On November 26, 2025, U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt issued a decisive ruling in Los Angeles, granting Cher an overwhelming victory in her royalties lawsuit against Mary Bono, widow of Sonny Bono. The judge affirmed that Cher’s 50% share of Sonny’s composition royalties—granted in the 1978 divorce settlement—remains enforceable.
This outcome reinforces how long-standing marital contracts intersect with modern copyright law, impacting artists, estates, and rights buyers navigating decades-old agreements in today’s music economy.
How the Dispute Began
Cher filed the case in October 2021 after Mary Bono sought to use federal copyright “termination rights” to reclaim Sonny’s share of compositions and cut off Cher’s 50% interest. Cher argued that the 1978 divorce settlement irrevocably granted her half of Sonny’s song royalties.
The court had to determine whether termination rights under U.S. copyright law could supersede a binding marital agreement negotiated decades earlier, making the case a rare clash between family law and federal statute.
What Was at Financial Stake for Cher
The case centered on royalties from Sonny & Cher hits including “I Got You Babe” (1965) and “The Beat Goes On” (1967), plus other recordings from their 1960s–70s career. Cher alleged the estate withheld more than $1 million after sending termination notices in 2016.
Approaching age 79, Cher argued that losing her contractual share would strip her of a substantial and long-standing income stream built over nearly fifty years of her professional and personal partnership with Sonny Bono.
Response Among Catalog Owners and Rights Holders
The ruling signals that divorce settlements assigning royalty splits can survive later termination efforts, offering stability to artists, ex-spouses, and partners who rely on historic agreements.
Music publishers, catalog funds, and entertainment lawyers in Los Angeles and New York are now re-evaluating older contracts to ensure similar provisions are safeguarded. The decision reduces uncertainty across an industry that increasingly depends on predictable legacy-rights structures for investment, marketing, and estate planning.
Impact on Catalog Investment and Iconic Artists Group
Cher sold her royalty interests to Irving Azoff’s Iconic Artists Group in 2022, but the court held that royalties must continue flowing to Cher first, who then passes them to Iconic under her agreement. This confirms that selling royalty rights does not nullify underlying contractual entitlements.
The decision provides reassurance to catalog investors—now spending billions acquiring legacy music—that historical divorce or partnership deals will still be honored by courts when evaluating royalty ownership.
How the Ruling Affects Global Royalty Distribution
Sonny & Cher’s recordings generate income internationally from streaming, radio play, and licensing. Although the case was adjudicated in a U.S. federal court, foreign collection societies generally follow the ownership designations established by U.S. judgments for American works.
The ruling therefore clarifies Cher’s entitlement worldwide, reducing ambiguity for international publishers and distributors that must determine the lawful recipients of cross-border royalty flows tied to classic American pop catalogs.
Administration Rights vs. Ownership Rights Explained
Judge Kronstadt granted Sonny Bono’s heirs discretion over catalog administration, including selecting administrators—even those affiliated with estate-controlled entities. However, he preserved Cher’s right to challenge administrative fees or qualifications.
This structure maintains the estate’s managerial authority while affirming that ownership and royalty rights remain evenly split. The decision illustrates how courts balance the interests of surviving spouses, heirs, and former partners decades after an artist’s passing.
Legal Implications: Divorce Settlements vs. Termination Rights
By holding that the 1978 divorce agreement supersedes later termination claims, the court established that termination rights cannot be used to revoke a former spouse’s negotiated royalty share.
Legal experts say the ruling may prompt Congress or future courts to address whether family-law arrangements deserve explicit protection from federal copyright reversions—particularly for works created before 1978, when copyright law underwent major structural changes affecting authors’ heirs and contractual partners.
Financial Relief and Restored Income for Cher
The ruling awards Cher more than $187,000 in withheld publishing royalties, plus interest, and permanently reinstates her ongoing 50% share. She prevailed on all but one claim, with Mary Bono eligible to recover costs only for that single issue.
For older artists with reduced touring schedules, steady catalog income is essential. The decision secures Cher’s financial rights in a catalog that continues producing significant revenue nearly sixty years after its original release.
Streaming’s Role in Protecting Legacy Catalog Value
Cher’s victory ensures she continues receiving revenue from a catalog that remains highly active on modern streaming platforms. With catalog listening dominating Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube, stable rights encourage labels and publishers to promote remasters, playlists, and sync placements.
As younger audiences discover 1960s pop through digital channels, the ruling strengthens incentives to maintain and market vintage recordings, extending Sonny & Cher’s cultural impact into future generations.
Cultural and Public Reactions to the Case
Media outlets widely framed the result as an affirmation of Cher’s negotiated rights from a complex marriage and high-profile divorce. Fans familiar with Sonny & Cher’s intertwined artistic careers have viewed the outcome as validating Cher’s role in the duo’s success.
Public discussion has also focused on fairness and equity in collaborative creative partnerships, especially when former spouses contribute equally to entertainment legacies that continue generating revenue decades after separation.
Global Conversations on Artist Rights and Gender Equity
International audiences often assume creators maintain their agreed-upon shares indefinitely, making this dispute a high-visibility example of how those rights can be challenged. Advocates for artist protections argue that the ruling supports stronger enforcement of contractual rights, particularly for women whose economic contributions were historically undervalued.
Cher’s win reinforces the principle that negotiated agreements should not be undone retroactively by heirs seeking larger portions of lucrative legacy catalogs.
Who Benefits: Cher, Iconic Artists Group, and the Rights Market
The judgment benefits Cher, preserving her share and reimbursing withheld royalties, while ensuring Iconic Artists Group retains a predictable income stream from the catalog it invested in. For rights buyers, the case strengthens confidence in acquiring catalogs tied to marriage settlements or partnership contracts.
Although Sonny Bono’s heirs maintain administrative authority, the ruling confirms they cannot expand their ownership stake or reclaim Cher’s long-established 50% royalty entitlement.
Why It Matters to Fans and the Music Economy
For listeners, the decision highlights how royalty splits affect the creators behind classic hits. Streaming official releases and licensed recordings ensures the correct recipients are paid according to long-standing agreements.
The ruling also shows how contracts dating back nearly half a century continue shaping revenue flows in today’s digital marketplace. It reinforces awareness that consumer choices—streams, playlist adds, sync uses—carry real financial consequences for artists and their families.
What Comes Next: Appeals and Industry Precedents
Mary Bono’s legal team has signaled plans to appeal, meaning federal appellate courts may further clarify how termination rights interact with divorce settlements. For now, Judge Kronstadt’s ruling stands as a decisive precedent protecting contractual royalty grants from statutory challenge.
As more legacy artists sell their catalogs and estates seek larger shares, the industry expects similar disputes. Court decisions will continue defining who controls—and benefits from—America’s most iconic music catalogs.