A photo on a TV box, one of the world's largest electronics companies and an internationally famous singer: what at first sounds like a manageable dispute over an image has turned into a multimillion-dollar battle in the US.
Dua Lipa is taking action against Samsung. At stake is a claim of 15 million US dollars. The allegation: her image was allegedly used on the packaging of Samsung televisions without sufficient permission.
Samsung is pushing back and wants the lawsuit dismissed in its entirety. The case therefore raises a question that goes far beyond Dua Lipa and Samsung: at what point does simply showing available content turn into advertising with a celebrity's face?
Dua Lipa on the TV box: but what is she actually advertising?
At the center of the dispute is the packaging of certain Samsung televisions. Among other things, it shows a photo of Dua Lipa. The devices support Samsung TV Plus. The singer's image is linked to the channel Xite Hits, which is available through the service.
For Samsung, it is precisely this connection that matters.
The company's lawyers argue that the photo does not create the impression that Dua Lipa personally endorses the televisions. Rather, the point is to show potential buyers what content can be watched on the device.
Samsung states:
“The images merely show the user interface of the televisions and illustrate the available apps as well as … an example of content that can be accessed on the TV”
Alongside Dua Lipa, the packaging also showed other content and logos, including MLB, Fox Sports and the crime series “The First 48”.
Put simply, the key question is: does a customer see nothing more than an example of the TV programming here, or is Dua Lipa's fame being used to make the product more attractive?
Samsung relies on a partner's assurance
There is another important point: Samsung does not simply claim that it used the image at its own discretion.
According to the company, the material came from a content partner. This partner allegedly gave an express assurance that the necessary permissions for its use were in place, including for use on retail packaging.
Samsung stated:
“The image of Ms. Lipa was used in 2025 to depict content from our third-party partners available on Samsung TVs, and was originally provided by a content partner for our free streaming service Samsung TV Plus”
The statement continues:
“The image was only used after the content partner expressly assured us that permission had been obtained, including for the retail packaging. In light of this assurance, we reject any allegations of intentional misuse.”
This shifts part of the dispute to a second level. Even if the required permission was in fact missing, the question arises as to who would be responsible for that. Samsung, at any rate, argues that it relied on a clear assurance.
Dua Lipa's side sees a commercial use of her image
The singer's team sees the situation completely differently.
The lawsuit was filed in May in a federal court in California. According to her legal representatives, Samsung had previously ignored several requests to stop using the image.
The complaint accuses Samsung of extensive commercial exploitation of Dua Lipa's image and identity.
It states:
“Ms. Lipa brings this action against Samsung for copyright infringement, trademark infringement and violation of her right of publicity to obtain redress for Samsung's massive, ongoing and unauthorized commercial exploitation of her valuable image and identity on the cardboard packaging of televisions”
The place of use is particularly decisive: according to the lawsuit, the image did not merely appear somewhere within a streaming menu, but on the packaging of products sold in retail stores.
The complaint also makes a clear allegation on this point:
“Aware of Ms. Lipa's fame and good reputation, Samsung used a copyrighted image of Ms. Lipa (the ‘DL Image’) without permission or license and printed it prominently on the front of the cardboard packaging in which Samsung-manufactured televisions are sold at retail.”
A detail with a big impact: showing content or selling a product?
It is precisely this distinction that is likely to make the case so interesting.
Manufacturers must of course be allowed to show what their devices can do. Smartphone boxes show apps, monitors show images and smart TVs show streaming services and sample content. That is part of modern product presentation.
But with a global star like Dua Lipa, a photo has considerable economic value. Companies regularly pay large sums for the right to associate well-known personalities with their products.
That is why it makes a big difference whether an image merely shows an example of available content or whether it creates the impression that the person pictured stands for the product itself.
This is exactly the line where the two positions collide.
Samsung is essentially saying: we are showing what plays on the TV.
Dua Lipa's side is saying: you are selling TVs with her face on the box.
The court must now first decide whether the lawsuit can proceed in this form at all. Samsung is seeking its complete dismissal. This by no means decides which side will ultimately prevail.
A warning sign for companies, agencies and content partners
Regardless of the outcome, the case offers an important practical lesson. When using photos of well-known people, it is not enough to clarify whether an image may be used in principle. What also matters is for what purpose, where, for how long and in what commercial context that permission applies.
Being allowed to use a photo for a streaming service does not automatically mean that the same image may also be used on retail packaging. Especially in international campaigns involving several companies, such boundaries can quickly become difficult to keep track of.
And simply relying on a business partner to have cleared all the necessary rights can be risky for companies. At the same time, Samsung's account shows why clear written agreements with content partners are so important.
Recht 24/7 commentary: a face is not free packaging design
The case has a genuinely explosive dimension. Samsung makes a plausible argument that Dua Lipa was not presented as a classic brand ambassador, but merely as an example of available content. Nevertheless, one crucial point remains: a photo on retail packaging is, after all, right in the middle of the commercial sphere.
Anyone who sees a TV box in an electronics store is not looking at a neutral program guide. The packaging is meant to attract attention, explain features and ultimately sell a product. When a global star's face appears on it, the claim that this face plays no role whatsoever in the marketing is, at the very least, open to debate.
On the other hand, it would also be problematic to automatically treat every depiction of celebrity content as the celebrity's personal endorsement of the device in question. Otherwise, manufacturers could hardly show realistically which films, music videos or streaming offerings are available on their devices.
That is exactly why the case is so interesting: not every celebrity photo is automatically advertising. But not every image becomes a neutral depiction of content just because a user interface can be seen next to it.
15 million dollars is a bold statement. The more exciting question, however, is a more fundamental one: how much commercial benefit may a company derive from a famous face before “showing content” suddenly becomes “selling with a star”?
Do you want to protect your copyrights? Get comprehensive advice and secure your claims legally!
to the lawyerAt a fixed price of 169 EURO (gross)
