Samsung rejects Dua Lipa's allegations and says the photograph on TV boxes came from a content partner
Samsung Electronics has rejected claims that it deliberately used a photograph of British pop star Dua Lipa without authorization on television packaging, after the singer filed proceedings in federal court in California seeking at least 15 million dollars in damages. According to the complaint filed on May 8, 2026 before the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the disputed photograph showed the singer backstage at the Austin City Limits festival in 2024 and then, according to the allegations in the complaint, appeared on the front side of cardboard boxes for Samsung televisions sold in the United States. Samsung, however, says it did not use the photograph with the intention of infringing her rights, but that the image was part of materials supplied by a content partner connected with the Samsung TV Plus service.
In a statement reported by Music Business Worldwide, Samsung said that Dua Lipa's photograph was used in 2025 to display third-party partner content available on Samsung televisions and that it was originally supplied by a content partner for the free streaming service Samsung TV Plus. The company says the image was used only after it received an explicit assurance from that partner that the required permissions had been secured, including permission for use on retail boxes. Samsung therefore rejected claims of intentional misuse, but it did not publicly name the partner that allegedly supplied the photograph.
What is alleged in the complaint
According to Dua Lipa's complaint, the subject of the dispute is a photograph titled “Dua Lipa - Backstage at Austin City Limits, 2024”, which the court filing says is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under number VA 2-479-685. The complaint claims that the singer owns the copyright to that photograph and that Samsung had no license, authorization or consent to use it in a commercial context. Her lawyers state that the photograph was prominently displayed on television packaging, which, in their view, could have created the impression that Dua Lipa endorsed or advertised Samsung's products.
The lawsuit is directed against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and the filing lists claims related to copyright infringement, alleged violation of the right of publicity, alleged false impression of product endorsement and trademark-related claims. According to the court document, the singer seeks an injunction against further use of the photograph and damages which, according to the demand in the complaint, should not be less than 15 million dollars. The court proceedings are at an early stage, and the allegations in the complaint currently represent the plaintiff's claims that the court has yet to consider.
The complaint also claims that Dua Lipa learned of the disputed use of the photograph around June 2025 and that she then asked Samsung to stop using her likeness and photograph. Her side states that the requests to stop using them were ignored or rejected and that products with such packaging continued to be sold. Samsung, on the other hand, now says that it acted on the basis of third-party assurances and that it did not intentionally misuse the photograph.
Samsung: the photograph was connected with Samsung TV Plus
Samsung's defense, according to a publicly available statement reported by specialized music and technology media, is based on the claim that the photograph was not intended as an unauthorized commercial endorsement of a product, but as a display of content available through partner channels on Samsung televisions. The company states that the photograph came through a content partner for Samsung TV Plus, a service that Samsung describes as a free platform for watching television channels, films and on-demand shows. On the official Samsung TV Plus pages, the service is described as offering users hundreds of channels and thousands of titles at no additional charge.
Such an explanation is important for the further course of the dispute because it raises the issue of responsibility in the supply chain of promotional material. If the photograph was indeed supplied by an outside partner, one of the key elements of the proceedings could be the content of the contracts and assurances between Samsung and that partner, as well as the question of whether Samsung could reasonably believe that the rights had been properly cleared. At the same time, Dua Lipa's complaint emphasizes that the photograph did not appear only within a digital interface or as part of programming content, but on the physical packaging of televisions in retail, which her side interprets as clear commercial use for the purpose of selling devices.
According to available information, Samsung has not disclosed the name of the content partner nor has it publicly released documentation that would confirm the scope of the alleged permission. According to the Music Business Worldwide report, the company said that it respects Dua Lipa and is open to a constructive resolution. Such wording points to the possibility of negotiations, but it does not mean an admission of liability. In practice, similar disputes are often resolved by settlement, but at present it has not been officially confirmed that the parties are moving closer to an agreement.
Why packaging is important in the legal dispute
The central question is not only whether the photograph is protected by copyright, but also in what context it was used. According to the complaint, the photograph was visible on television boxes, that is, on sales material that accompanies the product itself. Such use, Dua Lipa's side claims, is not a neutral display of content, but an element of the product's marketing presentation. If a consumer sees a famous person on packaging, especially a globally recognizable musician, the question may arise whether such a display suggests some kind of endorsement, cooperation or sponsorship.
In U.S. law, the dispute is therefore not limited only to the copyright in the photograph. The complaint also invokes the right of publicity, that is, the right of an individual to control the commercial use of their name, likeness and identity. In California, where the complaint was filed, the right of publicity is particularly important in the entertainment, advertising and sports industries, because it protects the commercial value of a public figure from unauthorized exploitation. The court filing also cites California Civil Code § 3344, which concerns the use of a person's name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness for commercial purposes without consent.
In addition, the complaint invokes the Lanham Act, a U.S. federal statute that is used, among other things, in cases of alleged false endorsement of products or creating confusion about a person's connection with a product or service. Dua Lipa's side claims that the display of the photograph on the box could have sent consumers the message that the singer endorsed or supported Samsung televisions. Samsung disputes this by claiming that it believed the rights to use the photograph had been properly secured through the partner.
The value of celebrities' likenesses in commercial campaigns
In the complaint, Dua Lipa emphasizes that her likeness is part of a carefully built professional brand. The court filing states that in recent years she has worked with a range of major fashion, luxury and consumer brands, including Puma, Versace, Yves Saint Laurent, Porsche, Chanel, Tiffany & Co., Bvlgari and Nespresso. These allegations in the complaint serve to explain the commercial value of her name and likeness and the potential damage that, according to her claims, may be caused by unauthorized appearance on a product with which she did not agree to be associated.
Such arguments in celebrity disputes often have two dimensions. The first is financial: the person claims that they could otherwise have charged a license or fee for such use. The second is reputational: the public figure claims the right to decide which products, industries and campaigns they will be associated with. The complaint states that Dua Lipa would not have agreed to such use of the photograph in connection with the sale of the disputed televisions. If the proceedings reach the evidentiary stage, the court will have to assess not only the facts regarding the use of the image, but also the scope of possible damage and any benefit the defendants gained from selling products with such packaging.
Samsung's position will be focused on the question of intent, rights clearance and reliance on a third party. The company says that it did not knowingly exploit the photograph without permission, but that it received an explicit assurance that the rights had been cleared. In legal terms, such a defense does not necessarily have to remove all possible liability if it is established that the rights were not validly secured, but it may be important for the discussion about intent, the amount of damages and any additional claims.
The dispute still does not mean established liability
It is important to emphasize that filing a lawsuit does not mean that the court has established Samsung's liability. Justia Dockets, which tracks data on U.S. court cases, states that this is the case Lipa v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al., number 2:26-cv-05019, filed on May 8, 2026 as a copyright case. At this stage, the allegations from the complaint and Samsung's statement rejecting intentional misuse are publicly available. The further course of the proceedings will depend on the parties' filings, possible motions to dismiss the complaint, evidence on licensing of the photograph and possible settlement negotiations.
If the proceedings continue, it is possible that particular attention will be paid to who exactly supplied the photograph, what assurances were given to Samsung, whether they covered use on physical packaging and whether there was valid consent for the commercial use of the photograph in retail. It could also be important whether the photograph was registered before the disputed use and what the scope of distribution of the boxes on the U.S. market was. The complaint claims that the televisions were sold throughout the United States, including California, but Samsung currently publicly disputes those allegations in the part relating to intentional misuse.
The dispute comes at a time when television manufacturers increasingly highlight their own streaming platforms and partner content as part of the sales value of their devices. Samsung TV Plus, according to the company's official information, is a free service built into Samsung devices and offers television channels, films, shows and other content without a separate subscription. Precisely for that reason, the boundary between displaying content available on the device and using someone's likeness to sell the device itself may become one of the key questions in this case.
Broader significance for technology and media companies
The case shows how complex rights clearance can be when a technology product, a streaming service and retail marketing come together in one campaign. In the digital environment, photographs, footage from shows, promotional materials and images of performers often pass through multiple intermediaries before ending up in an app interface, an advertisement or on product packaging. If the material is then moved from one context to another, for example from a display of available content to physical retail packaging, the issue of the scope of permission becomes particularly sensitive.
For public figures and their representatives, such a dispute confirms the importance of control over licensing of likenesses, especially when global brands and products sold in large quantities are involved. For companies, the case is a reminder that partner assurances can be important, but that they do not remove the need for clear documentation about where, how and for how long a particular photograph may be used. The use of a recognizable face on packaging is especially sensitive, because consumers may perceive such a display differently from a brief appearance within programming content.
Samsung for now insists that there was no intentional misuse and that it acted on the basis of the belief that the necessary rights had been secured. Dua Lipa, according to the complaint, claims the opposite: that the photograph should not have been used without her consent and that such use impaired her ability to control her own likeness and brand. Since the court has yet to consider the arguments of both sides, the final answer on liability, possible damages and further use of the photograph will depend on the development of the proceedings in California.
Sources:
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of California / complaint Dua Lipa v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. – court filing with the plaintiff's allegations, description of the disputed photograph, legal claims and requested damages (link)
- Music Business Worldwide – Samsung's statement about the content partner, Samsung TV Plus and rejection of claims of intentional misuse of the photograph (link)
- Justia Dockets & Filings – basic information on the case Lipa v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al., number 2:26-cv-05019 (link)
- Samsung TV Plus / official pages – description of Samsung's free streaming service and available content (link)
RECOMMENDED ACCOMMODATION