The legal fight erupted again as Cher stepped into federal court to defend royalty payments from classic Sonny & Cher hits, a revenue stream she has received for decades.
Across the aisle, former congresswoman Mary Bono continued her attempt to claim a share of those earnings, arguing that heirs should be able to unwind earlier deals.
At the center is a 1970s divorce agreement, now colliding with modern copyright termination law—and testing how durable old bargains remain when new rights come into play.
But the court’s decision would raise deeper questions about who truly controls cultural history—and who profits from it.
High-Dollar Stakes
The royalties in dispute stem from compositions and recordings, including “I Got You Babe” and “The Beat Goes On,” which still generate substantial income.
Coverage has pegged Cher’s preserved royalty stream at roughly $5 million a year, underscoring why both sides pressed the case so hard.
The outcome would influence not just how much Cher earns, but who controls licensing decisions going forward.
From Duo To Divorce
Cher and Sonny Bono married in 1964, scoring global success as Sonny & Cher before their relationship and act split in the mid‑1970s.
Their divorce settlement, finalized in 1978 under California law, included a marital settlement agreement granting Cher 50% of composition and recording royalties from their joint catalog.
That contract would become the central document in the modern legal showdown.
Termination Rights Emerge
After Sonny Bono’s death in a 1998 skiing accident, his royalties flowed to a trust administered by his widow, Mary Bono, in California.
Beginning in 2018, when the catalog became eligible under federal copyright law, his heirs served copyright termination notices, seeking to “take back” publishing rights.
Those moves set up a direct clash between federal termination rights and the 1978 divorce agreement that promised Cher half of Sonny’s royalties.
Judge’s Sweeping Victory For Cher
On November 26, 2024, U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt in Los Angeles issued a final judgment largely siding with Cher.
He held that the 1978 divorce agreement remains enforceable and that Mary Bono could not use the Copyright Act to terminate Cher’s 50% share of Sonny’s composition and recording royalties.
The ruling transformed a four-year legal battle into a clear courtroom victory for Cher.
California Contract Wins
Judge Kronstadt applied California contract law to interpret the divorce agreement, concluding that federal termination notices did not cancel Cher’s royalty rights.
He wrote that the heirs’ notice “did not terminate or otherwise have any effect” on the 1978 marriage settlement.
That means, in practical terms, the state‑law divorce contract continues to govern how the Sonny & Cher royalty pie is split today.
Direct Payments Preserved
The court also ruled that Cher must continue to receive her royalties paid directly, even though she sold her royalty interests to Irving Azoff’s Iconic Artists Group in 2022.
The judge found that, under the 1978 agreement, royalty payments remain legally owed to Cher, who then transfers funds to Iconic.
That structure preserves Cher’s role and leverage in overseeing how money and approvals flow from the catalog.
Cher’s Control Rights
Beyond money, the ruling protected Cher’s approval rights over “any and all third‑party contracts with respect to the musical compositions.”
Coverage notes that she retains the authority to vet aspects of new agreements, while Mary Bono’s camp gains a limited say in administration.
This balance gives Cher significant control over how classic Sonny & Cher tracks are used in future films, advertisements, or reissues.
One Win For The Heirs
Mary Bono did secure a narrow victory: Judge Kronstadt held that Sonny’s heirs have “sole discretion” to choose the royalty administrator, including an entity they own.
However, Cher retained the right to object to proposed administrators based on the “reasonableness of administration fees” and the “administrator’s credentials and qualifications.”
This limited win affects back-office control and potential fee income, but leaves the 50– 50 split and Cher’s direct payment rights intact.
Withheld Cash Awarded
In a related piece of the judgment, the court ordered Sonny Bono’s estate to pay Cher more than $187,000 plus interest for withheld publishing royalties.
Those funds stemmed from the ruling that terminating grants did not erase obligations under the 1978 settlement.
The award underscores that the dispute was not just about theoretical rights; real money had already been held back from Cher.
Four-Year Legal War
Cher filed suit in October 2021 in Los Angeles federal court, arguing that Sonny’s estate, led by Mary Bono, improperly stopped her payments.
The case spanned four years, with summary judgment motions filed in 2024 and the final order issued in November.
The litigation spanned decades of history, from 1960s recording contracts to 1970s divorce negotiations and 21st-century catalog sales.
Costs And Consequences
Because Cher prevailed on nearly all issues, Judge Kronstadt designated her the “prevailing party” and awarded her litigation costs on all but one claim.
Mary Bono may recover costs on the single issue she won regarding the authority to select administrators.
Legal analysts note that this fee allocation reflects the lopsided outcome and adds financial pressure on the estate as it considers whether to keep fighting.
Heirs’ Termination Strategy
Sonny Bono’s heirs began serving termination notices around 2018, once the catalog became eligible under federal rules for pre‑1978 works.
They argued that Congress intended authors and heirs to reclaim rights, even when prior agreements exist.
Estate lawyers maintained that Cher’s interest should vanish as the underlying grants were terminated, effectively re‑routing the full royalty stream back to Sonny’s successors.
Appeal On The Horizon
Mary Bono’s attorney, Daniel Schacht, has publicly criticized the decision, saying they believe the court “got the law wrong on copyright terminations” and that “it is important that authors and their heirs have the rights that Congress intended.”
He has vowed to appeal, signaling that the U.S. Court of Appeals will likely be asked to reweigh the clash between federal policy and state divorce contracts.
Precedent For Divorce Deals
Legal observers say the ruling may influence how courts treat long-standing divorce agreements that involve intellectual property rights.
By enforcing a 1978 California settlement over later termination notices, Judge Kronstadt suggested that some contractual royalty splits can survive statutory “take‑back” efforts. Artists, ex‑spouses, and estates across the entertainment industry are now reassessing how old marital settlements could constrain future termination plans.
Politics And Persona
The dispute also highlights the unusual trajectory of Sonny Bono’s legacy, from 1960s hitmaker to mayor of Palm Springs and Republican congressman representing California until his 1998 death. Mary Bono then served in Congress until 2013.
Questions about how lawmakers manage personal intellectual‑property assets—and what happens when they die without fully harmonizing divorce, estate, and copyright planning—hang over this case.
Global IP Eyes Watching
Because Sonny & Cher’s songs are exploited worldwide, the ruling in U.S. federal court will be closely watched by international rights holders and collecting societies.
While foreign territories follow their own copyright rules, a clear affirmation of contractual royalty splits in the U.S. can influence negotiations over cross‑border licensing, joint ventures, and catalog sales involving aging hits and their authors’ families.
Contract Versus Statute
At its core, the Cher–Bono dispute is a legal test case on whether federal termination rights can supersede private contracts, such as divorce settlements.
Judge Kronstadt’s opinion leans heavily toward honoring bargained‑for agreements, at least on royalty splits, while preserving the availability of copyright termination for other purposes.
That line‑drawing could shape future drafting of both artist contracts and marital agreements.
Culture, Memory, Money
The case intertwines cultural nostalgia with complex economics. Songs like “I Got You Babe” are touchstones for fans, but they are also assets traded in multimillion‑dollar catalog deals.
The ruling shows how personal relationships—marriage, divorce, death—continue to affect who profits from beloved works decades later, and how courts weigh emotional history against written agreements and statutory rights.
What The Ruling Signals
Cher’s courtroom victory underscores that clear, detailed contracts—even from 1978—can still decide who gets paid in today’s booming catalog market.
For artists, ex-spouses, and heirs, the message is that divorce agreements and estate planning must anticipate copyright rules that extend for decades.
As Mary Bono’s promised appeal moves forward, the balance between authors’ rights and old deals will remain a live, closely watched question.
Sources
Billboard Nov 2024 royalties ruling coverage
Music Business Worldwide Nov 2024 Cher settlement
Variety Nov 2024 Cher-Bono judgment
KESQ/City News Service Dec 2025 follow-up reporting
Law360 May 2024 royalties award
Wikipedia Sonny & Cher biographical reference
U.S. District Court Central District of California final judgment Nov 2024