Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Risks of Using AI-Generated, Implied Celebrity Endorsements in Advertising

Client Alert

Businesses are increasingly using artificial intelligence tools to generate realistic images, videos, and audio depicting celebrities, athletes, influencers, and public figures appearing to endorse products or services. Common examples include AI-generated photos showing celebrities allegedly visiting a restaurant, using a product, receiving professional services, or appearing alongside a business owner. Businesses have also begun using AI-generated voiceovers designed to imitate a celebrity’s voice to make it appear as though the celebrity is narrating, recommending, or endorsing a business or service. While these posts may be intended as humor, marketing, or attention-grabbing content, they can create significant legal and ethical exposure.

Using AI-generated images, videos, or voice simulations to falsely imply a celebrity endorsement may give rise to multiple legal claims, including violations of a celebrity’s right of publicity, false endorsement claims under the Lanham Act, deceptive advertising claims, unfair competition claims, defamation-related allegations, and state consumer protection violations. In many jurisdictions, a person’s name, image, likeness, voice, and persona are commercially protected, particularly when used to promote a business or generate revenue. Even if content is labeled as “AI-generated” or intended as parody, liability risks may still exist depending on how the content is presented and whether consumers could reasonably believe the endorsement is genuine.

These risks increase substantially when the content is used in connection with commercial advertising, paid promotions, websites, social media business pages, sponsored content, or other marketing materials designed to attract customers. Simply put, the more realistic the content appears or sounds, the greater the likelihood that consumers may believe the endorsement is authentic. Businesses should also be aware that social media engagement metrics, comments, reposts, or customer reactions may later be used as evidence that the content caused actual confusion among consumers in any subsequent legal action that may result.

Professional licensing and ethical concerns may also arise for regulated professions. Attorneys, physicians, financial advisors, accountants, and other licensed professionals may face additional scrutiny if AI-generated celebrity endorsements are considered misleading or deceptive advertising under professional conduct rules or industry regulations.

Importantly, disclaimers are not always sufficient to eliminate liability. A small disclaimer stating that content was “AI-generated” may not overcome an otherwise misleading overall impression created by the advertisement. Courts and regulators often evaluate advertising based on the net impression conveyed to consumers rather than isolated disclosures.

As such, businesses and professionals should avoid using AI-generated content that falsely implies:

  • A celebrity or public figure is a customer or client;
  • A celebrity personally visited the business;
  • A celebrity endorses or recommends the business;
  • A celebrity used the business’s products or services;
  • A celebrity narrated or voiced an advertisement for the business; or
  • A relationship, affiliation, sponsorship, or partnership exists when none actually exists.

As AI-generated marketing content becomes increasingly realistic and widespread, businesses should treat synthetic celebrity endorsements and voice simulations with the same level of legal caution as traditional false advertising or unauthorized commercial endorsements. Before posting AI-generated advertising content involving recognizable individuals, businesses should consult legal counsel regarding advertising compliance, intellectual property issues, right of publicity concerns, voice imitation risks, and applicable consumer protection laws.

For questions regarding AI-generated advertising, false endorsement risks, or compliance with applicable advertising and consumer protection laws, contact Attorney Jeff Joseph at jajoseph@bmdllc.com.


A Shift in Coverage: HHS Reinterprets “Federal Public Benefit” Under PRWORA

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rescinded a 1998 interpretation of “federal public benefit” used in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) on July 10, 2025. This notice removes "outdating exclusions" and includes additional programs under “federal public benefit."

Supreme Court Upholds Coverage under the Affordable Care Act

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the authority of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force under the ACA, ensuring continued no-cost coverage for over 100 preventive health services. The decision impacts millions of Americans and preserves provider reimbursement through insurance.

Health Care Providers Take Note: Federal Budget Brings Medicaid and Staffing Rule Changes

The 2025 federal budget introduces significant changes for health care providers and Medicaid recipients, including new cost-sharing requirements, work eligibility mandates, rural health grants, and a pause on minimum staffing rules.

Key Healthcare Provisions in Ohio’s 2026–2027 Budget

Ohio’s newly enacted biennial budget (HB 96) for FY 2026–2027 brings sweeping changes for healthcare providers across the state. The law includes new Medicaid eligibility requirements, reporting mandates, funding directives, and social policy provisions. Several vetoes by Governor DeWine also affect healthcare-related initiatives.

Providers Beware: Court Sides with Insurers in No Surprises Act Arbitration

On June 12, 2025, the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Aetna and Kaiser in two lawsuits brought by air ambulance providers challenging how insurers calculated payments under the No Surprises Act’s Independent Dispute Resolution process. The court held that unless there is clear evidence of fraud or serious misconduct, IDR decisions will stand, reinforcing the finality of the arbitration process.