Bad Bunny Must Pay $465K in Legal Fees After Admitting He Sampled Copyrighted Material for a Song

Bad Bunny will have to absorb more than $465,000 (£341,092.89) in legal fees following a protracted copyright dispute. A federal judge in the United States denied the Puerto Rican superstar's request to recover his attorneys' fees on 20 August.

The ruling leaves the artist responsible for $465,612 (£341,398) in costs he had already incurred defending the case, even though the underlying infringement lawsuit was dismissed without a trial on the merits

The news came after the copyright case brought by Dëra, whose legal name is Ezeani Chidera Godfrey, and emPawa Africa ultimately collapsed after the plaintiffs failed to continue prosecuting their claims.

The lawsuit was filed in May 2025 over the song 'Enséñame a Bailar', from the 2022 album Un Verano Sin Ti. The plaintiffs alleged that Bad Bunny used elements of 'Empty My Pocket', a Joeboy track produced by Dëra, without proper authorisation.

With the litigation effectively ending in his favour, the artist's legal representatives attempted to pass the bill back to the plaintiffs.

The defence team labelled the initial copyright lawsuit 'meritless from the beginning' and accused emPawa of attempting to obtain an undeserved multimillion-dollar settlement from the globally recognised musician.

Under US copyright law, courts have discretion to award reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party, but winning or securing dismissal does not automatically entitle a defendant to reimbursement.

US District Judge Otis D. Wright II examined the circumstances and found that emPawa's claims were 'objectively reasonable' and that the defendants had not demonstrated an improper motive.

The judge found no sufficient evidence of an improper motive behind the original federal filing. Judge Wright noted that the infringement lawsuit was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

The core issue rested partly on the defendants' acknowledgement that material from the disputed work had been sampled.

The Battle Over Sample Clearance

Bad Bunny's legal team acknowledged that 'Enséñame a Bailar' contained sampled material at issue in the case. This admission shifted the focus towards whether that use had been properly authorised.

The defence maintained that the sample had been legally cleared through Lakizo Entertainment. Bad Bunny's representatives had maintained since the dispute emerged that Rimas obtained the master recording from Lakizo and followed standard industry procedures.

The plaintiffs disputed Lakizo's authority to grant that permission. Their federal complaint alleged that Lakizo was neither an author of Empty My Pocket nor authorised to approve derivative uses of the works at issue.

However, the fee ruling found that no conclusive evidence had emerged showing the defendants had permission to use the disputed sample.

That finding concerned whether emPawa had a reasonable basis to sue; it was not a judgment that Bad Bunny had infringed the copyright.

That distinction proved significant to the reimbursement request. The judge found that emPawa had advanced 'seemingly meritorious claims', making an attorneys' fee award against the plaintiffs inappropriate.

Judge Wright also rejected the defence's argument that the lawsuit had been pursued for an improper purpose, saying the defendants offered little beyond conjecture to support that allegation.

The judge concluded that imposing attorneys' fees in these circumstances would be 'strongly antithetical' to the objectives of copyright law and could send the wrong message to parties seeking to protect intellectual property through the courts.

A Costly Legal Victory

The ruling means Bad Bunny cannot shift his $465,612 (£341,398) legal bill to the plaintiffs. It does not amount to a new fine, damages award or court order requiring him to pay emPawa.

The underlying lawsuit ended in March after the plaintiffs failed to meet court requirements. Wright dismissed Dëra's remaining case after he missed a discovery hearing and failed to respond to an order requiring him to explain why the litigation should continue. EmPawa had previously been dismissed after also missing deadlines.

The dismissal therefore did not produce a substantive ruling on whether Bad Bunny's use of the disputed material constituted copyright infringement.

The defendants maintained that the sample had been authorised through Lakizo, while the plaintiffs disputed whether Lakizo possessed the rights required to grant that permission.

The $465,612 (£341,398) figure instead represents the attorneys' fees Bad Bunny and the other defendants sought to recover after the litigation ended.

The dispute highlights the complexities of global music sampling and cross-border copyright claims. EmPawa and Dëra maintained that their rights had been infringed, while Bad Bunny's representatives consistently denied wrongdoing and maintained that the material had been properly licensed.

Although the plaintiffs' case was ultimately dismissed, Wright's latest ruling found that bringing the claims was not objectively unreasonable.

At the same time, the court did not determine that Bad Bunny infringed the plaintiffs' copyrights. The result leaves Bad Bunny with the cost of his own defence rather than a $465,612 (£341,398) payment imposed by the court.

The case also illustrates an important distinction between winning a lawsuit on its merits and prevailing because the opposing side fails to continue litigating.

Bad Bunny avoided a copyright judgment against him, but his attempt to make the plaintiffs cover his legal costs has now failed.