What legal remedies do celebrities have when their likeness is deepfaked into health ads?
Executive summary
Celebrities targeted by AI-generated health ads have a suite of legal tools — most prominently state right-of-publicity claims, federal false endorsement claims under the Lanham Act, and traditional torts like defamation or invasion of privacy — but those tools are fragmented, fact-dependent, and often blunt against rapidly proliferating online fakes deepfakes" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[1] [2] [3]. Courts, legislatures, and practitioners are actively debating gaps (including calls for a federal statute such as the No Fakes Act), so remedies exist but their effectiveness varies by forum, location, and the technical difficulty of attribution and removal [4] [5].
1. Right of publicity: the frontline commercial claim
The most direct path for a celebrity used without consent in a paid health ad is a right-of-publicity lawsuit, which bars commercial exploitation of a person’s name, image, and voice and has been used against AI services and apps that paste celebrity likenesses into content [1] [6] [7]. Success turns on state law details — some states provide robust statutory protection while others offer narrower common-law remedies — so plaintiffs’ power depends heavily on where they sue and the particular wording of that state’s statute [5] [4].
2. Lanham Act and false endorsement: a federal backstop when consumers may be confused
When a deepfake ad plausibly suggests the celebrity endorsed or is affiliated with a product, Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act can supply federal relief for false endorsement or false advertising, including injunctive relief and damages, though plaintiffs must show a likelihood of consumer confusion which can be a high bar and disclaimers may blunt the claim [1] [2] [8].
3. Defamation, false light and privacy torts: limited but situational options
If the deepfake communicates a false, reputation-harming assertion or places the celebrity in a deceptively compromising light, defamation or false-light/privacy torts may apply, but these remedies are harder to win for public figures because of the malice or falsity standards and are better suited to reputational harms than pure commercial misappropriation [9] [3].
4. Copyright, derivative-works and contractual controls
When a deepfake is built from copyrighted footage or relies on licensed material, copyright owners (Studios, photographers) may sue for infringement or for unauthorized derivative works, and celebrities can deploy contracts and pre-existing licensing agreements to block or monetize recreations of their performances [7] [10]. Contract clauses and preemptive digital-double agreements are now common defensive tools in entertainment deals [10].
5. Platform takedowns, Section 230 dynamics and practical limits
Even successful legal claims face the practical problem of content multiplication online: takedown requests to platforms, DMCA notices, and civil subpoenas can remove instances, but anonymity, jurisdictional fragmentation, and the ease of reposting mean litigation may only stem rather than stop dissemination [9] [3] [5].
6. Criminal and statutory innovations: an evolving lawmaking response
Some jurisdictions are moving to criminalize certain malicious deepfakes (particularly sexualized ones) and Congress has seen proposals like the No Fakes Act to create a national cause of action for AI replicas; these legislative efforts aim to standardize remedies beyond the patchwork of state publicity laws but remain in development and contested [11] [4] [2].
7. Remedies courts typically grant: injunctions, damages, and equitable relief — but proof and enforcement matter
Courts can issue injunctions ordering removal, disgorgement of profits, statutory or actual damages, and attorney fees in some claims, yet awards depend on proof of commercial use, confusion, or harm and can be difficult to enforce across borders or against anonymous creators and small-platform hosts [1] [8] [9].
8. Strategic playbook for celebrities and their teams
Practically, the fastest response blends immediate public disavowals and platform takedowns with parallel legal filings asserting right-of-publicity and Lanham Act claims, while pursuing contractual and copyright angles and lobbying for stronger statutory protection — a multipronged approach reflected in recent suits and legislative lobbying reported by practitioners and commentators [7] [4] [2].