Skip to content 
Global pop star Dua Lipa has commenced legal proceedings against Samsung in the United States, alleging that the technology company unlawfully used her image on their television packaging without her consent. The claim, reportedly seeking at least $15 million in damages, has attracted substantial international attention and raises important issues surrounding copyright, image rights, false endorsement and commercial exploitation of celebrity identity.
While the proceedings have been filed in California under US law, the dispute also highlights broader questions relevant to UK intellectual property practitioners and brand owners regarding the commercial use of celebrity likenesses and the growing importance of image protection in advertising and retail marketing.
The Allegations Against Samsung
According to reports and the court filing, Dua Lipa alleges that Samsung used a photograph of her on packaging for certain television products sold in the United States during 2025 and 2026.
The image in question was reportedly taken backstage at the Austin City Limits Festival in 2024, with Dua Lipa claiming ownership of the copyright in the photograph itself.
The claim alleges that:
- Samsung prominently displayed her image on television packaging;
- Consumers were led to believe she endorsed the products;
- No permission or licence had been obtained;
- Samsung continued using the image despite requests to cease doing so.
The lawsuit reportedly includes claims for:
- copyright infringement;
- false endorsement under the Lanham Act;
- trade mark-related claims;
- and violation of California publicity rights legislation.
Dua Lipa is also seeking injunctive relief alongside damages and legal costs.
Samsung’s Response
Samsung has denied intentional wrongdoing.
According to public statements, the company claims that the image was supplied by a third-party content partner connected to Samsung TV Plus, and that Samsung had received assurances that all necessary permissions and clearances had been obtained.
Samsung has further stated that it respects artists’ intellectual property rights and remains open to resolving the matter constructively.
Why the Case Matters
Although celebrity endorsement disputes are not new, the Dua Lipa claim is particularly significant because it combines several overlapping intellectual property and commercial rights issues.
The dispute sits at the intersection of:
- copyright ownership;
- celebrity image rights;
- consumer perception;
- advertising law;
- and false endorsement claims.
Importantly, the case also demonstrates the increasing commercial value attached to personal branding and curated celebrity associations.
The claim reportedly emphasises that Dua Lipa is highly selective regarding commercial endorsements and has existing relationships with major brands including Apple, Porsche, Bulgari and Versace.
Her legal team argues that unauthorised commercial use of her likeness undermines the exclusivity and value of her personal brand.
Copyright and Ownership of the Photograph
One unusual aspect of the claim is the allegation that Dua Lipa herself owns the copyright in the image used by Samsung.
In many celebrity image disputes, the underlying copyright is owned by the photographer or agency rather than the celebrity depicted. Here, however, the complaint reportedly asserts that the copyright had been registered in her name with the US Copyright Office.
If proven, this potentially strengthens the claim substantially because it allows reliance upon both:
- copyright infringement rights;
- and personality or publicity-based claims.
False Endorsement and Consumer Perception
A central allegation in the proceedings is that Samsung’s use of the image created the impression that Dua Lipa endorsed or approved the televisions.
The lawsuit reportedly references social media comments from consumers suggesting that her presence on the packaging influenced purchasing decisions.
This forms the basis of the alleged false endorsement claim.
Under US law, false endorsement claims frequently arise where:
- consumers may believe a celebrity is commercially connected to a product;
- the celebrity’s goodwill is exploited;
- or the public is misled regarding sponsorship or approval.
How Would This Be Approached Under UK Law?
The UK does not recognise a standalone “image right” in the same way certain US states recognise publicity rights.
Instead, UK celebrities typically rely upon:
- passing off;
- trade mark law;
- copyright;
- breach of confidence;
- and data protection/privacy principles.
The leading UK authority remains:
- Irvine v Talksport Ltd [2002] EWHC 367 (Ch).
In that case, Formula One driver Eddie Irvine successfully argued that manipulated promotional material falsely suggested his endorsement of a radio station.
The court accepted that false endorsement could amount to passing off where:
- goodwill existed;
- there was a misrepresentation;
- and damage resulted.
If proceedings similar to the Dua Lipa dispute were brought in the UK, a claimant would likely focus heavily on:
- false endorsement;
- passing off;
- and potentially copyright infringement if ownership of the image could be established.
The Commercial Importance of Celebrity Licensing
The dispute also reflects the enormous commercial value attached to celebrity endorsement arrangements.
Modern celebrity branding is carefully managed through:
- licensing agreements;
- endorsement exclusivity;
- social media partnerships;
- and image control strategies.
Unauthorised use can potentially:
- dilute existing commercial arrangements;
- undermine exclusivity;
- weaken brand identity;
- and interfere with future endorsement negotiations.
For major brands and celebrities alike, image licensing has become a highly valuable commercial asset.
Third-Party Content Risks
Samsung’s defence highlights another increasingly important issue: reliance upon third-party content suppliers.
Large corporations frequently source:
- promotional materials;
- marketing assets;
- and digital content through external partners and agencies.
However, intellectual property liability may still arise where:
- permissions are defective;
- licences are incomplete;
- or rights ownership has not been properly verified.
The case therefore serves as a reminder of the importance of:
- robust rights clearance procedures;
- contractual indemnities;
- and proper verification of image licensing chains.
Wider Implications for Brand Owners
The proceedings reflect a wider global trend toward aggressive protection of:
- celebrity identity;
- personal branding;
- and commercial reputation.
As marketing becomes increasingly digital and image-driven, businesses face greater scrutiny regarding:
- unauthorised endorsements;
- influencer associations;
- and AI-generated or repurposed imagery.
The dispute may ultimately become an important reference point regarding:
- image licensing governance;
- retailer packaging practices;
- and celebrity brand exploitation in commercial advertising.
Conclusion
Dua Lipa’s claim against Samsung is far more than a standard celebrity dispute. It highlights the growing commercial significance of image rights, endorsement control and personal branding in the modern digital economy.
The case combines issues of copyright, trade mark law, false endorsement and publicity rights within a highly visible commercial context. Regardless of the eventual outcome, the proceedings are likely to reinforce the importance of proper rights clearance and careful management of celebrity-related marketing materials.
For intellectual property practitioners and brand owners, the dispute is a timely reminder that celebrity goodwill has become a powerful and protectable commercial asset — one capable of generating substantial litigation risk where used without proper authorisation.
