Samsung denies using Dua Lipa's image without permission on TV packaging

Samsung denies intentional misuse of Dua Lipa's image on TV packaging after she sued for $15 million, blaming a third-party content partner for providing false assurances that permissions were secured.

Objective Facts

Dua Lipa has filed a $15 million lawsuit against Samsung, alleging that the electronics manufacturer used her likeness to sell TVs without paying her and without permission, using her image on the cardboard packaging of its TVs beginning last year. When Lipa became aware of it and demanded that the company stop using her image, the suit alleges that the company was dismissive and callous and refused the request. Samsung has responded to the suit, saying that the image on the TV boxes came from one of its content partners who offered assurances that the image was used with permission, and was originally provided by a content partner for its free streaming service Samsung TV Plus. The complaint alleges a copyright violation, a violation of the California right of publicity statute, a federal Lanham Act claim, and trademark claims.

Deep Dive

Modern advertising moves quickly enough that editorial content, streaming promotions, and commercial campaigns can often overlap, creating legal grey areas especially when celebrity images are reused across multiple platforms. Under U.S. copyright law, copyright infringement is largely a strict liability offense meaning intent does not need to be proven—if Samsung distributed the boxes, Samsung can still be held liable regardless of who supplied the image. Samsung further claims it started replacing packaging and halting production once concerns were formally raised. From a crisis or reputation management perspective, Samsung should focus on transparency and timely accountability, clarifying how the alleged unauthorized usage occurred and demonstrating internal review processes are being evaluated. Evan Nierman, founder and CEO of Red Banyan PR, said the lawsuit would encourage celebrities to aggressively protect their likeness, image rights, and intellectual property, with the message that identity and voice are assets becoming a business necessity. Antony Craggs, a partner at Shoosmiths, points out the case is part of a broader trend of celebrities actively policing the commercial use of their image rights, reflecting growing awareness of the need to protect public personas from unauthorized commercial exploitation.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisPolicy GuideAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

Samsung denies using Dua Lipa's image without permission on TV packaging

Samsung denies intentional misuse of Dua Lipa's image on TV packaging after she sued for $15 million, blaming a third-party content partner for providing false assurances that permissions were secured.

May 14, 2026
What's Going On

Dua Lipa has filed a $15 million lawsuit against Samsung, alleging that the electronics manufacturer used her likeness to sell TVs without paying her and without permission, using her image on the cardboard packaging of its TVs beginning last year. When Lipa became aware of it and demanded that the company stop using her image, the suit alleges that the company was dismissive and callous and refused the request. Samsung has responded to the suit, saying that the image on the TV boxes came from one of its content partners who offered assurances that the image was used with permission, and was originally provided by a content partner for its free streaming service Samsung TV Plus. The complaint alleges a copyright violation, a violation of the California right of publicity statute, a federal Lanham Act claim, and trademark claims.

✓ Common Ground
Both Samsung and legal analysts recognize the complexity of modern content licensing when third-party partnerships are involved, with the case potentially setting expectations for future celebrity-brand collaborations.
Both Evan Nierman, founder and CEO of Red Banyan PR, and legal analysts agree that the lawsuit will encourage celebrities and public figures to aggressively protect their image rights, with the message that identity and likeness are assets requiring defense.
Both entertainment experts and legal specialists recognize that major corporations increasingly face consequences for unauthorized celebrity use in advertising, and that even industry giants must respect intellectual property and publicity rights.
Objective Deep Dive

Modern advertising moves quickly enough that editorial content, streaming promotions, and commercial campaigns can often overlap, creating legal grey areas especially when celebrity images are reused across multiple platforms. Under U.S. copyright law, copyright infringement is largely a strict liability offense meaning intent does not need to be proven—if Samsung distributed the boxes, Samsung can still be held liable regardless of who supplied the image. Samsung further claims it started replacing packaging and halting production once concerns were formally raised. From a crisis or reputation management perspective, Samsung should focus on transparency and timely accountability, clarifying how the alleged unauthorized usage occurred and demonstrating internal review processes are being evaluated. Evan Nierman, founder and CEO of Red Banyan PR, said the lawsuit would encourage celebrities to aggressively protect their likeness, image rights, and intellectual property, with the message that identity and voice are assets becoming a business necessity. Antony Craggs, a partner at Shoosmiths, points out the case is part of a broader trend of celebrities actively policing the commercial use of their image rights, reflecting growing awareness of the need to protect public personas from unauthorized commercial exploitation.

◈ Tone Comparison

Lipa's lawyers used aggressive language describing Samsung's arrogance in refusing to stop infringement as confirming conscious disregard of intellectual property rights. Samsung's statement expressed great respect for Lipa and artists' intellectual property while emphasizing openness to constructive resolution.