Mary Bono royalties lawsuit is a final judgment for Cher in the district court, with Mary Bono's appeal pending at the Ninth Circuit.
Cher v. Mary Bono
Judge Kronstadt granted Cher's motion for summary judgment on her declaratory relief claim in an order dated May 29, 2024. He reasoned that the 1978 agreement gave Cher a right to a share of royalty income, not a transfer of the underlying copyrights, so the Notice of Termination could not affect it. He also found that the agreement was signed after January 1, 1978, which places it outside the scope of section 304(c), a provision limited to grants made before that date.
The court entered final judgment on November 26, 2025, as reported, and Mary Bono's attorney Daniel Schacht filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit on December 22, 2025. Schacht has argued publicly that the ruling gets the law on copyright terminations wrong. The Ninth Circuit had not issued a decision in any report located as of October 2026.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Central District of California |
| Judge | Hon. John A. Kronstadt |
| Case Number | 2:21-cv-08157-JAK-RAO |
| Filed | October 13, 2021 |
| Summary Judgment Order | May 29, 2024 (Document 107) |
| Final Judgment | November 26, 2025 (as reported) |
| Appeal | Notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit reported December 22, 2025 |
| Appellate Ruling | None reported as of October 2026 |
| Cher's Attorney Fee Motion | Denied, July 2026 |
How Much Is the Cher Mary Bono Royalties Lawsuit Worth?
The Cher Mary Bono royalties lawsuit has produced an award of more than $418,000 in unpaid royalties and no reported settlement. Reports of the final judgment put the figure at $418,156.82, the amount of composition royalties the publisher Wixen was holding for Cher.
The amount is not necessarily the full value of the case. In the May 2024 order, the court noted the parties disagreed about whether the figure reflects Wixen's 10% administration fee and about royalties due after July 1, 2022, and the real value to Cher is her continuing 50% share, which is not a lump sum.
Cher also asked the court to make Mary Bono pay her attorney fees, filing a January 12, 2026 motion for $1,023,605.50 that said her lawyers billed nearly 2,000 hours at rates from $400 to $795. Judge Kronstadt denied the motion in July 2026, reasoning that the dispute turned on contract law, so the Copyright Act's fee-shifting rules did not apply, and Cher therefore bears her own legal costs.
No claims process or settlement fund exists for anyone else to join, since the lawsuit has one plaintiff and one defendant. Whether the appeal changes the award depends on what the Ninth Circuit decides.
Cher Mary Bono Royalties Lawsuit Updates and Case Status
Here are the latest Cher Mary Bono royalties lawsuit updates, covering court orders, the appeal, and the fee ruling as they are confirmed. As of October 2026, the case is on appeal at the Ninth Circuit with no settlement reported. The full timeline below covers every verified development in order.
Cher Mary Bono Royalties Lawsuit Timeline of Events
Judge Denies Cher's Request for About $1 Million in Attorney Fees
News outlets reported on July 22, 2026 that Judge Kronstadt denied Cher's fee motion, leaving her to pay her own legal costs despite winning the case. Outlets date the order between July 17 and July 21, and the judge's stated reason was that the dispute centered on a divorce contract rather than on federal copyright law.
Cher Asks the Court to Make Mary Bono Pay Her Legal Fees
Cher's lawyers at Davis Wright Tremaine filed a motion seeking $1,023,605.50 in attorney fees, arguing Mary Bono had pursued an untenable reading of copyright law for five years.
Mary Bono Appeals to the Ninth Circuit
Mary Bono's attorney Daniel Schacht filed a notice of appeal challenging the district court's ruling, saying the decision wrongly lets a divorce contract sidestep copyright terminations.
Judge Kronstadt Signs the Final Judgment
Judge Kronstadt entered final judgment in Cher v. Mary Bono, which reports said awarded Cher $418,156.82 in unpaid composition royalties and confirmed her right to keep collecting 50% of Sonny's songwriting royalties.
Judge Rules for Cher on Summary Judgment
In Document 107 of Cher v. Mary Bono, the court granted Cher's motion on the declaratory relief claim, granted it in part on the breach of contract claim, and denied Mary Bono's motion except for part of her first counterclaim. The order left some damages questions for later proceedings.
Judge Signals He Favors Cher at the Summary Judgment Hearing
At the hearing on the cross-motions, Judge Kronstadt said from the bench that the 1978 agreement gave Cher a right to royalty proceeds rather than to the underlying copyrights, and that he was leaning toward ruling for her.
Both Sides File Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
Mary Bono moved for summary judgment on all of Cher's claims, and on the same day Cher moved for summary judgment or partial summary judgment, setting up the May 2024 ruling.
Mary Bono Files Two Counterclaims
Mary Bono counterclaimed for a declaration about how an administrator for the royalties is selected and about her right to enter new agreements for sound recording copyrights she owns.
Cher Files Her First Amended Complaint
Cher's operative complaint set out two causes of action, declaratory relief about the effect of the termination notice and breach of contract.
Cher Sues Mary Bono in Federal Court in Los Angeles
Cher filed suit in the Central District of California alleging Mary Bono was illegally withholding royalties from hits such as "I Got You Babe" and "The Beat Goes On," and the complaint sought at least $1 million in damages.
Mary Bono Tells Cher She Is No Longer Entitled to Her Share
Beginning in September 2021, Mary Bono advised Cher that she no longer had a right to her 50% share of the recording royalties or to approval rights under the 1978 agreement.
Mary Bono Issues a Notice of Termination to Music Publishers
Mary Bono issued a notice under 17 U.S.C. section 304(c) to publishers holding rights in songs Sonny Bono wrote or co-wrote, with termination dates running from 2018 to 2026, and Cher says she was not told.
Cher and Mary Bono Agree to Replace the Royalty Administrator
Cher and Mary Bono jointly agreed to replace the administrator Jay Glick with Wixen Music Publishing to collect and distribute the royalties.
Sonny Bono Dies in a Skiing Accident
Sonny Bono died on January 5, 1998. In his probate case, Cher filed a creditor's claim, and Mary Bono as the estate's administrator reached an agreement recognizing Cher's ongoing rights under the 1978 agreement.
Cher and Sonny Bono Sign the Marriage Settlement Agreement
Cher and Sonny Bono signed the agreement giving Cher an undivided 50% interest in specified record and composition royalties, the contract at the center of the later lawsuit.
What Did Mary Bono Allegedly Do in the Cher Mary Bono Royalties Lawsuit?
Mary Bono is Sonny Bono's widow and a former member of Congress who succeeded him in office and served until 2013. The lawsuit alleges she cut off Cher's royalties by relying on the termination notice described above, while she maintains the notice was properly invoked and that Cher no longer holds royalty rights in Sonny's songs.
Mary Bono raised several defenses and two counterclaims in the case. The May 29, 2024 order ruled on each, summarized in the table below.
| Mary Bono's position | Court's ruling on May 29, 2024 |
|---|---|
| Cher lacks standing because she sold her catalog to a third party | Rejected; standing is measured when the complaint was filed, and the dispute remained a live controversy |
| Sonny's four children are indispensable parties who had to be sued | Rejected; the court found Mary Bono could adequately represent their interests and they had not asked to intervene |
| Section 304(c) preempts the 1978 agreement | Rejected; the agreement transferred royalty rights, not copyrights, and post-dates January 1, 1978 |
| First counterclaim: Sonny's heirs choose the royalty administrator | Granted in part; Mary Bono may engage an entity the heirs control, but Cher may object to its terms, including the fee |
| Second counterclaim: right to renegotiate the recording contracts | Denied; no actual controversy, because Mary Bono had not tried to renegotiate them |
Mary Bono's attorney Daniel Schacht has framed the appeal as a defense of authors' heirs, telling the press that the ruling lets divorce deals and publisher contracts get around the Copyright Act.
How Does the Cher Mary Bono Royalties Lawsuit Compare to Other Copyright Termination Disputes?
The Cher Mary Bono royalties lawsuit differs from most other copyright termination disputes because the party challenged is a former spouse holding a contractual royalty right rather than a publisher holding a copyright grant. Mary Bono's own lawyer said at the 2022 hearing that Congress was concerned with publishers, not with former spouses of songwriters.
The court did not treat the case as unprecedented. It relied on, or distinguished, four earlier decisions in reaching its ruling, and two of them come from the Ninth Circuit, the same court now hearing Mary Bono's appeal.
| Decision | Court | How the May 2024 order used it |
|---|---|---|
| Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder, 469 U.S. 153 (1985) | U.S. Supreme Court | Mary Bono relied on it; the court said it applied to the specific agreement there and that the 1978 agreement was different |
| Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Hirsch, 104 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 1997) | Ninth Circuit | Cited for the point that a right to receive royalties is distinct from a grant of copyright |
| Yount v. Acuff Rose-Opryland, 103 F.3d 830 (9th Cir. 1996) | Ninth Circuit | Cited for the point that holding a royalty interest is not an interest in the underlying copyright |
| Rodrigue v. Rodrigue, 218 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2000) | Fifth Circuit | Cited for the point that the economic benefits of a copyright can be shared by a marital community without violating federal copyright law |
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Cher Mary Bono royalties lawsuit about?
The Cher Mary Bono royalties lawsuit is about Cher's claim to a 50% share of royalties from Sonny & Cher songs, which Mary Bono, Sonny Bono's widow, stopped paying after invoking a 2016 copyright termination notice.
Is the Cher Mary Bono royalties lawsuit a class action or MDL?
No. It is a single-plaintiff civil case, Cher v. Mary Bono, with one defendant, no certified class, no MDL, and no group of claimants who can join.
Who are Cher and Mary Bono in this lawsuit?
Cher is the plaintiff, the singer who performed as half of Sonny & Cher, and Mary Bono is the defendant, Sonny Bono's widow and a former congresswoman who succeeded him in office and served until 2013.
Did Cher win her lawsuit against Mary Bono?
Cher won her lawsuit against Mary Bono on the core royalty claim through a May 29, 2024 summary judgment order and a November 26, 2025 final judgment, but Mary Bono appealed to the Ninth Circuit on December 22, 2025, so the result is not yet final.
How much money did Cher win from Mary Bono?
Cher won more than $418,000 in unpaid composition royalties, reported as $418,156.82, along with the court's confirmation of her continuing 50% share, and no separate settlement has been reported.
Did Cher have to pay her own legal fees after winning?
Cher had to pay her own legal fees after winning because Judge Kronstadt denied her roughly $1 million fee request in July 2026, reasoning that the dispute turned on contract law rather than on the Copyright Act.