. Alleged use of Dua Lipa’s image on TV coversThe case was reported by Variety, and the lawsuit states that the famous brand began displaying an image of Dua Lipa on the cardboard boxes of its televisions last year. The image was reportedly used as part of a large-scale marketing campaign for consumer electronic products.
After discovering that her likeness was being used, the singer asked the company to stop immediately. The complaint alleges that the brand responded in a manner described as “objectionable and cruel” and refused to remove the image.What does Dua Lipa’s complaint say?“Ms. Lipa’s face was used prominently in a mass marketing campaign for a consumer product without her knowledge, without consideration, and over which she had no say, control or input whatsoever,” the lawsuit reportedly states.
Ms. Lipa did not and would not permit such use.”According to the filing, Samsung benefited from creating the impression that Dua Lipa endorsed the TVs. The complaint says there is no such endorsement and that the singer did not participate in the campaign.Copyright ownership and online reaction to Dua Lipa incidentThe legal filing states that Dua Lipa owns the copyright to the image used in the campaign.
The photo was taken backstage at the Austin City Limits Music Festival in 2024.The controversy sparked widespread discussion online. One wrote: “15 million damages is ridiculous. Would love to see the math on how they arrived at that number.” Another wrote: “This is literally a screenshot of Google TV. Samsung won’t pay a dime. Maybe they should sue Google TV.”Another wrote: “I’ve been to many homes with TVs, and I’ve never seen anyone display the box their TV once came in.
However, the allegation is that the decision to purchase the TVs was based on Ms Lipa’s picture on the box, causing damages here. strange.”The complaint states that Dua Lipa has built a “premium brand” and is “highly selective” when choosing endorsement partnerships. The lawsuit includes allegations of copyright infringement, violation of the California Right of Publicity Act, federal claims under the Lanham Act, and trademark infringement. The case has been filed in the Central District of California and further updates are awaited.