Ex-Bad Bunny gets a breakthrough in lawsuit over the phrase "Bad Bunny, baby"; Supreme Court gives him the right

The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has ruled in favor of Carliz De La Cruz Hernández, former partner of reggaeton artist Bad Bunny, granting her the right to pursue claims over the unauthorized use of her voice in the phrase “Bad Bunny, baby” featured in two songs and live performances. The court determined that De La Cruz had presented sufficient evidence to justify her claim under Puerto Rico’s Moral Rights Law, allowing the case to proceed. De La Cruz, a Puerto Rican lawyer, met Bad Bunny, real name Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, in 2011 while both worked at an Econo supermarket in Vega Baja, northern Puerto Rico. They maintained an intermittent relationship until 2016. In 2015, she recorded the audio clip “Bad Bunny, baby” at the request of the artist and sent it to him. She later filed a lawsuit in March 2023 seeking $40 million, arguing that the use of her voice violated her rights to image and intellectual property. The Supreme Court found that the claims related to the song “Pa ti,” released in 2016, were time-barred. However, the case continues due to the continued use of her voice in the 2022 track “Dos Mil 16” and subsequent concerts. Before the release of this song, representatives of Bad Bunny attempted to compensate De La Cruz with an initial offer of $2,000, which she rejected. Despite her refusal, her voice was used in concerts, promotional campaigns, and other content tied to Bad Bunny. The voice appeared in concerts held at the José Miguel Agrelot Coliseum in Puerto Rico on July 28, 29, and 30, 2022, among others, leading De La Cruz to seek psychological assistance. The Supreme Court concluded that the claim for moral rights can continue because De La Cruz has provided enough evidence to argue that her vocal performance constitutes an original and creative work protected under the Moral Rights Law. The court also stated there is sufficient evidence to support that no explicit or implied consent was given for the use of her voice. Notably, the Supreme Court did not rule that De La Cruz had won the case but rather that she had presented a valid claim warranting further evaluation. The court returned the case to the First Instance Court in San Juan for further proceedings. A dissenting opinion was issued by Associate Judge Ángel Colón Pérez, who argued that all claims should have been dismissed because the appearance of De La Cruz’s voice was brief and part of artistic expression protected under law. The ruling underscores the legal complexities surrounding the use of personal voices in music and entertainment. It highlights the potential for individuals to assert their rights even after a relationship has ended. De La Cruz’s case reflects broader debates over the boundaries of artistic freedom versus individual privacy and intellectual property rights. As the case moves forward, it will likely involve more detailed examination of the nature of her contribution to the tracks and whether it qualifies as an original work under copyright law. The outcome could set a precedent for similar cases involving the use of personal voices in musical works. Legal experts suggest the decision may influence how artists and collaborators navigate the ethical and legal implications of using recordings or contributions from past relationships. For now, the case remains active, pending further legal steps.