To win a prolonged battle concerning the payment of royalties, music legend Cher incurred a substantial legal tab. Since it wouldn’t be reasonable to expect them to work pro bono (sorry), she’s seeking to stick the widow of her ex-husband with the tab for her attorney’s fees.
After three years of court filings and legal wrangling, a judge awarded summary judgment to Cher in her civil lawsuit against Mary Bono, Sonny Bono’s widow, in 2024. At stake were the composition royalties granted to Cher by the deceased Sonny in their California marital settlement agreement (MSA) that was part of their divorce. Mary had used the termination provisions included in the Copyright Act of 1976 to reclaim grants signed away by her late husband, but a federal judge ruled that the divorce agreement outweighed her survivor’s claims.
The new motion filed by Cher’s lawyers accuses Sonny’s widow of assuming “unreasonable” positions and arguments to drag out the case she was destined to lose. At stake are legal costs of almost $1.024 million, which accumulated before Cher won a summary judgment to keep the royalties flowing.
A Happy Couple (Until They Weren’t)
From the mid-1960s to the early 1970s, Sonny & Cher were one of the most well-known duos in the United States. Massive hits like “The Beat Goes On” and “I Got You Babe” propelled them to stardom in the ’60s, and “The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour” allowed them to find success in a different medium after their musical careers had stalled, with Cher winning a Golden Globe for the show in 1974. In addition to an unofficial ceremony in 1964, the two were legally married in 1969.
Both the show and their personal relationship had imploded by 1974, and the couple was divorced in 1975. The two would follow starkly different career paths after their split, although they would infrequently reunite for special performances. Bono turned to politics, serving as mayor of Palm Springs before successfully running for the 44th District of California’s seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994. He served until his death in a skiing accident in 1998. Mary became his successor in Congress. Nine months after his passing, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, on which he had been a co-sponsor.
Cher combined acting and singing to remain phenomenally popular. She was awarded an Oscar for her role in the film “Moonstruck” and has won Emmy awards, Grammy awards, and other Hollywood honors. On the musical side, the inductee into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is the only solo performer to have charted #1 Billboard hits in seven different decades.
The MSA for the couple’s divorce was finalized in 1978. In the divorce settlement, the couple agreed to a 50/50 split regarding royalties for music they wrote together. In addition, Bono gave Cher 50% of the composition royalties from the songs he created. Therein lies the bone of contention that got stuck in Mary’s craw.
Gypsies, Rogues, and Fees
In 2016, Mary began trying to claw back the grants her husband had made with music publishers and other entities. Citing Rule 304(c) of the updated Copyright Act, which grants control and protection to the widow and children of the deceased work’s creator, Mary invoked the termination provisions to stop royalty payments to others. This included the MSA with Cher, who responded with a lawsuit seeking summary judgment for improper termination in 2021.
Bono attempted to have the case dismissed for lack of standing on Cher’s part, due to her sale of the royalties from Sonny’s music to Iconic Artists Group in 2022. Mary claimed she would continue to allow payment to Iconic and was merely removing Cher as an unnecessary middleman.
In his final decision, filed last year on November 26, 2025, U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt ruled that the contract law of the MSA constituted a separate contractual obligation that carried more weight than the federal Copyright Act. Bono was ordered to pay Cher royalties again, in addition to over $400,000 owed since she’d ceased allowing the royalties to flow.
The $1+ million in legal fees that are currently Cher’s expense are a good deal more than the money she was awarded in the judgment, which may explain why she’s seeking to have Bono pay them. Despite being argued before the same judge, Cher might not want to believe it’s a done deal just yet. In a similar case involving a copyright infringement lawsuit between Marvin Gaye’s estate and Robin Thicke over the song “Blurred Lines,” Judge Kronstadt denied the plaintiff’s request for legal fees despite them having won an award from the jury. Regardless, Mary Bono’s appeal of the decision is currently pending.
Related Resources
- Music Labels Join Lawsuit Frenzy Against Artificial Intelligence (FindLaw’s Legally Weird)
- In Tune? Spotify Wins Dismissal in Bundling Royalties Suit (FindLaw’s Federal Courts)
- Songwriter Tips for Copyright, Credit, and Royalties (Findlaw’s Intellectual Property Law)
