Dua Lipa has answered Samsung’s bid to throw out her lawsuit over a photo of her printed on Samsung TV boxes, telling a federal judge in California that the case is “straightforward” and that Samsung’s reading of English and California publicity law “fails at every step.” She is seeking at least $15 million. Samsung’s reply is due November 13, and the motion is set for a hearing on December 14, 2026.
Her opposition was filed October 16, per Law Commentary, and was also reported that day by Digital Music News. Judge Christina A. Snyder of the US District Court for the Central District of California has not ruled. Nothing has been proven: these are allegations and arguments.
What is the photo, and how did it end up on a box?
Lipa sued on May 8, 2026 (case 2:26-cv-05019). The image, registered with the US Copyright Office and titled “Dua Lipa - Backstage at Austin City Limits, 2024,” appeared inside a rendering of a TV home screen on the cardboard packaging, as the backdrop to a Samsung TV Plus music video channel called XITE HITS, next to icons including ABC News Live, Fox Sports and MLB, per Music Business Worldwide. Her complaint says she learned of it in June 2025, demanded it stop, and got a response it calls “dismissive and callous.”
Samsung’s account is that it was handed the picture. In May it told Digital Music News the image “was originally provided by a content partner for our free streaming service Samsung TV Plus” and was used “only after receiving explicit assurance from the content partner that permission had been secured, including for the retail boxes.” XITE is not a party to the suit.
What does Samsung argue, count by count?
Samsung’s September 10 motion, filed for both Samsung Electronics America and its Korean parent, asks for dismissal of all eight counts, on the grounds below as summarized by Music Business Worldwide and IBTimes UK. It also calls the complaint an impermissible “shotgun” pleading.
| Count | Samsung’s challenge |
|---|---|
| Copyright (direct) | Does not attack the substance; says the complaint does not identify which Samsung entity copied or distributed the photo |
| Copyright (vicarious, Korean parent) | Owning a subsidiary is not the “control” the law requires |
| Lanham Act trademark and false endorsement | A face is not a trademark; a channel tile on a screen implies no endorsement |
| Common law trademark | Same: no trademark in her likeness |
| Contributory trademark | Same: no trademark in her likeness |
| Trademark (vicarious, Korean parent) | No control pleaded |
| California publicity right (statute) | English law governs her, and England has no publicity right |
| California publicity right (common law) | Same choice of law argument |
Lipa’s answer, per the two October 16 reports, is that she licenses her name and likeness selectively through luxury brand deals, so a shopper who knows those deals could read her face on a box as one more paid endorsement. On publicity, her lawyers argue California law governs products sold in California. None of its arguments, they wrote, “excuse Samsung’s theft.”
Why does who owns the photo matter so much?
Samsung’s copyright challenge, as reported, is about which Samsung company did the copying, not about who owns the picture. Lipa can sue for copyright only because her complaint says she owns this picture, which Digital Music News said was reportedly taken by a longtime photographer of hers. Under US law that is not automatic: the Copyright Office says copyright “initially belongs to the author(s) who created that work,” and a transfer “generally must be made in writing.” A star who appears in a photo does not own it by default.
Your face is yours. The photo of your face usually is not, unless someone signed it over.
The other routes are harder. Samsung leans on rulings involving Tiger Woods, Babe Ruth and Bob Marley to argue that a famous face does not work as a brand logo, and on Princess Diana’s estate case to argue a British star cannot borrow California’s publicity law. Whatever the ruling, the lesson for any artist is plain: get the copyright in your tour and backstage photos assigned to you in writing, and know what your content partners are licensing onward. The same pressure runs through the fight over consent for an artist’s voice and likeness, through Taylor Swift registering her own spoken intro as a sound mark, and through Warner’s suits over brands using music on TikTok.
What happens next?
Samsung files its reply by November 13, and the hearing is December 14. If the copyright count survives, the fight turns to the question nobody has answered in public: what that content partner actually had the right to hand over.