Bad Bunny’s copyright lawsuits fall into four buckets: a dismissed sampling case over “Enséñame a Bailar,” two pending voice-recording suits in Puerto Rico, a sweeping genre-wide case over the reggaeton rhythm, and a suit he himself brought against a fan posting bootleg concert footage on YouTube. Only the “Enséñame a Bailar” case has been resolved, and it ended without any ruling on whether infringement actually occurred.
The “Enséñame a Bailar” Sampling Case (Dismissed)
In May 2025, Nigerian producer Ezeani Chidera Godfrey (known as Dera) and UK-based label emPawa Africa Music Services sued Bad Bunny in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. They alleged that “Enséñame a Bailar,” from the 2022 album Un Verano Sin Ti, used the musical bed and part of the lyrics from Dera’s 2019 instrumental “Empty My Pocket” without authorization. The complaint sought damages of no less than $25 million per claim across four causes of action.1Music Business Worldwide. Bad Bunny Beats Copyright Lawsuit Over Enséñame a Bailar Sample
Bad Bunny’s team said the sample had been properly licensed from Lakizo Entertainment, which was listed as the track’s owner on Spotify. Dera’s side argued Lakizo was just a distributor and could not clear the sample. Bad Bunny’s label Rimas Entertainment said emPawa had produced only a “heavily redacted contract” as proof of ownership.2Rolling Stone. Bad Bunny Lawsuit Over Uncleared Afrobeats Sample
How the Case Collapsed
The case never reached the merits. In January 2026, Dera’s lawyers withdrew, citing “irreparable differences” over strategy.3Rolling Stone. Bad Bunny Wins Copyright Case Over Enséñame a Bailar EmPawa Africa was dismissed the next month after failing to secure new counsel by the court’s deadline.4Digital Music News. Bad Bunny Lawsuit Dismissal Dera then missed a February 5 discovery hearing and did not respond to a subsequent order to show cause.
On March 9, 2026, Judge Otis D. Wright II dismissed the case with prejudice for lack of prosecution, finding that Dera had “abandoned this case.”1Music Business Worldwide. Bad Bunny Beats Copyright Lawsuit Over Enséñame a Bailar Sample Because the dismissal was with prejudice, the claims cannot be refiled. The court made no finding on whether “Enséñame a Bailar” actually infringed “Empty My Pocket.”
The Fee Motion
On March 23, 2026, Bad Bunny, Rimas Entertainment, and distributor The Orchard moved for $465,612 in legal fees from emPawa Africa, calling the suit “meritless from the beginning” and alleging it was filed to exploit Bad Bunny’s “wealth, prominence and desire to avoid bad publicity” to force a settlement.5Billboard. Bad Bunny Wants Accuser to Cover Legal Fees The motion targets only emPawa, not Dera, on the view that Dera was not the party primarily prosecuting or financing the case.6Rolling Stone. Bad Bunny Seeks Legal Bill Reimbursement After Copyright Case EmPawa had not publicly responded by late March 2026, and the motion was pending.
Voice-Recording Suits in Puerto Rico
Two separate Puerto Rico lawsuits allege Bad Bunny used women’s voice recordings commercially without their consent. Both invoke Puerto Rico’s Right of Publicity Act (Act No. 139-2011), which bars unauthorized commercial use of a person’s voice, name, or other identifiable attributes. Both remain active.
Carliz De La Cruz Hernández: $40 Million
In March 2023, Bad Bunny’s ex-girlfriend Carliz De La Cruz Hernández sued him, Rimas Entertainment, and manager Noah Kamil Assad Byrne, seeking at least $40 million. She alleges Bad Bunny asked her to record the phrase “Bad Bunny, baby” in 2015, and that the recording was later used on “Pa Ti” (2016) and “Dos Mil 16” (from Un Verano Sin Ti) without permission.7NBC News. Bad Bunny’s Former Girlfriend Files Lawsuit Seeking $40M According to the suit, his team offered her $2,000 for the recording in 2022; she declined, and it appeared on the album regardless.8Pitchfork. Bad Bunny Sued by Ex-Girlfriend for Using Her Voice Memo in Songs Without Permission The case was remanded from federal court to Puerto Rico court and is pending.
Tainaly Y. Serrano Rivera: $16 Million
In January 2026, Tainaly Y. Serrano Rivera filed a $16 million suit in San Juan against Bad Bunny, producer Roberto Rosado (La Paciencia), and Rimas Entertainment. Serrano says that in 2018, while she and Rosado were theater students, he asked her to record the line “Mira, puñeta, no me quiten el perreo.” She was never told it would be used commercially and signed no contract.9Rolling Stone. Bad Bunny Faces Lawsuit Over Songs The recording allegedly appears on “Solo de Mi” from X 100pre (2018) and “EoO” from Debí Tirar Más Fotos (2025). Serrano invokes both Act 139-2011 and the Moral Rights of Authors Act (Act No. 55-2012), seeking damages and an order stopping any further use.10Music Business Worldwide. Bad Bunny Faces $16M Lawsuit Over Alleged Unauthorized Voice Recording Representatives for Bad Bunny and Rimas had not publicly commented as of early 2026.
A March 2026 Puerto Rico Supreme Court decision in an unrelated case, Friger Salgueiro v. Mech-Tech College, held that the right of publicity under Act 139-2011 can be transferred only by written agreement, and that verbal consent or an informal relationship is not enough.11O’Neill & Borges. No Written Agreement, No Rights: Puerto Rico’s Standard for Right of Publicity That standard could help plaintiffs who never signed releases, though it has yet to be tested against these specific facts.
The “Dem Bow” Reggaeton Rhythm Case
Bad Bunny is one of more than 150 defendants in a genre-wide copyright suit filed in 2021 by Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the heirs of Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson, the Jamaican production duo Steely and Clevie. They allege that their 1989 instrumental “Fish Market” was sampled or interpolated into more than 1,800 reggaeton songs. Other named defendants include Daddy Yankee, Karol G, Luis Fonsi, Justin Bieber, Pitbull, and subsidiaries of the three major labels.12Billboard. Latin Stars Reggaeton Lawsuit
Defendants argue the reggaeton rhythm is an unprotectable “basic building block” of music and that the plaintiffs are trying to claim ownership of a genre. In May 2024, U.S. District Judge André Birotte Jr. largely denied motions to dismiss, saying it was premature to rule the elements too commonplace for copyright protection.13Rolling Stone. Fish Market Lawsuit Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss As of December 2025, cross-motions for summary judgment were pending, with the judge indicating he would try to rule by the end of January 2026. If those motions are denied, the case heads to a jury.14Courthouse News Service. Reggaeton Artists Challenge Originality of Dembow Rhythm in Copyright Battle
Bad Bunny as Plaintiff: The YouTube Bootleg Suit
In March 2024, Bad Bunny sued Eric Guillermo Madroñal Garrone, the Madrid-based operator of the YouTube channel “MADforliveMUSIC,” in California federal court. Madroñal Garrone had uploaded videos containing substantial portions of ten songs from Bad Bunny’s February 21, 2024, concert at the Delta Center in Salt Lake City.15Axios. Bad Bunny Lawsuit Against Fan Over Social Media Video
After a takedown request, Madroñal Garrone filed a DMCA counter-notice claiming fair use and newsworthiness. That counter-notice gave Bad Bunny ten days to sue or the videos would go back up, so his team filed. The complaint alleged copyright infringement, trademark violations, and bootlegging under federal law prohibiting unauthorized recording of live performances, seeking up to $150,000 per song.16Billboard. Bad Bunny Lawsuit Against Fan Over Bootleg Concert Footage YouTube later terminated the channel over repeated copyright complaints.17NBC News. Bad Bunny Sues Fan Over Bootleg YouTube Videos