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.


Corporate Transparency Act: Business Owners Must Act Now

The Corporate Transparency Act requires all reporting companies to file their Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) report by year-end to avoid penalties. Companies formed before January 1, 2024, have less than six months to comply. Learn more in a client alert by BMD Member Blake Gerney.

New Medicare Billing Rules: What MFTs, MHCs, and IOP Providers Need to Know

Starting January 1, 2024, Medicare began covering services provided to Medicare beneficiaries by marriage and family therapists, mental health counselors, and Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) services. With this change, Medicare has become the primary payer for these services.

Chevron Doctrine No More: What the Supreme Court’s Ruling Means for Agency Authority

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court invalidated the Chevron doctrine, nearly 40 years after it first took effect.

Ohio Board of Pharmacy Update: Key Regulatory Changes and Proposals You Need to Know

The Ohio Board of Pharmacy (BOP) has rescinded certain OAC rules (OAC 4729:5-18-01 through 4729:5-18-06), removing regulations on office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) clinics. The rescissions took effect on June 3, 2024. The BOP also published a new rule, OAC 4729:8-5-01, which sets explicit reporting guidelines for licensed dispensaries and became effective on June 7, 2024.

LGBTQIA+ Patients and Discrimination in Healthcare

In early April, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a study outlining the challenges that LGBT adults face in the United States related to healthcare. According to the study, LGBT patients are “twice as likely as non-LGBT adults to report negative experiences while receiving health care in the last three years, including being treated unfairly or with disrespect (33% v. 15%) or having at least one of several other negative experiences with a provider (61% v. 31%), including a provider assuming something about them without asking, suggesting they were personally to blame for a health problem, ignoring a direct request or question, or refusing to prescribe needed pain medication.”