GloRilla “No BBL” Lyrics Copyright Dispute
- What: Rapper GloRilla is defending against a copyright infringement lawsuit claiming she used a viral phrase without permission.
- Who: Natalie Henderson (Slimdabodylast) is suing GloRilla, UMG Recordings, Warner Chappell Music, and BMG Rights Management.
- Where: The case is being heard in a federal court in Louisiana.
GloRilla Faces Copyright Lawsuit Over “No BBL” Lyric
Table of Contents
Updated September 10, 2025, 21:40:27
Background to the Dispute
GloRilla, along with UMG Recordings, Warner Chappell Music, and BMG Rights Management, is seeking to dismiss a copyright lawsuit alleging the unauthorized use of a popular phrase in her song “Never Find.” The lawsuit, filed in a Louisiana federal court, centers on the phrase “no BBL,” a term gaining prominence in discussions about body image and cosmetic surgery.
The plaintiff,Natalie Henderson,known professionally as Slimdabodylast,claims that GloRilla’s lyric – “Natural,no BBL,but I’m still gon’ give them hell” – is substantially similar to her own song “All Natural,” which features the repeated line “all naturale,no BBL.” Henderson asserts that her song gained traction on social media in early 2024 for its celebration of natural bodies and that GloRilla and her collaborators have profited from her original work.
GloRilla’s Defense: Access and Originality
GloRilla’s legal team is challenging the lawsuit on several key points. A primary argument is that Henderson cannot demonstrate that GloRilla had access to her song. They contend that simply posting a track online does not meet the legal threshold for establishing access, citing the need for evidence of widespread distribution or commercial success – something they claim Henderson’s song lacks. Justia explains the legal standard for proving access in copyright cases.
Furthermore, the defense disputes the claim of substantial similarity. They argue that while Henderson’s phrase is a recurring hook, GloRilla’s line appears only once within a different context and utilizes a distinct rhyme scheme.The lawyers also emphasize that phrases like “give them hell” are commonplace in music and do not constitute copyright infringement.
Damages and Copyright Protection
GloRilla’s team is also questioning Henderson’s ability to claim both statutory and actual damages, arguing that she hasn’t proven sufficient infringement to warrant an injunction. They further contend that phrases celebrating natural bodies are increasingly common in contemporary music and, therefore, lack the originality required for copyright protection. This argument hinges on the principle that copyright law protects original works of authorship, not common expressions.
The motion to dismiss asserts that viral expressions, even those that achieve widespread popularity, cannot automatically be considered intellectual property. this raises a broader question about the copyrightability of short phrases and slogans in the age of social media.
The Broader Implications
the outcome of this case could set a precedent for future copyright claims involving viral phrases and online trends. If the court sides with GloRilla, it could make it more difficult for creators to protect short, popular expressions. Conversely, a ruling in favor of Henderson could encourage more copyright claims based on similar circumstances.
Here’s a table summarizing key aspects of the case:
| Plaintiff | Defendant | Key Claim | Defense Argument |
|---|---|---|---|
| Natalie Henderson (Slimdabodylast) | GloRilla, UMG Recordings, Warner Chappell Music, BMG Rights Management | Copyright infringement of the phrase “no BBL” | Lack of access, insufficient similarity, lack of originality, and inability to claim damages. |