Samsung put Dua Lipa's face on TV boxes without asking. Now she's suing for $15 million

midian182

Posts: 11,718   +177
Staff member
In a nutshell: Samsung has responded to a $15 million lawsuit filed by pop superstar Dua Lipa over the singer's image appearing on its TV packaging without her permission. The company says the image was provided by a content partner who claimed permission had been secured. As such, Samsung is denying allegations of intentional misuse.

Lipa filed the lawsuit in California on May 8. It alleges Samsung prominently displayed a photograph of her face on television models sold in the US without "her knowledge, without consideration, and as to which she had no say, control, or input whatsoever."

The filing added that the TV packaging was "designed to improperly capitalize on Ms. Lipa's hard-earned success to promote and sell Samsung's products."

As noted in the suit, Lipa owns the copyright to the photo, which was taken at the Austin City Limits music festival in 2024.

The British singer wants no less than $15 million in damages for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and misappropriation of her likeness and image. She is also requesting punitive damages and legal costs.

According to her legal team, Samsung violated California's right of publicity statute, which bars companies from using a celebrity's public identity for commercial purposes without permission. The lawsuit also includes claims under the federal Lanham Act, along with trademark and copyright claims.

The suit added that Lipa first became aware of the image appearing on the boxes in June 2025 when fans started posting about it. Some described it as the "Dua Lipa TV Box."

Two Instagram comments were highlighted by the lawsuit: one in which a user said they would "get that TV just because Dua is on it," and another that read: "If you need anything selling just put a picture of Dua Lipa on it."

Lipa and her legal team sent a cease-and-desist letter to Samsung asking for the image to be removed from the packaging, but they were met with a "dismissive and callous" response from the Korean giant, which did not comply with the demands.

Samsung has issued a statement on the matter. "Ms. Lipa's image was used in 2025 to reflect the content of our third-party partners that is available on Samsung TVs and was originally provided by a content partner for our free streaming service Samsung TV Plus. The image was used only after receiving explicit assurance from the content partner that permission had been secured, including for the retail boxes. Given this assurance, we deny any allegations of intentional misuse," the company wrote.

Samsung added that it immediately halted production of the boxes and replaced the packaging after the singer's representatives objected to the use of the image last July.

"Samsung has great respect for Ms. Lipa and the intellectual property of all artists. We have actively sought and remain open to a constructive resolution with Ms. Lipa's team," Samsung concluded.

It seems unlikely that Samsung's attempt to blame a content partner, along with its claim that it did not knowingly use Lipa's image without permission, will appease the singer.

Permalink to story:

 
designed to improperly capitalize on Ms. Lipa's hard-earned success
That almost killed me. Whenever I caught her on TV, she was doing some butt swinging on stage. The hard earner, I'm sure.
 
Good for her. Some easy money. Samsung should know better.

-100%. Good for her, make that scratch. Samsung's legal team wouldn't waste a second suing the **** out of anyone that used their copyright or trademarks without forking over some cash.

Wild oversight on Samsung's part. Every pixel of that box should have been scrubbed by Samsung legal and frankly I'm a little shocked they don't actually have people paying THEM to be "featured" on the box art.

Given Samsung's popularity, its almost like free advertising (I'm sure this is the case Samsung will try and make in court).
 
Breaking the law because someone else told you it was fine is no excuse.

Samsung is in the wrong and owes the singer money. If the pictures on the box didn’t sell TVs, the box would be blank.

Samsung can and should also go after the content provider that lied to them.
 
Last edited:
I kind of just don't get why anyone thought this was a good idea in the first place, like you expect these big companies to be smarter, and then they're just... not.

 
-100%. Good for her, make that scratch. Samsung's legal team wouldn't waste a second suing the **** out of anyone that used their copyright or trademarks without forking over some cash.

Wild oversight on Samsung's part. Every pixel of that box should have been scrubbed by Samsung legal
I realize your post is less about the actual facts and more just simple virtue-signaling of anti-corporate bias, but businesses almost never negotiate directly with principals in IP use rights requests, just as Spotify doesn't send people around to knock on the doors of every drummer, bassist, and banjo-picker in the world to ensure they have rights to play their music. In this case, that third-party improperly represented their standing.

Thus, under our current legal code, infringement still exists, but since it was unintentional, the tort claim can only be for compensatory damages, not punitive. How much did her appearance on this box actually cost Dua Lipa in loss of income? I'm confident it's a tiny fraction of the $15M she's requesting.
 
Last edited:
I realize your post is less about the actual facts and more just simple virtue-signaling of anti-corporate bias, but businesses almost never negotiate directly with principals in IP use rights requests, just as Spotify doesn't send people around to knock on the doors of every drummer, bassist, and banjo-picker in the world to ensure they have rights to play their music. In this case, that third-party improperly represented their standing.

Thus, under our current legal code, infringement still exists, but since it was unintentional, the tort claim can only be for compensatory damages, not punitive. How much did her appearance on this box actually cost Dua Lipa in actual loss of income? I'm confident it's a tiny fraction of the $15M she's actually requesting.

- I do like a good virtue signal. Feels not facts is my moto.

Good info though.
 
She has a fair claim. If they did not get her permission to use her likeness, they have violated 4 known laws(that I can think of). Samsung made a costly mistake.

- I do like a good virtue signal. Feels not facts is my moto.
While seems like sarcasm, still seems like foolishness to me.
 
Name them. I know of just one ... and it was an unintentional violation of a civil statute. I doubt she'll collect anywhere near that $15M. It's simply an initial bargaining point.
Unlawful use of the likeness of a person in the production of a commercial product, unlawful distribution of the likeness of a person, unlawful profit gained from the unlawful use of the likeness of a person, violation of multiple international treaties and regulation regarding a persons likeness.... Each one of these an individual violation with it's own penalties imposed. Grouped together? It's a very costly mistake.

I could keep going like that. Granted, I'm just stating what I know of US laws. UK laws from what I understand are much more strict and carry heavier penalties.

Also, "unintentional" my shiny butt. Samsung doesn't do anything unintentionally. Get real and stop spouting gibber-jabber.
 
Unlawful use of the likeness of a person in the production of a commercial product, unlawful distribution of the likeness of a person, unlawful profit gained from the unlawful use of the likeness of a person, violation of multiple international treaties and regulation regarding a persons likeness....
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. There are no "international treaties" regulating the use of a person's likeness, nor are there any federal laws against such. The only such law applicable here is California Civil Code §3344, and even it specifies intentional violation is required.


If Samsung has a signed contract with a third party granting them this rights, then any such violation was prima facie unintentional.

I could keep going like that.
You could keep spreading disinformation, or you could learn about the laws of the country you live in.
 
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. There are no "international treaties" regulating the use of a person's likeness, nor are there any federal laws against such. The only such law applicable here is California Civil Code §3344, and even it specifies intentional violation is required.


If Samsung has a signed contract with a third party granting them this rights, then any such violation was prima facie unintentional.


You could keep spreading disinformation, or you could learn about the laws of the country you live in.
How witty. Tell us all, did you in fact read that article you linked? Did you understand it? You might what want to see to that. We all get it, you think you were being clever. Quoting something out of context doesn't make you right or your argument valid. It just makes you look unimpressive.
 
Last edited:
How witty. Tell us all, did you in fact read that article you linked? Did you understand it? You might what want to see to that. We all get it, you think you were being clever. Quoting something out of context doesn't make you right or your argument valid. It just makes you look unimpressive.
I did... not sure what your problem with it is... it proves his point... if you disagree, maybe state the flaws in his logic?

As some advice, when attempting to disprove someone's argument, saying "your link is wrong" without actually saying WHAT is wrong with it only makes YOU look unimpressive....
 
it proves his point...
Did it? Are you sure? Because he posted a link to information about laws, but not the judicial interpretation of those laws, nor any case law. Do you seriously think a citizen of the UK would file an expensive lawsuit in a country and state of that country that did not favor the rights in question? The plain and simple facts are Samsung made an expensive, deliberate mistake, then they got caught. Samsung's actions are libelous. Ms Lipa's claim is valid and enforceable. You and Endymio can disagree til you're both blue in the face. It's not going to change anything. Ms Lipa is going to win if Samsung doesn't have the smarts to offer a very generous settlement. That's the end of the story.
 
Did it? Are you sure? Because he posted a link to information about laws, but not the judicial interpretation of those laws, nor any case law. Do you seriously think a citizen of the UK would file an expensive lawsuit in a country and state of that country that did not favor the rights in question? The plain and simple facts are Samsung made an expensive, deliberate mistake, then they got caught. Samsung's actions are libelous. Ms Lipa's claim is valid and enforceable. You and Endymio can disagree til you're both blue in the face. It's not going to change anything. Ms Lipa is going to win if Samsung doesn't have the smarts to offer a very generous settlement. That's the end of the story.
This is a legal case - if the facts were “plain and simple”, they’d be settling out of court. The fact that it’s going to trial means that there are levels of interpretation.
 
This is a legal case - if the facts were “plain and simple”, they’d be settling out of court. The fact that it’s going to trial means that there are levels of interpretation.
Samsung has demonstrated it's overwhelming level of pompous arrogance recently so the fact they they are taking this to trial says nothing of any usefulness that reflects the preponderance of evidence. Samsung's position is weak at best and flimsy at worst. Ms Lipa is very unlikely to lose. The good thing from this will be that more case law will be set.
 
Samsung has demonstrated it's overwhelming level of pompous arrogance recently so the fact they they are taking this to trial says nothing of any usefulness that reflects the preponderance of evidence. Samsung's position is weak at best and flimsy at worst. Ms Lipa is very unlikely to lose. The good thing from this will be that more case law will be set.
Have any proof of this?
 
Back