The Miley Cyrus Flowers lawsuit has drawn major attention from both music fans and legal experts. Filed by Tempo Music Investments, the lawsuit claims that Miley Cyrus’s chart-topping hit “Flowers” copied key elements from Bruno Mars’s 2013 song “When I Was Your Man.”
The case has now moved forward after a judge denied Cyrus’s motion to dismiss in March 2025. This legal battle is not just about two hit songs—it raises important questions about how far copyright protection should extend in the music industry.
Background of the Miley Cyrus Flowers Lawsuit
In September 2024, Tempo Music Investments, which owns a share of the copyright in “When I Was Your Man”, filed a lawsuit in a Los Angeles federal court. The company accused Miley Cyrus and several other defendants of unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and exploitation of Bruno Mars’s song. According to the complaint, “Flowers” allegedly duplicates “numerous melodic, harmonic, and lyrical elements” from Mars’s emotional ballad.
Interestingly, Bruno Mars is not part of the lawsuit. The case was brought by Tempo Music after the company acquired copyright interests from one of the song’s co-writers, Philip Lawrence. This means Tempo now partly owns the rights to “When I Was Your Man” and believes it has standing to sue Cyrus and her co-writers Gregory Hein and Michael Pollack, along with major music companies like Sony Music Publishing and Apple.
What the Court Decided
In March 2025, a federal judge denied Miley Cyrus’s request to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing the Miley Cyrus Flowers lawsuit to proceed. The ruling came after Cyrus’s legal team argued that Tempo Music lacked the “exclusive rights” necessary to sue for infringement.
The judge disagreed, explaining that ownership of “exclusive rights” under copyright law does not require full ownership by one person. Instead, co-owners collectively hold those rights, and an assignee (like Tempo) can take legal action in defense of its share.
In simpler terms, the court ruled that Tempo Music had the legal standing to bring the lawsuit, even if it didn’t own 100% of the song. This interpretation of copyright ownership could have wide-ranging effects on future music lawsuits.
Why Tempo Music Filed the Lawsuit
Tempo Music claims that “Flowers” copies more than just general inspiration from “When I Was Your Man.” The lawsuit highlights specific chord progressions, melodic sequences, and lyrical themes that it believes were taken from Bruno Mars’s song.
Fans have also noted that “Flowers” seems to respond directly to Mars’s hit. While Mars’s song expresses regret over losing love, Cyrus’s version turns that sentiment into empowerment, with lyrics like “I can buy myself flowers.” Tempo argues that even though the songs differ in message, their musical core shares too many similarities to be coincidental.
Miley Cyrus’s Response to the Lawsuit
Miley Cyrus’s legal team has strongly denied the allegations of copying. In their motion to dismiss, they argued that the similarities between the two songs are limited to common musical elements—such as chord progressions—that appear in many other compositions.
They also claimed that Tempo Music’s ownership rights were too limited to bring a lawsuit, which the judge ultimately rejected. Cyrus’s team maintains that “Flowers” is an original work and that any overlap with “When I Was Your Man” falls within the range of normal creative coincidence in popular music.
So far, representatives for Cyrus and her co-writers have not commented publicly beyond court filings.
Why Bruno Mars Isn’t Suing Miley Cyrus
Many people were surprised that Bruno Mars himself is not involved in the Miley Cyrus Flowers lawsuit. However, this makes sense from a legal standpoint. When multiple people co-write a song, each owns a portion of the copyright. One co-owner (or their assignee, such as Tempo Music) can take legal action without the involvement of others.
Mars, who co-wrote “When I Was Your Man” with Philip Lawrence, Mark Ronson, and others, may simply choose not to participate. Additionally, Mars has faced similar lawsuits in the past over “Uptown Funk,” giving him firsthand experience with how common—and often unproductive—these cases can be.
Similar Copyright Lawsuits in the Music Industry
The Miley Cyrus Flowers lawsuit is the latest in a long line of copyright battles involving major artists.
- Ed Sheeran faced a multi-year lawsuit over claims that “Thinking Out Loud” copied Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On.” After eight years in court, a jury ruled in Sheeran’s favor in 2023, confirming that the similar chord progressions were too common to be protected.
- Cyrus herself has faced similar challenges before. In 2018, she was accused of copying parts of the 1988 track “We Run Things” for her hit “We Can’t Stop.” That case ended in a private settlement.
- Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were ordered to pay millions for their 2013 hit “Blurred Lines,” which a jury found to have copied Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up.”
These examples show how music copyright law often walks a fine line between inspiration and infringement.
The Bigger Legal Question: Where Is the Line Between Influence and Copying?
At the heart of the Miley Cyrus Flowers lawsuit is a larger question — how much similarity is too much in music?
Music often relies on repeating patterns, familiar rhythms, and emotional storytelling. While copyright law is meant to protect originality, courts struggle to define what counts as “substantial similarity.”
If two songs share the same chords but have different lyrics and tempo, is that copying? Or is it simply the natural overlap that occurs in a creative field where millions of songs use the same basic building blocks?
Legal experts argue that these lawsuits can have a chilling effect on creativity. Artists may hesitate to write songs that resemble existing works, even unintentionally, out of fear of being sued.
What Happens Next in the Miley Cyrus Flowers Lawsuit
Now that the judge has allowed the Miley Cyrus Flowers lawsuit to move forward, both sides will likely enter a discovery phase. This involves sharing evidence, expert reports, and possibly even musical analyses comparing “Flowers” and “When I Was Your Man.”
If the case does not settle—which is often the outcome in such disputes—it could eventually go to trial. However, trials are rare in music copyright cases because they are expensive and unpredictable.
Tempo Music has said it is “thrilled” with the court’s ruling and confident it will prevail. Miley Cyrus, meanwhile, remains silent as her legal team prepares the next move.
Why This Lawsuit Matters
The Miley Cyrus Flowers lawsuit is not just about one song. It highlights the growing tension between artistic inspiration and legal ownership. The decision could set new standards for how courts handle partial copyright ownership and creative overlap in popular music.
If the court sides with Tempo Music, it could open the door for more lawsuits from partial rights holders seeking financial gains. On the other hand, if Cyrus wins, it may encourage artists to push creative boundaries without fear of being sued for minor similarities.
Conclusion
The Miley Cyrus Flowers lawsuit has become a key moment in the ongoing debate over copyright and creativity. While the court’s decision to let the case continue doesn’t mean Cyrus is guilty of infringement, it does mean the legal system will now examine how closely “Flowers” mirrors “When I Was Your Man.”
As the case unfolds, it will likely influence how future artists, producers, and record labels approach songwriting and ownership. Whether it ends in a settlement or a landmark ruling, this lawsuit reminds everyone that in today’s music industry, even a flower can grow in someone else’s garden and still end up in court.