Dua Lipa Sues Samsung for $15 Million After Company Used Her Photo on TV Boxes Without Permission or Payment

Dua Lipa filed a lawsuit Friday in the US District Court for the Central District of California, according to complaints obtained by Rolling Stone and ABC News. She's seeking at least $15 million in damages.

The image is specific: a backstage photo from her October 2024 Austin City Limits Festival performance. Lipa owns the copyright outright, according to the filing.

Samsung reportedly used the photo on boxes for TVs featuring its Samsung TV Plus platform, where it appears Lipa's image was used to promote the Xite Hits channel. Someone made a deliberate editorial choice to put her face on a product Samsung was actively selling across the United States.

She Found Out in June 2025. Samsung Kept Selling.

Lipa says she learned her face was on Samsung boxes in June 2025, according to the BBC. She immediately sent cease-and-desist demands.

Samsung's response, per the lawsuit: basically nothing. The filing describes Samsung's reaction as "dismissive and callous." The boxes kept shipping. The TVs kept selling. As of the filing date, the products were still on the market, according to Ars Technica.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and misappropriation of likeness — three separate legal theories, each carrying its own damages exposure.

The Third-Party Defense Samsung Is Running

Samsung isn't just stonewalling.

The BBC is the only outlet that prominently reported Samsung's actual defense. Samsung told the BBC that the image "was provided by a third party and used only after receiving explicit assurance from the content partner that permission had been secured."

Samsung is pointing the finger at a content partner — presumably whoever supplied imagery for the Xite Hits or Samsung TV Plus promotional materials. If true, Samsung may have been deceived by a vendor. That doesn't automatically get Samsung off the hook legally — companies are generally responsible for what goes on their packaging — but it's a relevant fact that outlets like Ars Technica, The Hill, and ABC News either left out entirely or mentioned only in passing.

Who is that third-party content partner? None of the sources name them.

Why $15 Million?

Lipa's legal team is arguing the image contributed to Samsung TV sales in a measurable way. The lawsuit cites actual consumer comments as evidence. According to Ars Technica, one X user reportedly wrote: "I wasn't even planning on buying a tv but I saw the box so I decided to get it." Another said they'd "get that tv just because Dua is on it." A third noted that if you need anything selling, "just put a picture of Dua Lipa on it."

Courts have accepted consumer testimony to establish that a celebrity's likeness has commercial value. And Samsung TVs are not cheap — the company moves billions in annual electronics revenue in the US alone. Even a fractional attribution of sales to packaging could add up quickly.

The lawsuit demands Samsung's profits from the infringing products, statutory damages, punitive damages, and a permanent injunction — meaning a court order that Samsung and all its affiliates can never use the image again. Rolling Stone confirmed the punitive damages request.

Who Is Dua Lipa, Commercially Speaking?

Lipa's legal team, cited by ABC News, specifically noted she is "highly selective in her commercial partnerships" and has built her brand through "carefully curated, high-end sponsorships and endorsements." Her confirmed brand partners include Porsche, Apple, Chanel, and Tiffany & Co., according to Rolling Stone.

Samsung is not in that tier. Lipa's team argues she would never have agreed to a Samsung TV box deal — and the unauthorized use didn't just deprive her of money, it potentially associated her with a brand she hadn't vetted or approved.

What the Coverage Gets Wrong

Most outlets are framing this as a celebrity vs. corporation story and leaving it there.

Samsung's third-party defense, if substantiated, shifts the legal and moral picture significantly. The actual infringer might be a content licensing vendor nobody's named yet. Samsung may be a secondary wrongdoer here — still liable under US intellectual property law, but not the originating bad actor.

The fact that boxes were still on shelves after Lipa's lawyers sent cease-and-desist letters is also underreported. That transforms this from negligence into what the lawsuit calls "willful infringement" — and willful infringement opens the door to much higher statutory damages.

The Case

A multinational corporation used a woman's face to sell products without asking, without paying, and without stopping when she told them to stop. That's a property rights case. You don't get to use someone's image to make money — whether you're Samsung or a corner store.

If Samsung's third-party vendor lied to them about having permission, Samsung still owns the problem legally. They put it on their box. They sold it. They get sued.

The trial will determine damages. But the basic principle is straightforward: it's her face, and you don't get it for free.