Empawa Africa Pushes Back on Bad Bunny’s Fee Request
A small record label that accused Bad Bunny of using an unauthorized sample on Un Verano Sin Ti is now challenging the superstar’s effort to recover nearly $500,000 in attorneys’ fees after the underlying copyright case fell apart. In a new court filing, Empawa Africa argues that forcing it to pay the bill would unfairly punish a claimant that says it acted in good faith—and could discourage future copyright owners from bringing legitimate infringement claims.
What the Dispute Is About
The lawsuit centered on the song “Enséñame a Bailar,” a track from Bad Bunny’s blockbuster album Un Verano Sin Ti. Empawa Africa alleged the recording included an uncleared sample of “Empty My Pocket,” a 2019 song by Nigerian artist Dera (Ezeani Chidera Godfrey). Bad Bunny, whose legal name is Benito Martínez Ocasio, denied wrongdoing and maintained that the sample had been properly cleared through another rights holder connected to the earlier work, a production company called Lakizo Entertainment.
Although the case drew attention partly because of the album’s enormous commercial impact, the litigation did not reach a full merits decision. Earlier this year, Empawa and Dera’s attorneys withdrew from the matter, citing “irreparable differences” with their clients. After the plaintiffs stopped actively litigating and did not proceed without counsel, the court ultimately dismissed the case for lack of prosecution.
Bad Bunny Seeks Nearly $466,000 in Legal Costs
Following the dismissal, Bad Bunny asked the court to order Empawa to reimburse his defense costs—approximately $465,612—arguing that the lawsuit “should never have been brought.” His motion characterizes the case as “meritless” and portrays Empawa as having pursued the claim aggressively in hopes that the artist’s fame and resources would pressure him into an undeserved settlement.
Empawa Calls the Demand “Absurd” and Warns of a “Chilling” Effect
In its response, Empawa urges the judge to reject the fee request, contending that a fee award here would send the wrong signal to creators and rights holders. The label argues that copyright law’s fee-shifting provision is not meant to penalize parties for bringing a plausible infringement claim that does not ultimately succeed or is dismissed on procedural grounds.
“If fees are awarded to defendants in this case, such an award would send a chilling message to songwriters, artists, and other copyright owners,” Empawa’s lawyers argue, adding that awarding fees against a party that brought a “good faith” claim would be contrary to the goals of the Copyright Act.
Key Points in Empawa’s Argument
- Good-faith basis for filing: Empawa contends it had legitimate reasons to believe infringement occurred.
- Admission of sampling: The label says the defense effectively acknowledged use of the sample, while disputing whether it was authorized.
- Lack of proof of clearance: Empawa claims Bad Bunny did not provide evidence showing the sample was properly licensed.
- Publicity does not equal bad faith: Empawa rejects the idea that media attention around a claim against a global star is evidence of an improper motive.
Disagreement Over Sample Authorization
Empawa’s filing emphasizes what it frames as a central unresolved issue: whether the sample was actually authorized. The label argues that Bad Bunny’s position depends on clearance allegedly obtained from a third party, but that he did not substantiate that clearance with documentation during the dispute.
“Ocasio has admitted sampling Empawa’s music, and, in almost three years, has not presented a scintilla of evidence that the sample was authorized,” Empawa’s attorneys write, maintaining that the claims were “brought and prosecuted in good faith.”
Why the Case Ended Without a Ruling on the Merits
Rather than ending through a judicial determination of infringement or non-infringement, the case concluded after the plaintiffs’ counsel withdrew and the matter stalled. Empawa argues that this procedural outcome should not be treated as proof that the lawsuit was frivolous—particularly if there were unresolved factual disputes about authorization.
To reinforce that point, Empawa submitted a sworn declaration from its former lawyer, Robert Jacobs. According to the declaration, the plaintiffs’ attorneys repeatedly sought proof that the sample had been cleared, but did not receive it. Jacobs also states that the withdrawal was not tied to the merits of the claims and that he believed the plaintiffs could have prevailed.
The Publicity Argument: Leverage or Inevitable Attention?
Bad Bunny’s fee motion suggests Empawa sought to use the threat of publicity to gain settlement leverage. Empawa calls that accusation unfounded, arguing that media coverage is a predictable byproduct of litigation involving one of the world’s most recognizable artists—not evidence of improper intent.
“It is undisputed that Ocasio is [a] world-famous artist,” Empawa’s attorneys write. “Quite obviously, any claim against such an artist would garner publicity.” They add that treating publicity as a proxy for bad faith is “absurd.”
How Copyright Law Handles Attorneys’ Fees
In most U.S. civil cases, each side typically pays its own legal fees. Copyright law, however, includes a mechanism that can allow courts to award fees to the prevailing party. Supporters say this helps deter weak or abusive lawsuits; critics warn that overly aggressive fee awards can deter valid claims, especially from smaller rights holders with limited resources.
In recent years, high-profile defendants have increasingly pursued attorneys’ fees after defeating infringement suits, arguing that such awards are necessary to discourage speculative claims. Empawa’s response asks the court to treat its case differently, emphasizing that it was not resolved on the merits and that it believes its infringement theory was reasonable.
What Happens Next
The judge will decide in the coming months whether Bad Bunny is entitled to recover any portion of his legal fees and costs. The ruling could turn on how the court evaluates the strength of Empawa’s original claims, the circumstances surrounding the dismissal for lack of prosecution, and whether the court views the litigation conduct as objectively unreasonable or in bad faith.
Source: Bad Bunny Un Verano Sin Ti Lawsuit: Accuser Responds To $500K Demand
