A dispute over four short words has cleared a major hurdle in Puerto Rico’s highest court. Carliz De La Cruz Hernández, a former girlfriend of the artist known as Bad Bunny, can continue her suit over the use of her voice on his chart-topping album. The decision keeps alive questions about how far voice protection reaches in commercial music.
What the Court Decided
The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico ruled that De La Cruz Hernández may press ahead with claims tied to the 2022 song “Dos Mil 16,” which features her saying “Bad Bunny baby.” The same court closed the door on a separate claim over a 2015 track, finding she waited too long to bring it. That earlier claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
The July 8 decision let the core claims survive while trimming the rest, as reported by Billboard.
How the Case Began
De La Cruz Hernández dated the singer, whose legal name is Benito Martínez Ocasio, on and off starting in 2011. In 2015, at his request, she recorded a brief voice memo of the phrase “Bad Bunny baby.” She sued the singer and his label in 2023, arguing she never agreed to its commercial use and was never paid for it.
The Bad Bunny lawsuit centers on two legal theories:
- A right of publicity claim, which concerns the unauthorized commercial use of her voice
- A copyright claim, which concerns her recorded performance of the phrase
The Right of Publicity Question
Right of publicity laws protect a person’s name, image, and voice from commercial use without consent. Traditionally these protections applied to advertisements, and sound recordings were treated as exempt.
This area of law varies widely from one place to the next, since no single federal statute governs the right of publicity.
In this case, a trial judge found in 2024 that the sampled phrase worked as a form of advertising. The reasoning was unusual. Circulation of the clip on social media stirred speculation that the album would explore the pair’s relationship, which the judge said helped drive sales. Higher courts have now agreed that theory can reach trial.
The Copyright Angle
The Supreme Court also revived a copyright claim that had been dismissed. The majority reasoned that once a distinctive vocal performance is fixed in a recording, copyright protection may attach. Not every justice agreed. One dissent argued that neither claim should stand under Puerto Rico law.
Why the Ruling Matters
Voice cases are drawing fresh attention as sampling, taglines, and AI-generated audio become more common. A ruling that treats a social media clip as commercial promotion could shape how artists and labels handle vocal contributions going forward. Labels often obtain releases for featured performers, but informal recordings made between partners rarely come with paperwork. That gap is exactly what this case exposes.
Voice and copyright disputes are surfacing more often, and our legal news coverage has tracked several of them as they move through the courts.
For now, the Bad Bunny lawsuit returns to the lower court, where the parties will argue the surviving claims on their merits. Aloha News Network will keep reporting on the case as it develops, and readers can check back for updates on the ruling and its wider effect on music and media law.