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.


Enhancing Privacy Protections for Substance Use Disorder Patient Records

On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized updated rules to 42 CFR Part 2 (“Part 2”) for the protection of Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) patient records. The updated rules reflect the requirement that the Part 2 rules be more closely aligned with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) privacy, breach notification, and enforcement rules as mandated by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020.

Columbus, Ohio Ordinance Prohibits Employers from Inquiries into an Applicant’s Salary History

Effective March 1, 2024, Columbus employers are prohibited from inquiring into an applicant’s salary history. Specifically, the ordinance provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to:

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board’s Latest Batch of Rules: What Providers Should Know

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board has introduced new rules and amendments, covering various aspects such as CDCA certificate requirements, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, remote supervision, and reciprocity application requirements. Notable changes include revised criteria for obtaining a CDCA certification, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, and updated ethical obligations for licensees and certificate holders, including non-discrimination, confidentiality, and anti-sexual harassment measures.

Governor Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University Introduce the SOAR Study on Ohio Mental Illness

On January 19, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University announced a new research initiative, the State of Ohio Adversity and Resilience (“SOAR”) study, which will investigate all factors influencing Ohio’s mental illness and addiction epidemic.

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.