Samsung denies Dua Lipa’s claim of using her photo without permission

Samsung denied Dua Lipa’s lawsuit alleging unauthorized use of her image on TV packaging, saying a content partner assured all permissions were secured. Lipa seeks $15 million damages over alleged copyright, trademark, and publicity rights violations tied to a 2024 backstage festival photograph 

Seoul: Samsung on Tuesday denied claims by British pop singer Dua Lipa that the South Korean tech giant used her image on television packaging without permission, saying the image was used with authorisation obtained through a content partner.

Lipa’s legal team filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Central California last week seeking more than $15 million in damages, accusing Samsung of violating copyright, trademark and publicity rights laws.

---

Samsung Electronics rejected the allegations of “intentional misuse” of Lipa’s image, reports Yonhap news agency.

“Ms. Lipa’s image was used in 2025 to reflect the content of our third-party partners that is available on Samsung TVs and was originally provided by a content partner for our free streaming service, Samsung TV Plus,” Samsung said in a statement. “The image was used only after receiving explicit assurance from the content partner that permission had been secured, including for the retail boxes,” it added.

Samsung said it has “great respect” for Lipa and the intellectual property rights of other artists, and pledged to continue negotiations with the pop star.

“We have actively sought and remain open to a constructive resolution with Ms. Lipa’s team,” the company said. According to the lawsuit, Lipa’s legal team argued that Samsung used a photograph taken backstage at a music festival in Austin in 2024 without permission on the packaging of televisions sold in the United States last year.

After Lipa raised the issue in July 2025, Samsung said it suspended production of the packaging, replaced it with a different version and entered mediation proceedings, but Lipa’s team ultimately proceeded with the lawsuit. The complaint alleged a copyright violation, a violation of the California right of publicity statute, a federal Lanham Act claim, and trademark claims.