PR Supreme Court allows Bad Bunny voice rights suit to move forward

Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, aka Bad Bunny, and Carliz de la Cruz Hernández (Facebook via Papi)

By THE STAR STAFF

The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has cleared the way for a lawsuit against global music star Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, known as Bad Bunny, to move forward, marking a significant development in a long‑running dispute over the now‑famous vocal tag “Bad Bunny, baby.”

In a 50‑page opinion issued recently, the court ruled that plaintiff Carliz de la Cruz Hernández presented sufficient facts to continue pursuing claims that her recorded vocal phrase, captured in 2015 at Bad Bunny’s request, was later used commercially without her authorization. The decision reverses the dismissal of key portions of her lawsuit and sends the case back to the San Juan court for further proceedings.

While the justices upheld the dismissal of de la Cruz Hernández’s moral rights claims, they determined that her vocal performance may still be relevant under Puerto Rico’s Right to Own Image law and general damages provisions. Claims tied to the 2016 track “Pa Ti” were dismissed, but allegations involving more recent use, including on the chart‑topping album “Un Verano Sin Ti,” remain active.

The ruling means Bad Bunny and several Rimas Entertainment LLC‑affiliated entities must now defend against accusations that the vocal tag was used across major releases without consent, attribution or compensation. Claims against Bad Bunny’s manager, Noah Assad Byrne, were dismissed for lack of sufficient grounds.

According to the lawsuit, de la Cruz Hernández and Martínez Ocasio created the vocal tag during their relationship. She alleges that after their breakup, the phrase appeared in songs, albums and promotional materials without her approval. Court filings state that Bad Bunny’s team later attempted to secure rights retroactively, offering a $2,000 payment, which de la Cruz Hernández declined.

Industry observers say the case could have far‑reaching implications. Entertainment attorney Heidy Vaquerano of Fox Rothschild LLP told Newsweek that if de la Cruz Hernández prevails, her vocal tag could be treated as a protectable contribution requiring royalty payments or licensing fees each time it is used. She added that artists often negotiate buyouts to avoid ongoing accounting obligations -- something that did not occur in this instance.

The dispute is also drawing attention from the voice‑over industry, where questions of consent and voice provenance are becoming increasingly prominent. Ruth Zive, chief marketing officer of the global voice‑solutions platform Voices, told Newsweek that the case underscores the importance of clear agreements when using someone’s recorded voice commercially.

A dissenting opinion argued that all claims should have been dismissed, describing the vocal tag as a brief, secondary element within the songs and rejecting the privacy and image‑rights arguments.

With an estimated $40 million at stake, the case now returns to the lower court for an evidentiary phase that will examine authorship, consent, commercial use and potential damages. The outcome could influence how artists clear vocal elements and negotiate rights with early collaborators -- particularly when short recorded phrases evolve into recognizable parts of an artist’s brand.

The case is expected to be one of the most closely watched music‑industry disputes of the year.