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.


Ohio Recovery Housing Operators Beware: House Bill 58 Seeks to Make Major Changes

Ohio House Bill 58 proposes significant changes to recovery housing oversight, granting ADAMH Boards authority to inspect and investigate recovery residences. The bill also introduces a Certificate of Need (CON) program, requiring state approval for major facility changes. OMHAS will assess applications based on cost, quality, accessibility, and financial feasibility. The bill also establishes a recovery housing residence fund to support inspections. For more information, contact BMD attorneys Daphne Kackloudis or Jordan Burdick.

January 2025 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Brings Notable Changes to HIPAA Security Rule

In January 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the HIPAA Security Rule, aiming to enhance cybersecurity for covered entities (CEs) and business associates (BAs). Key changes include mandatory compliance audits, workforce training, vulnerability scans, and risk assessments. Comments on the proposed rule are due by March 7, 2025.

Corporate Transparency Act Effective Again

The federal judiciary has issued multiple rulings on the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. Previously, enforcement was halted nationwide due to litigation in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury. However, on February 18th, the court lifted the stay, reinstating the CTA’s reporting requirements. Non-exempt entities now have until March 21, 2025, to comply. Businesses should act promptly to avoid civil penalties of $591 per day and potential criminal liability.

Status Update: Physician Noncompete Agreements in Ohio

Noncompete agreements remain enforceable in Ohio if they meet specific legal requirements. While the AMA and FTC have challenged these restrictions, courts continue to uphold reasonable noncompete provisions for physicians. Recent cases, like MetroHealth System v. Khandelwal, highlight how courts may modify overly restrictive agreements to balance employer interests with patient care. With ongoing legal challenges to the FTC’s proposed ban, Ohio physicians should consult a healthcare attorney before signing or challenging a noncompete agreement.

Immigration Orders and Their Economic Impact on Small Business: Insights from Attorney and Former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff

President Trump's recent executive orders, targeting immigration policies, could significantly impact small businesses in Ohio, particularly those owned by undocumented immigrants. With stricter visa vetting, halted refugee admissions, and potential deportations, these businesses face uncertainty, workforce disruption, and closures. Ohio's immigrant-owned businesses, especially in food services and transportation, contribute billions to the state economy, and any disruption could result in economic ripple effects.