Dua Lipa is filing a $15 million lawsuit against Samsung regarding the use of her photo on the packaging of Crystal UHD TVs.

      The complaint states that a photograph taken backstage at the 2024 Austin City Limits Festival was used on packaging for Crystal UHD televisions by Samsung in stores and online worldwide, despite the company ignoring her cease-and-desist requests. Dua Lipa initiated a federal lawsuit against Samsung Electronics on Friday, seeking $15 million. She accuses the company of utilizing a 2024 image of her on the Crystal UHD television packaging since 2025, without her consent or any arrangement to compensate her for its use.

      The complaint describes the photograph as a close-up of the singer captured at the festival, recognizable to millions of fans who consider her one of the most photographed pop stars of the decade. Samsung reportedly started distributing the image on packaging for its Crystal UHD televisions in 2025 and continues to do so. The lawsuit was filed in the Central District of California.

      Lipa's legal team is pursuing damages on three grounds: copyright infringement, as Samsung did not acquire a license for the image; trademark infringement, claiming her name and likeness serve as marks under California law; and violation of her right of publicity, which protects an individual's control over their image. The right-of-publicity claim is central to the case.

      Under California law, specifically Civil Code Section 3344, the minimum statutory damages for unauthorized use are $750 per instance, with the possibility of additional actual and punitive damages. When multiplied across the global production of TVs, this explains the $15 million figure.

      The complaint outlines Samsung's actions in clear terms. Lipa became aware of the image on the packaging in June 2025, and her team sent cease-and-desist notices, which Samsung allegedly ignored. The infringing boxes, according to the filing, "remain on the market to this day," with Samsung's response described as "dismissive and callous." A social media comment included in the filing underscores the commercial implications of the alleged infringement, stating: “I wasn’t even planning on buying a TV, but I saw the box, so I decided to get it.”

      The facts of the case present a straightforward situation. Samsung will need to prove it had permission to use the image, that the usage qualifies as fair use or falls under news-reporting exceptions (which is difficult for product packaging), or that the image does not specifically identify Lipa enough to invoke publicity-rights protections. None of these defenses appear readily available based on the complaint's details. The photo is a recognizable backstage portrait of a known individual, and the use is clearly commercial, with the packaging found in retail stores and online globally.

      Samsung has not yet publicly commented. The company has experience with significant intellectual property litigation, notably its long-standing legal battles with Apple over smartphone designs, which resulted in one of tech history’s largest jury rulings. Its marketing team has also faced challenges in the past, such as the fine print disclaimers in its Galaxy Z Flip Oscars ad. This current case is simpler than those, focusing on whether the company used a celebrity's image without permission. Based on the evidence in the complaint, it appears that it did.

      This case arises at a time when the issue of who controls a recognizable likeness is increasingly contested. The decline of celebrity likeness protections in the AI era has shifted the conversation, as synthetic representations of famous voices and images are now commonly utilized. Lipa’s lawsuit serves as a reminder that the traditional issue of a real photograph being used without consent persists alongside newer concerns regarding synthetic likenesses.

      Both scenarios rest on the same legal principle: that individuals own commercial rights to their own images. They also highlight the discrepancy between how quickly technology evolves and how slowly licensing practices have adapted.

      For Samsung, the immediate risk is reputational as much as financial. Although $15 million is a relatively minor sum for a company that reported over $33 billion in operating profit last year, the settlement in cases like this typically aligns with the licensing fee Lipa would have charged initially, plus a premium for prior use and litigation costs; thus, the figure mentioned in the complaint serves as a negotiation ceiling rather than an expected outcome.

      The more challenging aspect for Samsung will be addressing the perception of negligence. A corporation that distributes Crystal UHD TVs in over seventy countries and presents at CES cannot easily explain how a famous pop artist's photo appears on its packaging without a license. Lipa's characterization of Samsung as dismissive and callous may resonate with consumers who have experienced similar dismissals from large corporations.

      Moreover, Lipa, with the resources to pursue litigation, exemplifies a scenario many individuals whose images are used without consent encounter, lacking the support of an entertainment-law firm or the time required to navigate a federal case. Should this lawsuit lead to a favorable settlement or verdict, it could set a precedent regarding the permissions that consumer electronics companies should secure for prominent images on packaging.

      Samsung's promotional strategies have frequently engaged with cultural moments; this lawsuit reveals the potential costs when shortcuts are taken. The next steps in the legal process are procedural. Samsung will have