
Bad Bunny Denied $500K Legal Fee Payout After Copyright Lawsuit Drops
A federal judge refused to force record label Empawa Africa to cover Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio's massive court expenses.
By Rae MitchellPublished Updated 2 min read
Bad Bunny won't be getting a half-million-dollar reimbursement following his recent copyright clash. A federal judge formally denied the Latin megastar's motion to force record company Empawa Africa to cover nearly $500,000 in legal expenses incurred while defending his record-breaking album *Un Verano Sin Ti*. The legal battle originally centered on allegations that Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio utilized an uncleared music sample on his blockbuster 2022 project. Empawa Africa launched the copyright suit, but eventually chose to drop the action before the dispute went through a full trial.
Why did Bad Bunny want Empawa Africa to pay his legal fees?
Following the dismissal of the case, the Grammy winner's legal team demanded complete financial compensation for their hefty representation costs. Bad Bunny's attorneys argued the lawsuit was entirely baseless from the start, asserting that the disputed sample had been properly authorized all along. His defense team further insisted that the music firm brought the dispute solely to shake down the chart-topping artist for an unearned multimillion-dollar settlement. They maintained that the matter should never have landed in court in the first place.

What did the judge say about Bad Bunny's copyright lawsuit?
However, U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II shut down those financial demands in a decision handed down on Thursday. The judge stated that punishing the plaintiff for walking away would establish a harmful precedent for future intellectual property litigation. In his ruling, Judge Wright explained that Empawa Africa's initial claim was "objectively reasonable" at the moment it was submitted. He noted that the case could potentially have yielded a different outcome had the company chosen to push forward through a complete legal battle. The court also determined that Bad Bunny failed to prove any bad faith or malicious intent behind the legal action. Judge Wright highlighted that the defense offered mostly speculation rather than concrete proof regarding their extortion claims, concluding that ordering fee reimbursement in this scenario "would send the wrong message" to litigants.
The photos · 5
More like this

Music
Liz Phair Unveils Behind-the-Scenes Look at Flannel and the Fury Tour With Sleater-Kinney
The indie rock icon offers fans a rare glimpse into life on the road following a joint run with Sleater-Kinney.
Oct 29, 2026

Music
Everything But The Girl Unveil New Album 'Blue Reservoir' After Intimate London Gigs
Tracey Thorn and Ben Watt are back with their 12th studio record and lead track 'Young And Dumb.'
Oct 28, 2026

Music
Unreleased 1978 David Bowie Concert Heading to Arenas as Immersive Spectacle
Director Brett Morgen and the late icon's estate are reviving raw footage from London's Earls Court for a massive 2027 tour.
Oct 27, 2026
Get the pop news brief
One daily email. The biggest celebrity, music and TV stories, no filler.
People also ask
- Why was Bad Bunny sued by Empawa Africa?
- Empawa Africa filed a copyright infringement lawsuit claiming Bad Bunny used an uncleared sample on his album Un Verano Sin Ti, though the company later dropped the case.
- Did Bad Bunny win his legal fee request?
- No, a federal judge rejected Bad Bunny's demand for Empawa Africa to cover almost $500,000 in legal expenses.
- Who ruled on Bad Bunny's legal fee motion?
- U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II denied the motion, stating that forcing the plaintiff to pay would send the wrong message.
- bad bunny
- benito antonio martinez ocasio
- empawa africa
- otis d. wright ii
- un verano sin ti
Reader reaction
No comments yet — be the first to weigh in.