Dua Lipa v Samsung: Lessons for Australian businesses on celebrity image rights

In May 2026, British pop artist Dua Lipa filed a USD$15 million lawsuit against Samsung Electronics in California, alleging the company used her photograph on television packaging without consent or compensation.

Samsung claims the image was supplied by a content partner, who assured them that all necessary rights had been obtained.

The case also raises a broader question: how would similar conduct be assessed under Australian law?

Why this matters in Australia

Australian businesses face similar legal risk when using celebrity images.

Under the Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2, Competition and Consumer Act 2010) (ACL), businesses must not engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead (section 18). This includes creating a false impression of celebrity endorsement.

Additionally, the tort of passing off protects against unauthorised use of a person’s reputation to suggest a commercial connection.

Unlike California’s statutory right of publicity, Australia lacks standalone image-rights legislation. However, the combination of ACL provisions, passing off, copyright law and trade mark law provides overlapping protection for individuals whose likeness is commercially exploited.

Key takeaways for Australian businesses

For Australian businesses, the key risk is how an image will be perceived. If it suggests a celebrity endorsement or commercial connection that does not exist, this can give rise to liability. Key considerations include:

• Do not rely on third-party clearances alone.
  Samsung’s defence — that a content partner assured them rights were secured — would offer limited comfort under the ACL’s strict liability framework. Businesses should verify licences directly with talent representatives. It is also important to document your clearance chain by maintaining written endorsement agreements, talent release forms, and image licences specifying permitted uses, territories and duration.
• Packaging is promotional conduct.
  Placing a recognisable face on retail packaging is likely to suggest endorsement in the eyes of consumers, attracting liability under section 18 (misleading or deceptive conduct) and section 29 (false or misleading representations) of the ACL.
• Remedies can be significant.
  Regulatory and commercial exposure can be substantial. The ACCC can pursue penalties, injunctions and corrective advertising orders. In addition, affected parties may claim damages for reputational harm.

Australian companies using celebrity imagery should ensure robust, documented clearance processes to avoid costly disputes and reputational damage.

If you would like advice on managing image rights or structuring endorsement arrangements, please reach out to Macpherson Kelley’s IP team.

The information contained in this article is general in nature and cannot be relied on as legal advice nor does it create an engagement. Please contact one of our lawyers listed above for advice about your specific situation.