What legal remedies have celebrities used successfully to stop misuse of their likeness in scams?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Celebrities have repeatedly used state-based rights of publicity, trademark claims, copyright and common-law privacy to block or punish commercial misuses of their likeness, winning injunctions, large damages and default judgments in notable cases such as Bette Midler v. Ford and Kim Kardashian West v. Missguided [1][2]. Those remedies are powerful but qualified: courts balance publicity rights against First Amendment protections for expressive works and artists, and new AI-era deepfakes and platform-scale copying are pushing litigants and legislators into untested territory [3][4][5].
1. The legal toolbox celebrities invoke: right of publicity, trademark, copyright and privacy
The principal weapon is the state law “right of publicity,” which lets a person control the commercial exploitation of name, voice, image and other identifying traits and is recognized unevenly across jurisdictions and sometimes post-mortem [1][6]. Celebrities also bring trademark claims when a use falsely suggests endorsement or sponsorship, copyright claims when others reproduce protected photos or performances, and common-law privacy or unfair competition claims as complementary theories [2][7][8].
2. What courts and plaintiffs actually seek and obtain: injunctions, settlement, statutory and common-law damages
Remedies include preliminary and permanent injunctions to stop ongoing campaigns, statutory or compensatory damages where laws provide them, and settlement payouts or default judgments when defendants don’t contest suits—Kim Kardashian obtained a $2.7 million default judgment in a California federal case after alleged pervasive tagging and linking to sales [2]. Bette Midler’s suit produced a substantial damages award against Ford after the court treated imitation of her distinctive singing voice as misappropriation [1].
3. Landmark suits that define the contours: Midler, White v. Samsung and celebrity endorsement claims
In Midler’s suit the court ruled that a singer’s voice can be a protectable element of publicity rights and awarded damages after an ad used a soundalike [1]. White v. Samsung and related Ninth Circuit decisions established that identity can be appropriated without literal name or photo if the overall depiction evokes the celebrity and the commercial purpose is clear [9]. These cases show courts will block indirect evocations meant to trade on celebrity economic value [9].
4. The constitutional and artistic limits: transformative use and the First Amendment defense
Courts have repeatedly carved out an expressive-work exception: works deemed “transformative” are often protected by the First Amendment and may trump publicity claims when the celebrity’s likeness is raw material for the artist’s own expression rather than mere commercial exploitation [3][4]. That defense leaves a gray line—pure reproductions used for sales are vulnerable, while commentary, parody or genuinely altered art can prevail [3][4].
5. The AI-era challenge and new legislative responses
Generative AI and deepfakes have multiplied unauthorized digital replicas of voices and faces, prompting litigation and legislative proposals to impose statutory liability or fixed damages for unauthorized digital replicas of deceased or living performers; industry reports and law firms cite examples such as viral Tom Cruise deepfakes and cease‑and‑desist letters sent in the Scarlett Johansson context [5][10]. High‑value verdicts for NIL (name, image, likeness) claims—such as recent multi‑million-dollar awards referenced in practitioner alerts—signal courts can deliver large remedies but also that statutes and courts are scrambling to update old doctrines to new tech [11][10].
6. Practical playbook that has proven successful in practice
Celebrities often follow a predictable ladder: prompt takedown notices to platforms, cease‑and‑desist letters to sellers, pre‑suit demands and—when misuses persist—federal or state lawsuits seeking injunctions and damages; many disputes end in out‑of‑court settlements but default judgments and large awards occur when defendants ignore suits, as in the Kardashian default judgment [2][12][13]. Counsel increasingly combine state publicity claims with trademark and copyright theories to maximize leverage and to fit the facts to a forum likely to be favorable [7][8].
7. Bottom line: effective but imperfect—law, facts and forums matter
The law gives celebrities strong, proven remedies to stop commercial scams that trade on their fame—courts will enjoin and award damages when commercial exploitation is clear, and prominent cases demonstrate real financial and injunctive relief [1][2][9]. However, defenses grounded in expressive‑work doctrine, jurisdictional differences among states, the evolving role of copyright in photos, and the explosive scale of AI‑generated misuse mean victories are fact‑specific and increasingly contested [3][4][5].