Almost two years ago, Cardi B was sued for copyright infringement over her song ‘Enough (Miami)’. Joshua Fraustro and Miguel Aguilar claimed that their song was infringed by the rapper; however, a judge in Texas has just issued a final ruling in favor of Cardi Bre.Read more to find out what happened.
Judge clears Cardi B in copyright infringement case
Rolling Stone reported that U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez cleared Cardi B of her $50 million copyright infringement lawsuit. The dismissal took place on March 30, when a judge ruled that no music was infringed. Cardi B’s attorney released a statement on the matter, saying, “Obviously, we’re very pleased with today’s order and appreciate the court’s careful consideration of the issues.“
It is his second legal victory in the last few months. Last September, a Los Angeles jury found the rapper not guilty of assault and battery on former security guard Emani Ellis. She sued for $24 million and alleged that he assaulted her sometime in 2018.
About the lawsuit against Cardi B
In 2024, Joshua Fraustro and Miguel Aguilar filed a lawsuit against the rapper, claiming that his song ‘Enough’ copied the song ‘Greasy Frybread’. The song was originally reported to have been written for Sten Jodidi, and two years later, it was featured on the show ‘Reservation Dogs’, which made it famous. In addition to claiming that Cardi B copied their song, the two musicians also said that it “caused reputational damage in the music industry and led to her being blacklisted.“The two musicians managed to obtain official copyright registration on October 31 last year, nearly a year and a half after the copyright infringement case was initially filed.Disclaimer: This report is a journalistic account of a recent development in court. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy based on available information, this is not a substitute for an official court order or legal advice. The final decision published by the court is the final source of information. This article serves as a report on the current state of the case and should not be considered legal guidance.
