Bad Bunny’s former girlfriend may proceed with a lawsuit accusing the reggaeton star of using a recording of her voice saying “Bad Bunny baby” on his 2022 song “Dos Mil 16” without her permission.
In an 80-page ruling obtained by Rolling Stone, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court found that Carliz De La Cruz Hernández can move forward with her claim that the recording’s use violated her right to protect her identity from commercial exploitation. Bad Bunny, born Benito Martinez Ocasio, has been fighting the lawsuit since it was first filed in 2023.
In her filings, De La Cruz Hernández says she began dating Bad Bunny in 2011 and recorded the phrase at his request in 2015. The couple later separated, reconciled in 2017, and broke up again, though they continued communicating intermittently until 2019, she claims.
According to De La Cruz Hernández, she never authorized the recording’s use on “Pa Ti,” released in 2015, or on “Dos Mil 16,” a track from the chart-topping album Un Verano Sin Ti. She alleges Bad Bunny and his company, Rimas Entertainment, used her voice memo across streaming services, social media, television, radio, and promotional campaigns, turning it into a marketing hook that fueled interest in the couple’s on-and-off relationship and drove sales. She alleges the defendants unfairly profited from her voice without compensating her, and the Supreme Court found that she presented sufficient facts to support her claim of a plausible commercial use.
While De La Cruz Hernández can move forward with her claim related to “Dos Mil 16,” the court found she waited too long to pursue damages for “Pa Ti.” The statute of limitations for the earlier song had run out, the court ruled.
In its opinion, the majority also reversed an earlier dismissal of De La Cruz Hernández’s copyright claim. It found she had a right to pursue her claims that the recording of her personal and distinguishable voice performance might be protectible as a copyright.
Attempts to reach lawyers on both sides were not immediately successful on Friday. A dissenting judge said he would have dismissed both claims, finding that neither was supported by law.
