Photo Credit: Dua Lipa by Justin Higuchi / CC by 2.0
Dua Lipa has filed a $15 million lawsuit against Samsung, claiming the company used her image to sell TVs without permission and without paying her. But did Samsung really whip up an entire brand sponsorship ‘deal’ without even contacting the artist?
On Friday, Dua Lipa filed a lawsuit against Samsung, alleging that the electronics company used her image to sell TVs without permission. The complaint claims that Samsung used the pop star’s likeness on the packaging of its televisions beginning last year. But when Lipa demanded that the company stop, Samsung was allegedly dismissive and refused to take action.
According to the lawsuit, Samsung has profited from Lipa’s image and given fans the false impression that she endorsed the product. The filing also asserts that Lipa owns the copyright to the photograph, which was taken backstage at the Austin City Limits Festival in 2024.
Samsung hasn’t yet responded, though apparently the consumer electronics giant simply started a Dua Lipa brand sponsorship campaign without contacting Dua Lipa. That seems almost unthinkable, but let’s see how this case unravels.
“Ms. Lipa’s face was prominently used for a mass marketing campaign for a consumer product without her knowledge, without consideration, and as to which she had no say, control, or input whatsoever,” the filing reads. “Ms. Lipa did not allow and would not have allowed this use.”
Lipa’s lawsuit even quotes fans on social media who suggested that they would be or had been inspired to purchase Samsung TVs based on the apparent endorsement by the star.
“I’d get that TV just because Dua Lipa is on it,” wrote one fan on the former Twitter. “That’s how obsessed I am. That’s how much I love her.”
“I wasn’t even planning on buying a TV but I saw the box so I decided to get it,” wrote another, while a third fan commented that if you need to sell something, “just put a picture of Dua Lipa on it.”
Filed in the Central District of California, the lawsuit seeks $15 million. It alleges a copyright violation, a violation of California’s right of publicity statute, a federal Lanham Act claim, and trademark claims.
