IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—C.D. Cal.: No attorney fees for Bad Bunny in battle with Nigerian producer and distributor, (Aug 26, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The claim against the Puerto Rican superstar was objectively reasonable, even if ultimately unsuccessful.

A British talent incubator and a Nigerian music producer will not have to pay attorney fees after their unsuccessful bid to sue Puerto Rican music superstar Bad Bunny over an allegedly unauthorized use of a sample, the District Court for the Central District of California has held. The court, in rejecting the bid for attorney fees, emphasized that the plaintiffs attempted to settle the lawsuit before bringing it and that the reggaeton singer and his team never shared the licensing agreement that purportedly backed their defense (Empawa Africa Music Services Ltd. v. Ocasio, No. 2:25-cv-03944-ODW-BFM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2026)).

The lawsuit centers around emPawa Africa Music Services Limited (emPawa), a small British music services company that represents up-and-coming African artists. One of those artists, Nigerian producer Ezeani Chidera Godfrey (Godfrey) (known professionally as Dera), composed and recorded an instrumental work entitled “Empty My Pocket.” He later collaborated with another Nigerian artist, Joseph Akinwale Akinfenwa-Donus (known professionally as Joeboy) on a revised version of the same song. The company emPawa owns the exclusive rights to and copyright registrations for the musical composition and sound recording for both versions of the song.

The dispute arose after Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio, professionally known as Bad Bunny, released the 2022 album Un Verano Sin Ti. That album featured the song “Enséñame a Bailar,” containing a sample of Empty My Pocket. When emPawa approached Bad Bunny’s representatives to attempt to negotiate a settlement over the allegedly unauthorized sample, Bad Bunny’s team claimed that they had gotten a license from Adesina Lekan, the owner of a Nigerian music company that had been involved in the distribution of Empty My Pocket. However, they did not produce any documentation during these discussions purporting to demonstrate that Lakizo owned the rights to the song or that it had indeed granted Bad Bunny permission to use the sample.

Godfrey and emPawa, continuing to believe that the sample was used illegally, brought a lawsuit against Bad Bunny as well as several other entities involved in the distribution of the allegedly infringing work, including record labels Orchard Enterprises and Rimas Entertainment as well as Spotify and Apple. But the two plaintiffs eventually parted ways over how to approach the lawsuit, with emPawa preferring to continue settlement talks while Godfrey refused to abandon the litigation. Unable to bridge the conflict between its two clients, counsel for the two plaintiffs withdrew from the litigation, and the court eventually dismissed the case against the two unrepresented litigants.

Bad Bunny and his co-defendants then sought to recover attorney fees from emPawa, leading to this opinion.

Attorney fees. The court denied the request for attorney fees. The central question, as traditionally the case in attorney fees cases, was whether emPawa’s case was objectively reasonable. The court found that it was. The only issue meaningfully in dispute between the parties was whether Lakizo, a distributor of the song, had the right to license the song to Bad Bunny. During litigation, emPawa produced a copy of its agreement with Lakizo that made clear that Lakizo did not have the right to sublicense the work, the court noted, while Bad Bunny’s team never produced the text of Lakizo’s alleged authorization. “The Court certainly cannot find Empawa’s position objectively unreasonable when Defendants do not produce a scintilla of evidence demonstrating Lakizo’s authority and exercise of said authority,” the court emphasized.

Nor was there any other basis on which to award attorney fees, the court found. Bad Bunny pointed to emPawa’s pre-litigation “negative publicity” campaign in support of its argument that emPawa brought the action with ill motive. But while that publicity campaign was “perhaps uncouth,” the court found, “the mere fact that emPawa publicly discussed the alleged infringement, when balanced against emPawa’s declaratory evidence that they sought to settle this dispute from the start, does not rise to the level of improper motive.” Moreover, the court noted, while it was true that Bad Bunny accumulated fees and costs in defending the action, emPawa was a small, private music services company while the defendants constituted “some of the largest streaming and recording companies in the world.” Although deterring non-meritorious lawsuits against deep-pocketed defendants was indeed a laudable end, the court noted, “the claims were not objectively meritless, and thus there is nothing to deter.”

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-03944-ODW-BFM.

Judge: Wright, O.

Attorneys: Ezeani Chidera Godfrey (Bray & Krais, Solicitors) for empawa Africa Music Services Ltd. Karen L. Stetson (Gray Robinson, P.A.) for Benito Martinez Ocasio.

Companies: empawa Africa Music Services Ltd.

MainStory: TopStory Copyright CaliforniaNews GCNNews