Bad Bunny asks court to overturn ruling advancing reggaeton copyright case toward jury trial

Bad Bunny has filed a bid to overturn a court ruling that kept a large reggaeton-related copyright dispute moving toward a jury trial, according to a report by Billboard published July 15, 2026. The motion asks the court to revisit the decision that permitted the case to advance rather than end at an earlier stage of the litigation process.

In the filing described by Billboard, Bad Bunny argues that the judge made a legal or procedural error when assessing the case and that the ruling overlooks what he characterizes as a fatal flaw. The report says the superstar used the analogy that “they have assembled a Frankenstein,” a phrase directed at how the case was put together in the lower court.

Billboard reports that the motion is aimed specifically at the ruling that allowed the dispute to progress, rather than at a merits determination by a jury. If the higher court agrees to reverse or remand, it could change the timeline for discovery, trial preparation, and related pretrial issues that typically follow a case being set for jury proceedings.

The dispute is described as a massive copyright lawsuit tied to the reggaeton genre. Billboard’s account frames the case as complex, involving claims that the court should reconsider before the matter reaches trial. The report does not, in the information provided, specify the full list of parties, the jurisdiction, or the particular legal standard the motion claims was misapplied.

Because the central thrust of the motion is procedural and aimed at overturning the earlier order, the immediate practical effect is to seek a pause or redirection of the case’s path toward trial. Even if the motion is denied, it may still create additional motion practice and appellate activity that can affect scheduling and costs for the parties.

For Bad Bunny’s team and any other defendants, the motion represents an attempt to reduce litigation risk by challenging the decision that let the case proceed. For plaintiffs, a denied motion would mean the case remains on track toward jury adjudication based on the lower court’s determination that the claims could survive the earlier stage.

The next step, as reflected in the posture described by Billboard, is the court’s consideration of whether the earlier ruling should be overturned. If the court does not grant relief, the matter would continue through the pretrial process and eventually reach trial, while a successful appeal could narrow claims, require new proceedings, or result in dismissal depending on the scope of any reversal.