On November 26, 2025, a federal judge in Los Angeles handed Cher a sweeping win in a royalties dispute that reached back nearly half a century. U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt ruled that Cher’s right to 50% of the composition royalties from Sonny Bono’s songs—secured in their 1978 divorce settlement—remains fully enforceable, despite later attempts by Sonny’s heirs to reclaim those rights under federal copyright law. The decision cements Cher’s long-standing financial stake in classic Sonny & Cher hits and clarifies how marital agreements interact with modern copyright rules.
Origins of a High-Stakes Royalties Battle
The conflict began after Mary Bono, Sonny Bono’s widow, invoked federal “termination rights,” a provision that allows authors or their heirs to recapture copyrights decades after signing them away. Beginning with notices sent in 2016, Sonny’s heirs sought to reclaim his share of the composition rights and end Cher’s 50% participation in those royalties.
Cher responded by filing suit in October 2021, arguing that the 1978 divorce decree irrevocably granted her half of Sonny’s songwriting income and could not be undone by later statutory terminations. At issue was whether a family-law settlement, negotiated in state court and rooted in the couple’s property division, could be overridden by federal copyright provisions designed to protect authors and their heirs.
The case turned into a test of how two legal systems—divorce law and federal copyright—intersect when creative work continues to generate money long after a marriage ends and an artist dies.
Money, Legacy Hits, and Cher’s Long-Term Income
Behind the legal arguments lay a catalog of enduring songs and a substantial stream of income. The litigation focused on royalties from Sonny & Cher staples such as “I Got You Babe” (1965) and “The Beat Goes On” (1967), along with other compositions from the duo’s peak years in the 1960s and 1970s.
Cher alleged that Sonny’s estate had already withheld more than $1 million in royalties after serving the termination notices. Approaching her 80s, she told the court that these payments formed a key part of her livelihood, reflecting a nearly fifty-year economic partnership embedded in both her marriage and professional career with Sonny Bono. The ruling restores that stream by confirming her ongoing 50% share and awarding her more than $187,000 in withheld publishing royalties, plus interest.
For older artists whose touring and recording schedules often slow with age, steady catalog earnings can be crucial. Judge Kronstadt’s decision locks in Cher’s rights to a body of work that continues to earn money through radio, streaming, and licensing almost six decades after its initial success.
Divorce Deals, Termination Rights, and Industry Ripples
The court’s central conclusion—that the 1978 divorce settlement takes precedence over later termination claims—has implications far beyond one former couple. By holding that termination rights cannot be used to claw back a former spouse’s bargained-for royalty share, the ruling strengthens the durability of marital property agreements that divide creative assets.
Legal observers say the decision may spur fresh discussion in Congress and the courts about whether family-law arrangements deserve explicit insulation from federal copyright reversions, especially for songs and recordings created before the 1978 overhaul of U.S. copyright law. That earlier era produced many of the catalogs now fueling a global rights-buying boom.
For artists, ex-spouses, and business partners who rely on decades-old contracts, the outcome provides a measure of certainty. Music publishers, catalog funds, and entertainment attorneys in major hubs like Los Angeles and New York are already reassessing older agreements to ensure that divorce or partnership provisions on royalty splits will be recognized even as heirs exercise termination rights.
Catalog Sales, Administration Powers, and Global Reach
The case also tested how modern catalog sales interact with legacy contracts. Cher sold her royalty interests in the Sonny & Cher catalog to Irving Azoff’s Iconic Artists Group in 2022. Judge Kronstadt ruled that this transaction did not erase her underlying entitlement: the royalties must be paid to Cher first, and only then transferred to Iconic under their deal. The message to investors is that buying an income interest does not rewrite the foundational property rights established decades earlier.
At the same time, the judge confirmed that Sonny Bono’s heirs retain broad authority over catalog administration. They may choose administrators, including those linked to estate-controlled businesses, but Cher can contest excessive fees or qualifications. This division of responsibilities preserves estate control over day-to-day management while affirming that ownership and royalty income remain evenly split between Cher and the estate.
Although the case was decided in a U.S. federal court, its reach is international. Sonny & Cher’s works continue to earn money abroad through streaming, broadcasting, and licensing. Foreign collection societies generally follow U.S. determinations of ownership for American compositions, meaning the ruling gives overseas publishers and distributors clearer guidance on where to send payments associated with these songs.
Wider Effects on Streaming, Rights Markets, and Future Disputes
Cher’s victory arrives as streaming platforms keep older catalogs in constant circulation and as investors pay billions for rights to classic music. Because catalog listening dominates services such as Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube, predictable royalty structures help convince financiers, labels, and managers to invest in remasters, playlists, and sync placements for film, television, and advertising.
By reinforcing Cher’s 50% share and validating the divorce settlement, the judgment reassures rights buyers that deals rooted in marital or partnership splits can withstand later challenges by heirs seeking to enlarge their stake. Iconic Artists Group, which now benefits from Cher’s steady income share, gains a more secure foundation for its investment.
The public reaction has included renewed discussion about fairness in collaborative artistic relationships and about the economic recognition of women’s contributions to entertainment legacies. Advocates for creator protections have highlighted the case as an example of courts upholding carefully negotiated agreements, rather than allowing successors to rewrite the financial story decades later.
Mary Bono’s legal team has indicated plans to appeal, so higher courts may soon weigh in on how far termination rights can reach when they collide with family-law settlements. With more legacy performers selling their catalogs and estates pressing for greater control, similar disputes are expected. The outcome of any appeal, and future cases like it, will shape who ultimately profits from America’s most recognizable pop songs—and how contracts drafted generations ago continue to govern the digital-era music economy.