Miley Cyrus Bruno Mars “Flowers” Lawsuit: Judge Denies Dismissal in Bruno Mars Copyright Case
A Los Angeles federal judge denied Miley Cyrus’ motion to dismiss a copyright infringement lawsuit claiming her Grammy-winning hit “Flowers” copied Bruno Mars’ song “When I Was Your Man.” The March 18, 2025 ruling by Judge Dean D. Pregerson clears the path toward trial after finding Cyrus’ legal team had a “misunderstanding” of copyright law. Tempo Music Investments—not Bruno Mars himself—filed the lawsuit in September 2024.
Latest Development: March 2025 Dismissal Denied
Judge Pregerson rejected Cyrus’ core argument that Tempo Music Investments lacked standing to sue because it purchased only one co-writer’s share of “When I Was Your Man” without consent from the other three songwriters.
“Tempo now steps into Lawrence’s shoes and is a co-owner of the exclusive rights of the copyright,” Judge Pregerson wrote in his ruling.
The judge stated that Cyrus’ legal team’s interpretation of copyright law was “incorrect” and represented a “misunderstanding” of existing precedents.
Cyrus’ attorneys from Davis Wright Tremaine had argued a co-owner’s right to sue for copyright infringement would be lost upon transfer to a third party like Tempo Music. The judge disagreed, noting that such a limitation would diminish the value of jointly owned copyrights because buyers would be less interested in purchasing copyrights they cannot enforce.
The case now moves forward to discovery and potentially trial.
What the Lawsuit Claims
Tempo Music Investments filed the copyright infringement complaint on September 16, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Defendants named in the lawsuit:
- Miley Cyrus
- Co-writers Gregory Hein and Michael Pollack
- Sony Music Publishing
- Distributors including Apple, Target, Walmart, Amazon, Live Nation, and iHeartMedia
The allegations:
Tempo claims “Flowers” duplicates numerous elements from “When I Was Your Man,” including:
- Melodic pitch design and sequence of the verse
- Connecting bass lines
- Certain bars of the chorus
- Theatrical music elements
- Lyric elements and specific chord progressions
The lawsuit argues that “it is undeniable based on the combination and number of similarities between the two recordings that ‘Flowers’ would not exist without ‘When I Was Your Man.'”
Tempo characterized “Flowers” as an unauthorized “derivative work” created through “intentional copying.”
What Tempo Music seeks:
- Monetary damages (amount to be determined at trial)
- Court order prohibiting Cyrus and other defendants from reproducing, distributing, or publicly performing “Flowers”
- Potential removal of “Flowers” from streaming platforms and future album pressings
Who Is Tempo Music Investments?
Tempo Music Investments is a music investment company that purchases catalog rights from songwriters and artists.
In 2020, Tempo acquired a share of the copyright to “When I Was Your Man” from Philip Lawrence, one of the song’s four co-writers. The song was originally written by Bruno Mars, Philip Lawrence, Ari Levine, and Andrew Wyatt.
Importantly: Bruno Mars is NOT suing Miley Cyrus. Neither Mars nor any of the other original co-writers are named as plaintiffs in this lawsuit.
This distinction matters because it highlights a growing trend in the music industry: private equity firms and investment companies purchasing music catalogs and then aggressively pursuing copyright claims to maximize returns.
The Songs in Question
“When I Was Your Man” (2013)
- Written by Bruno Mars, Philip Lawrence, Ari Levine, and Andrew Wyatt
- Released as a single from Mars’ album Unorthodox Jukebox
- Peaked at #1 on the Billboard Hot 100
- Nominated for Best Pop Solo Performance at the 2013 Grammys
“Flowers” (2023)
- Written by Miley Cyrus, Gregory Hein, and Michael Pollack
- Released January 13, 2023, from Cyrus’ album Endless Summer Vacation
- Spent eight weeks at #1 on the Billboard Hot 100
- Won Record of the Year and Best Pop Solo Performance at the 2024 Grammys
- Over 1 billion streams on Spotify
From the moment “Flowers” dropped, fans immediately noticed lyrical parallels between the two songs. Many interpreted “Flowers” as a response or “answer song” to Mars’ track, particularly given the lyrical inversions.
Bruno Mars sings: “That I should have bought you flowers and held your hand”
Miley Cyrus sings: “I can buy myself flowers and I can hold my own hand”
The lawsuit points to these lyrical inversions as evidence of copying rather than artistic homage.
Cyrus’ Defense Strategy
Cyrus filed her motion to dismiss on November 20, 2024. Her legal arguments focused on two main points:
1. Standing to Sue
Cyrus argued that because Tempo Music acquired only Philip Lawrence’s share of the copyright—representing 25% ownership since there were four co-writers—it lacked exclusive standing to bring a copyright infringement lawsuit.
Her attorneys contended that under Ninth Circuit precedent, a partial owner who acquires rights without the other co-owners’ consent cannot sue unilaterally for infringement.
Judge Pregerson rejected this argument entirely.
2. No Actual Infringement
Beyond the procedural standing issue, Cyrus’ legal team denies copying any protectable elements. They argue that any similarities between “Flowers” and “When I Was Your Man” stem from:
- Unprotected ideas
- Common musical building blocks
- Generic chord progressions and structures used across countless songs
“The songwriter defendants categorically deny copying, and the allegedly copied elements are random, scattered, unprotected ideas and musical building blocks,” Cyrus’ motion stated.
Now that the dismissal motion failed, Cyrus’ defense will shift entirely to these substantive arguments about whether actual copyright infringement occurred.
Why This Ruling Matters for the Music Industry
The judge’s decision has significant implications beyond this individual case.
Protecting co-ownership transfers:
The ruling affirms that when someone purchases a fractional share of a copyright from one co-owner, they acquire the full rights associated with that ownership stake—including the right to sue for infringement.
If Cyrus had won her dismissal motion, it would have:
- Dramatically reduced the value of fractional copyright interests
- Made catalog purchases far less attractive to investors
- Required all co-owners to agree before any copyright enforcement action
- Potentially unraveled existing copyright transactions worth billions of dollars
Impact on catalog sales:
Over the past decade, private equity firms and investment companies have spent billions purchasing music catalogs:
- Bob Dylan’s catalog: approximately $400 million
- Queen’s catalog: $1.27 billion
- Bruce Springsteen’s catalog: approximately $500 million
These purchases only make financial sense if the buyers can enforce copyright protections and pursue infringement claims independently.
“If you can’t enforce your copyright without having 100% ownership on the same side of a lawsuit, the licensing structure falls apart completely,” IP attorney Frank Casini told Bloomberg Law.
Potential circuit split:
If Cyrus eventually appeals and the Ninth Circuit sides with her position, it would create a split with the Second Circuit (which covers New York, a major music industry hub).
Such a split would likely lead to Supreme Court review, fundamentally reshaping how jointly-owned copyrights function in the entertainment industry.
Understanding Copyright Law in Music Cases
Music copyright infringement cases turn on whether the accused song copied protectable expression from the original, not just unprotected ideas or common musical elements.
What copyright protects:
- Original melodies and harmonies
- Specific lyrical expression
- Unique chord progressions and arrangements
- Distinctive rhythmic patterns
What copyright does NOT protect:
- Common chord progressions (like I-IV-V-I)
- Standard song structures (verse-chorus-verse)
- Musical styles or genres
- Abstract ideas or themes
- Short phrases or titles
The “substantial similarity” test:
Courts apply a two-part test:
- Extrinsic test: Objective comparison of specific musical elements
- Intrinsic test: Whether an ordinary listener would perceive the songs as substantially similar
Tempo Music must prove that “Flowers” copied specific protectable elements from “When I Was Your Man” in a way that makes the songs substantially similar.
The “Answer Song” Tradition
Music producers and legal experts note that “Flowers” appears to be an intentional “answer song”—a long tradition in popular music where one artist creates a response to another’s work.
Famous answer songs include:
- “The Boy Is Mine” (Brandy & Monica) responding to “The Girl Is Mine” (Michael Jackson)
- “No Scrubs” (TLC) and “No Pigeons” (Sporty Thievz)
- “It Wasn’t Me” (Shaggy) inspiring numerous response tracks
“There’s such a long tradition of answer songs,” music producer Blake Robin (Luxxury) told NPR. “That’s the name of the category of song where one song is a response to a previous song.”
The legal question is whether Cyrus crossed the line from artistic response into copyright infringement.
What Happens Next
Discovery phase:
Both sides will exchange evidence, including:
- Musical expert analyses comparing the two songs
- Depositions from Cyrus, her co-writers, and music industry experts
- Communications about the creation of “Flowers”
- Sales and streaming data
- Documentation of any discussions about “When I Was Your Man” during “Flowers'” creation
Potential outcomes:
- Settlement – Most copyright cases settle before trial. Cyrus could negotiate a licensing agreement or one-time payment
- Summary judgment – Either side could win before trial if facts aren’t in dispute
- Trial – A jury would decide whether infringement occurred and what damages are appropriate
- Appeal – The losing party would likely appeal, potentially taking the case to the Ninth Circuit
Timeline:
Copyright litigation typically takes 18-36 months from filing to resolution. With the dismissal motion resolved in March 2025, expect:
- Discovery: Spring-Fall 2025
- Expert reports: Late 2025
- Summary judgment motions: Early 2026
- Potential trial: Mid-to-late 2026
Similar Copyright Cases in Music
“Blurred Lines” (2015)
Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams lost a landmark case over similarities between “Blurred Lines” and Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up.” The jury awarded $5.3 million (later reduced to $5 million) to Gaye’s estate.
This case expanded what counts as copyright infringement, finding liability for copying the “feel” or “vibe” of a song—not just specific notes or lyrics.
“Stairway to Heaven” (2020)
Led Zeppelin won a case alleging “Stairway to Heaven” copied Spirit’s “Taurus.” The Ninth Circuit ruled the songs weren’t substantially similar despite sharing a descending chromatic bass line.
“Dark Horse” (2020)
Katy Perry initially lost a case claiming “Dark Horse” infringed on a Christian rap song. An appeals court later overturned the verdict, finding the shared elements were common building blocks not protected by copyright.
“Thinking Out Loud” (ongoing)
Ed Sheeran faces ongoing litigation claiming his hit copied Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On.” Sheeran has won some battles but litigation continues.
The trend: Copyright cases are increasingly common as investment firms purchase catalogs and aggressively pursue potential infringement.
Industry Reaction and Expert Analysis
Music producers and legal experts are divided on the Cyrus case.
Blake Robin (music producer and co-host of “One Song” podcast) told NPR: “The fact that it’s not Bruno Mars suing Miley Cyrus is really significant to me. It’s so far removed from the artists communicating with each other. It’s just about extracting wealth at the very highest level.”
Entertainment law professor Robert Meitus noted that the scope of potential liability extends beyond Cyrus to brands using “Flowers” in advertising. Companies like Gucci (which featured “Flowers” in a Flora fragrance commercial) may face indirect consequences if the song is found infringing.
“Companies that have used the song are undoubtedly deliberating and talking with the lawyers,” Meitus told The Fashion Law.
FAQ: Miley Cyrus “Flowers” Copyright Lawsuit
Q: Is Bruno Mars suing Miley Cyrus?
No. Bruno Mars is not involved in this lawsuit. Tempo Music Investments, a company that purchased partial rights to “When I Was Your Man” from co-writer Philip Lawrence, filed the lawsuit.
Q: When was the lawsuit filed?
September 16, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Q: What did the judge rule in March 2025?
Judge Dean D. Pregerson denied Cyrus’ motion to dismiss on March 18, 2025, ruling that Tempo Music has standing to sue despite owning only a fractional share of the copyright.
Q: What specific elements does the lawsuit claim were copied?
Melodic pitch design, bass lines, chord progressions, lyrical elements (particularly inverted phrases), and theatrical music elements.
Q: Could “Flowers” be removed from streaming platforms?
Yes, if Tempo Music wins. They’re seeking an injunction prohibiting reproduction, distribution, and public performance of “Flowers.”
Q: How much could Miley Cyrus owe if she loses?
The lawsuit seeks damages to be determined at trial. Given “Flowers” generated over 1 billion streams and spent eight weeks at #1, potential damages could be substantial—potentially tens of millions of dollars.
Q: What is an “answer song”?
An answer song is a musical tradition where one artist creates a response to another artist’s work. Critics argue “Flowers” is clearly an answer song to “When I Was Your Man,” which shouldn’t constitute infringement.
Q: Did Cyrus acknowledge the connection to Mars’ song?
Cyrus has never publicly acknowledged copying Mars’ song. However, fans and media immediately noticed the lyrical inversions when “Flowers” was released in January 2023.
Q: What’s the difference between inspiration and infringement?
Inspiration is legal; infringement is not. The key is whether protectable specific expression was copied, not just unprotected ideas or common musical building blocks.
Q: Why does Tempo Music own only part of the copyright?
“When I Was Your Man” was co-written by four people: Bruno Mars, Philip Lawrence, Ari Levine, and Andrew Wyatt. Tempo purchased Lawrence’s share, giving it roughly 25% ownership.
Q: Can you sue for copyright infringement if you only own part of a copyright?
Yes, according to Judge Pregerson’s March 2025 ruling. Co-owners can independently enforce copyright protections.
Q: What happens if Cyrus loses and appeals?
If she appeals to the Ninth Circuit and loses, it could potentially create a circuit split with the Second Circuit, leading to Supreme Court review of how jointly-owned copyrights function.
Q: How common are music copyright lawsuits?
Increasingly common. The past decade has seen a surge in copyright litigation as investment firms purchase catalogs and aggressively pursue infringement claims to maximize returns.
Q: What should musicians learn from this case?
Be cautious when creating “answer songs” or responses to other works. Even clear artistic intent may not protect against infringement claims if specific protected elements are copied.
Q: Will this case go to trial?
Unknown. Most copyright cases settle before trial. Discovery will reveal how strong each side’s case is, which often leads to settlement negotiations.
Q: What brands could be affected?
Any company that licensed “Flowers” for advertising—including Gucci (Flora fragrance campaign) and Sephora—may face indirect consequences if infringement is found.
Resources for Musicians and Copyright Information
- U.S. Copyright Office – Music Copyright
- Copyright Infringement Fundamentals
- Music Publishers Association
Last Updated: December 24, 2025
This article provides general information about the Miley Cyrus copyright lawsuit and should not be construed as legal advice. If you have questions about music copyright, consult with a qualified entertainment attorney.
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah