What legal actions have celebrities pursued against companies using their likenesses without permission?

1. Historic wins and the legal doctrine they rely on

High‑profile victories trace to courts recognizing a celebrity’s exclusive commercial interest in identity—Bette Midler’s successful claim that Ford misappropriated her singing voice and Vanna White’s case that protected an evoked persona illustrate that the common‑law right of publicity can reach beyond literal name or photograph to protect “identifying traits” used for commercial gain ^{[1] [5]}. Those decisions established that unauthorized commercial exploitation—whether through a sound‑alike singer or an evocative robot—can be actionable and lead to monetary awards and injunctive relief ^{[1] [5]}.

2. Typical legal claims and the remedies celebrities seek

Celebrities commonly plead state right‑of‑publicity statutes and claims of false endorsement under advertising laws or the Lanham Act, seeking takedowns, injunctions, statutory or actual damages, attorneys’ fees and disgorgement of profits; Kim Kardashian West’s $2.7 million default judgment against an online retailer is an example of a damages award calculated from unauthorized social posts and tagging that allegedly misled consumers ^[2]. Plaintiffs also press trademark and copyright claims when a company’s use implicates protected marks or reproduces creative work without a license ^{[6] [7]}.

3. The video‑game and AI era: new battlegrounds, new tests

Litigation against videogame makers and AI firms shows the doctrinal friction: celebrities like Lindsay Lohan and others sued over in‑game characters that allegedly mirrored their likenesses, prompting courts to apply a “transformative use” test that weighs expressive value against commercial appropriation ^[3]. As generative AI produces synthetic images, voices, and ads, influencers and celebrities report models trained on their online photos and cases now mix right‑of‑publicity, copyright, and privacy claims—raising novel questions about training data, consent and remedies ^[8].

4. Social media, look‑alikes and third‑party images complicate enforcement

Online tagging, influencer reposts and look‑alike campaigns produce a steady stream of disputes: stars sue fast‑fashion brands for tagging and implied endorsements, while photographers sometimes sue celebrities for reposting unlicensed images of themselves—highlighting that celebrity plaintiffs and third‑party copyright holders can both have overlapping claims and defenses ^{[2] [7]}. Look‑alike defenses and competing creators (for example, drag performers alleging copycat designs) add factual complexity and public‑relations friction to these suits ^[9].

5. Defenses, limits and the role of free speech

Defendants rely on First Amendment protections, the transformative‑use doctrine, lack of commercial exploitation, or statutory exceptions for news/commentary to defeat publicity claims; courts and commentators emphasize that the outcome often turns on whether the use is primarily expressive or purely commercial ^{[3] [10]}. Geography and statute matter: some jurisdictions limit publicity claims or treat post‑mortem rights differently, so celebrities’ ability to sue varies by state and by the exact legal theory invoked ^{[4] [11]}.

6. Practical takeaways and unresolved fault lines

Celebrities pursue a toolbox of remedies—cease‑and‑desist letters, takedown notices, trademark claims, copyright actions and high‑stakes litigation—to police unauthorized commercial uses, and courts have rewarded these strategies in clear cases of consumer confusion or blatant appropriation ^{[2] [1]}. Yet rapid technological change (AI deepfakes, realistic in‑game avatars) and inconsistent state law mean many disputes remain unsettled; available reporting documents trends and examples but cannot fully predict how courts will resolve emerging conflicts between publicity rights and expressive uses ^{[8] [3]}.