Bad Bunny’s Ex Wins Round in 'Un Verano Sin Ti' Voice Note War ⁠1%

By Nancy Dillon⁠11%

7/10/2026, 5:34:32 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 48.1% saturation with 217 hits. Analysis detected 1,022 faulty-reasoning hits from 451 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 5.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠1% (21,716 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 99.20% of the article peer group.

Bad Bunny at Paris Fashion Week on July 6, 2026. 
Jacopo Raule/Getty Images 
Bad Bunny 's former girlfriend may proceed with a lawsuit accusing the reggaeton star of using a recording of her voice saying "Bad Bunny baby" on his 2022 song "Dos Mil 16" without her permission. 
In an 80-page ruling obtained by Rolling Stone , the Puerto Rico Supreme Court found that Carliz De La Cruz Hernández can move forward with her claim that the recording's use violated her right to protect her identity from commercial exploitation. 
Bad Bunny, born Benito Martinez Ocasio, has been fighting the lawsuit since it was first filed in 2023. 
In her filings, De La Cruz Hernández says she began dating Bad Bunny in 2011 and recorded the phrase at his request in 2015. 
The couple later separated, reconciled in 2017, and broke up again, though they continued communicating intermittently until 2019, she claims. 
According to De La Cruz Hernández, she never authorized the recording's use on "Pa Ti," released in 2015, or on "Dos Mil 16," a track from the chart-topping album Un Verano Sin Ti . 
She alleges Bad Bunny and his company, Rimas Entertainment, used her voice memo across streaming services, social media, television, radio, and promotional campaigns, turning it into a marketing hook that fueled interest in the couple's on-and-off relationship and drove sales. 
She alleges the defendants unfairly profited from her voice without compensating her, and the Supreme Court found that she presented sufficient facts to support her claim of a plausible commercial use. 
While De La Cruz Hernández can move forward with her claim related to "Dos Mil 16," the court found she waited too long to pursue damages for "Pa Ti." 
The statute of limitations for the earlier song had run out, the court ruled. 
In its opinion, the majority also reversed an earlier dismissal of De La Cruz Hernández’s copyright claim. 
It found she had a right to pursue her claims that the recording of her personal and distinguishable voice performance might be protectible as a copyright. 
Attempts to reach lawyers on both sides were not immediately successful on Friday. 
A dissenting judge said he would have dismissed both claims, finding that neither was supported by law. 
Pitbull Sets Guinness World Record for Most 'Bald Caps' at London Festival 
Taylor Swift Paid 'Over $160,000' to Obtain NYC Permit for MSG Wedding, Says Zohran Mamdani 
How Much Did Taylor Swift’s Wedding to Travis Kelce Cost? 
Fiona Apple Wants to Write About the ‘Endless Barrage of Horrors’ in Today’s World 
The Linda Lindas Embrace Imperfection on ‘Gotta Get Out’ Album Featuring Hayley Williams on ‘Closer’ 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.6%Nancy Dillon: 4.5%Rolling Stone: 2.9%Confirmation Bias16.6%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Nancy Dillon: 2.1%Rolling Stone: 3.2%Availability Heuristic9.3%This article: 7.5%Nancy Dillon: 1.2%Rolling Stone: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic7.5%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 1.6%Rolling Stone: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 22.6%Nancy Dillon: 5.8%Rolling Stone: 5.6%Framing Effect22.6%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.5%Rolling Stone: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.8%Rolling Stone: 2.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Nancy Dillon: 1.0%Rolling Stone: 1.1%Pessimism Bias3.1%This article: 48.1%Nancy Dillon: 6.0%Rolling Stone: 7.5%Negativity Bias48.1%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 5.4%Rolling Stone: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 1.5%Rolling Stone: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 4.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Nancy Dillon: 0.6%Rolling Stone: 4.8%Halo Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.1%Nancy Dillon: 0.5%Rolling Stone: 1.3%Recency Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 1.3%Rolling Stone: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 35.3%Nancy Dillon: 2.8%Rolling Stone: 3.4%Appeal to Authority35.3%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.7%Rolling Stone: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 1.0%Rolling Stone: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.9%Nancy Dillon: 6.3%Rolling Stone: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion10.9%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.6%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.9%Nancy Dillon: 1.4%Rolling Stone: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.9%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.8%Nancy Dillon: 0.8%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Burden of Proof7.8%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.4%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.2%Nancy Dillon: 1.8%Rolling Stone: 2.4%Anecdotal2.2%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.8%Nancy Dillon: 2.5%Rolling Stone: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.8%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.8%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.9%Nancy Dillon: 1.0%Rolling Stone: 1.5%Unattributed Quote8.9%This article: 3.1%Nancy Dillon: 1.9%Rolling Stone: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection3.1%This article: 18.6%Nancy Dillon: 2.0%Rolling Stone: 8.6%Biased Writer Voice18.6%This article: 2.2%Nancy Dillon: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 1.3%Indoctrination2.2%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 1.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Dillon: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Nancy Dillon: 1.1%Rolling Stone: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.3%

451 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers45%attributed speech249writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJacopo Raule/Getty Images • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coveragePuerto Rico Supreme Court • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageCarliz De La Cruz Hernández • 24 words • 0.0% coverageCarliz De La Cruz Hernández • 20 words • 0.0% coverageCarliz De La Cruz Hernández • 34 words • 0.0% coverageCarliz De La Cruz Hernández • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coveragePuerto Rico Supreme Court • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coveragePuerto Rico Supreme Court • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
80%flagged-word coverage
118 attributed words58% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Unattributed Quote+33.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Carliz De La Cruz Hernández: 33.9%33.9%Biased Writer Voice-17.3 ptsWriter: 17.3%Carliz De La Cruz Hernández: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%Carliz De La Cruz Hernández: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.6 ptsWriter: 5.6%Carliz De La Cruz Hernández: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Carliz De La Cruz Hernández: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.