Bad Bunny Wins Ruling in Reggaeton Copyright Lawsuit

Views 6 Published by September 2, 2026

A federal judge struck down a major portion of a lawsuit accusing hundreds of reggaeton artists of copyright infringement over the dembow rhythm, ruling that Steely & Clevie failed to establish valid copyright control over the beat.

A federal judge has sided with Bad Bunny and struck down a large portion of a massive copyright lawsuit targeting hundreds of artists over the origins of reggaeton. In a rare move overturning his own earlier decision, Judge André Birotte Jr. ruled on September 1 that reggae duo Steely & Clevie had failed to show they own valid copyright control over the dembow rhythm — the boom-ch-boom-chick beat heard in almost every reggaeton song.

The lawsuit, filed in 2021 by Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the heirs of Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson, targets nearly 2,000 songs by more than 150 artists, including Bad Bunny, Karol G, Daddy Yankee, Pitbull, Drake, Luis Fonsi and Justin Bieber. The case claims their 1989 song “Fish Market” is the ultimate source of dembow.

Judge Birotte ruled that Steely & Clevie’s alleged proprietary beat does not exist entirely in any of the three songs they own. U.S. copyright law does not grant protection to “an abstract amalgamation of elements extracted from multiple independently existing works,” the judge wrote. The elements must exist in a single song and cannot be merely a “collection of similarities assembled for purposes of litigation.”

“Because plaintiffs have not identified a single copyrighted work containing the alleged protectable selection and arrangement, plaintiffs cannot, as a matter of law, proceed on the theory presently pleaded,” Judge Birotte said.

Bad Bunny’s attorney Kenneth D. Freundlich said the ruling “saw this case for what it was.” “You cannot copyright a rhythm by reverse-engineering it from three different songs once you are already in court,” Freundlich said. “Copyright protects what an artist actually created, not a collage assembled in litigation.”

Future litigation remains over songs that allegedly directly sampled Steely & Clevie’s sound recordings, but such claims are far more limited than the dispute over the compositional elements struck down by the ruling.