No permission, no endorsements: lessons from Dua Lipa v Samsung for celebrities and brands in England and Wales

When Dua Lipa discovered that Samsung had placed her face on the packaging of its televisions without her permission or without any endorsement deal, she filed a lawsuit in the United States, seeking $15 million in damages. 

The case raises an important question for celebrities and brands operating in England and Wales: could the same thing happen here, and what protection does English law actually offer? 

What happened?

Samsung is alleged to have begun using a photograph of Ms Lipa's face, taken backstage at the Austin City Limits Festival in 2024, on marketing materials and product packaging in 2025.

Samsung is said to have relied on assurances from a third-party content provider that the rights to use the photograph had been properly cleared. The lawsuit in California will test whether that reliance was reasonable, and the answer is likely to be instructive for brands more broadly. 

What gives the case its particular force is the social media evidence cited in the complaint, providing direct evidence that consumers believed Ms Lipa had endorsed the product. Fans commented online indicating that Ms Lipa's image had directly influenced their purchasing decisions, with some fans apparently referring to it as the 'Dua Lipa TV Box'. 

What is Dua Lipa claiming, and why does it matter in England and Wales?

In California, Ms Lipa has claimed a violation of her right of publicity and false endorsement. The right of publicity is a statutory right which is available across roughly 35 US states, which gives individuals direct control over the commercial use of their name, image and likeness. 

There is no freestanding image right under English law. A celebrity whose likeness is used without permission cannot point to a single statute and say that it has been infringed. They must instead piece together a case from other causes of action, which we explore below, each with its own hurdles. 

What routes are available under English law?

Passing off

The most frequently used route is passing off, a common law tort which protects against a false impression of endorsement. Famously, Rihanna was successful in her passing off claim in 2013 against Topshop using her image on a t-shirt without her permission.

To succeed, the claimant must establish that they have goodwill and reputation, that the defendant's use of their image has created a misleading impression of endorsement and that this has caused or is likely to cause damage. 

On the facts of the Lipa case, a passing off claim would be well-founded:

• She has a strong reputation and is well-known in the UK;
• The use of her photograph on television packaging implies an endorsement that did not exist.
• The fan comments are compelling evidence of exactly the kind of confusion that passing off is designed to address; and
• Damage in the form of lost endorsement fees and potential brand dilution would not be difficult to establish.

The key difference compared to the US right of publicity is that passing off is inherently more contingent as success depends on the court's assessment of whether enough consumers would have been misled, rather than being able to rely on a statutory shortcut.

Copyright infringement

Where an individual owns the copyright in the photograph used, as Ms Lipa appears to, copyright infringement is another direct claim available in the UK.

As a starting point, copyright in a photograph belongs to the person who took it. Where it has been assigned to or is owned by the subject, as is seemingly the case here, reproducing it without permission is an infringement, and that is true whether the campaign runs in the UK or the US. 

Copyright protection in the UK arises automatically when a work is created. There is no registration requirement, which means Ms Lipa would be in a position to bring a claim from the moment Samsung used the photograph without a licence. The simplicity of this claim, on these facts, is significant: even if a court were to find that passing off failed on the question of consumer confusion, the copyright claim would still stand independently.

Misuse of personal data

As a supplemental cause of action, the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 can provide protection against the misuse of personal data, which covers any information relating to an identified or identifiable person and includes photographs. Under the UK GDPR, individuals have the right to control the processing of their personal data, which would include photographs. 

Arguably, by featuring a photograph of her face without permission, Samsung have failed to inform Ms Lipa about the use of her personal data. 

Misuse of private information

Individuals can also seek to rely on misuse of private information, a common law tort which protects an individual's right to control the dissemination of information about their private life. The court must first find that the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the relevant circumstances, before weighing that against the defendant's right to freedom of expression.

On the specific facts of this case, that first hurdle is likely to prove too high. The photograph was taken backstage at the Austin City Limits Festival, a major commercial music event. Whilst a backstage area may feel removed from the public eye, it is unlikely that a court would treat it as a genuinely private setting for these purposes. Without that foundation, the claim cannot proceed.

What about the rights belonging to the photographer?

Even where copyright has been assigned, photographers retain personal moral rights that stay with them and cannot be transferred. These are easy to overlook in commercial transactions, but they can give rise to independent claims.

The most practically significant for brands is the paternity right - where a photographer has formally asserted their right to be credited as the author of their work, publishing it commercially without that credit is an infringement, regardless of whether a copyright licence is otherwise in place.

For brands, the practical point is straightforward - a copyright licence from a photographer does not resolve the moral rights position. Image agreements should address moral rights expressly, and should include a waiver from the photographer where that has been agreed.

So, what can celebrities do proactively?

The above are legal routes that a celebrity can bring after the damage has been done. The question for any public figure with significant commercial value attached to their identity is whether there is a more proactive way to protect it.

A registered trade mark gives its owner an enforceable commercial right that does not depend on establishing goodwill, proving consumer confusion or demonstrating damage each time an infringement occurs. It also provides a clear legal basis for licensing, giving celebrities greater commercial control over how their identity is used.

Cole Palmer is the most striking recent example of how far this can go. Palmer has secured UK trade mark for his nickname 'Cold Palmer', his signature, a photographic portrait of his face, and even his iconic celebration. The registrations cover a range of goods and services across which he has or intends to develop a commercial presence, from sportswear to entertainment. 

The key point for celebrities considering this route is that a trade mark can only be registered in relation to goods and services in which the applicant has a genuine commercial interest. For a musician like Ms Lipa, this means the classes that reflect her actual activities: music, entertainment, touring, merchandise, clothing and fragrance. A trade mark cannot simply be registered speculatively across unrelated product categories. In the UK, a registered portfolio is a considerably more reliable foundation than simply relying on passing off - and one that grows in value as it is actively used and licensed.