San Juan,โ Puerto rico – โคAn 84-year-old homeowner is suing Bad Bunny, alleging theโ global music superstar and his team unlawfully replicated his uniquely designed home for useโ in a music videoโฃ and during โthe โartist’s concert residency at the Josรฉ Miguel Agrelot Coliseum. Don Romรกn Carrasco filed the lawsuit in the Court ofโฃ First Instance in San โJuan, claiming his “Casita” – โaโค home he andโ his brother built in the 1960s – was copied withoutโ his full consent or โขfair compensation.
The suit centers on claims of fraudulent contract signing and unauthorized reproduction โof Carrasco’s property. While Carrasco authorizedโข a scout to filmโ at his home, heโ alleges he was misled into signing documents he couldn’tโฃ read, andโฃ that officials afterward usedโ his signature to finalizeโ contracts without explaining their contents. The video โคfeaturing the home garnered 22 million views, and a full-scaleโ replica was constructedโ for Bad Bunny’s โconcert series, โyet carrasco received โคonly $5,200 in two checks. This case raises questions about intellectual property rights, theโ exploitation โคof vulnerable individuals, and the legal protections afforded to homeowners when their properties are used for commercial purposes.โ
Carrasco โฃdescribed his โhome’s defining โfeature as a porch, stating, “A house without a โฃporch is notโฃ feasible,” and that it’s “the perfect place to visit โwith friends and tell them, ‘pullโฃ up a โคchair, sit down and let’s talk here.'” He and his family spent approximately four to five years building the home “block by block.”
The lawsuit alleges that during the video shoot,individuals took photographs and measurements of the Casita. Thes were then usedโข to โconstructโข anโค exact replica inside the coliseum. carrasco,who โis unable to read or write but can sign his name,claims he was asked to sign a blank screen on a cell โphone,and that hisโ signature was then digitally transferred to contracts he never received or understood.
The legal filing asserts that the fraudulent contracts are void, โand seeks redress for the unauthorized use ofโ Carrasco’s home โคdesign. carrasco’s โattorney โargues โthat โขthe โartist and his team disregardedโข the homeowner’s interests and profited significantly from the replica without his permission.