Dua Lipa files 15 million dollar lawsuit

Alleged use of Dua Lipa’s pic on television packagingThe case was reported by Variety and the lawsuit states that the popular brand began displaying a photograph of Dua Lipa on the cardboard boxes of its televisions last year. The image was reportedly used as part of a broad marketing campaign for consumer electronics products. After discovering the use of her likeness, the singer asked the company to stop immediately. The complaint alleges that the brand responded in a manner described as “dismissive and callous” and refused to remove the image.What does Dua Lipa’s complaint say?Reportedly, the lawsuit states, “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. Ms. Lipa did not allow and would not have allowed this use”.According to the filing, Samsung benefited from creating the impression that Dua Lipa had endorsed the televisions. The complaint argues that no such endorsement existed and that the singer had no involvement in the campaign.Copyright ownership and online reactions to Dua Lipa incidentThe legal filing states that Dua Lipa owns the copyright to the photograph used in the campaign. The picture was taken backstage at the Austin City Limits Music Festival in 2024.The controversy has generated extensive discussion online. One wrote, “Damages of 15M is ridiculous. Would love to see the maths on how they arrive at that figure.” Another wrote, “That’s literally a Google TV screenshot. Samsung is not going to pay a cent. She should sue Google TV perhaps.”Another one wrote, “I visited many homes that have TV sets, and not once saw anyone showing the box that their TV came in. And yet, the claim is that the decision to purchase TV sets is based on Ms. Lipa being depicted on the box, causing here damages. Strange.”The complaint states that Dua Lipa has built a “premium brand” and is “highly selective” when choosing endorsement partnerships. The lawsuit includes claims of copyright infringement, violation of California’s right of publicity law, federal claims under the Lanham Act, and trademark-related violations. The case has been filed in the Central District of California and more updates are awaited.