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.


ODM to Implement Medicaid Work Requirements: What Providers and Medicaid Expansion Recipients Need to Know

The Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) has submitted a waiver to impose work requirements for Medicaid expansion recipients. If approved, the new eligibility criteria will take effect on January 1, 2026. A federal public comment period is open until April 7, 2025.

Ohio Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Gender-Affirming Care

On March 18, 2025, the 10th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County ruled that Ohio’s House Bill (HB) 68, which restricts puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors seeking gender-affirming care, violates the Health Care Freedom Amendment and is therefore unenforceable. The court found that the law unlawfully interferes with parental rights and medical decision-making. The case, Moe v. Yost, has been remanded, and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost intends to appeal.

HHS Revokes Public Comment Requirement on Certain Policy Changes

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has revoked the Richardson Waiver, eliminating the requirement for public notice and comment on certain policy changes. This decision allows HHS to implement new policies more quickly, potentially affecting healthcare funding rules like Medicaid work requirements. While it speeds up policymaking, it also reduces opportunities for stakeholder input, raising concerns over transparency and unintended consequences for healthcare providers, states, and patients.

Don't Get Caught Dazed and Confused: Another Florida Court Weighs in on Employer Obligations to Accommodate Medical Marijuana Use

A Florida trial court ruled in Giambrone v. Hillsborough County that employers may need to accommodate off-duty medical marijuana use under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA). This contrasts with prior rulings and raises new compliance challenges for employers. With the case on appeal, now is the time to review workplace drug policies.

Corporate Transparency Act to be Re-evaluated

Recent federal rulings have impacted the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. While reporting requirements were briefly reinstated, FinCEN has now paused enforcement and is reevaluating the CTA. Businesses are no longer required to submit reports until further guidance is issued. For updates and legal counsel, contact BMD Member Blake Gerney.