By Samuel López | USA Herald

CALIFORNIA - Pop superstar Dua Lipa’s $15 million federal lawsuit against Samsung has reached its first major procedural battle, but an important distinction should be made clear: Samsung has asked the court to dismiss Lipa’s lawsuit. The court has not done so.

Lipa filed Dua Lipa v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-05019-CAS-MAR, on May 8, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint demands a jury trial and asserts copyright, trademark and right-of-publicity claims arising from Samsung’s alleged use of a photograph of Lipa on television packaging.

Samsung filed its motion to dismiss with an accompanying Memorandum of Points & Authorities on September 10. Five days later, Lipa and Samsung filed a joint stipulation establishing a proposed briefing schedule.

The most recent docket development identified by USA Herald is dated September 16, 2026, described on the docket as an “Order AND ~Util - Set/Reset Motion Hearing and R&R Deadline.”

The September 15 stipulation and order states that Lipa has until October 15 to oppose Samsung’s motion or file an amended pleading; Samsung’s reply is due November 13; and the dismissal hearing is scheduled for December 14, 2026, at 10 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder.

That means the lawsuit remains pending.

What Lipa Actually Alleges

The dispute concerns a photograph titled “Dua Lipa – Backstage at Austin City Limits, 2024.” Lipa alleges she owns all rights to the image and that it is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office as Registration No. VA 2-479-685.

The photograph is significant because Samsung allegedly placed it prominently within the image of a television screen printed across the front of cardboard boxes used to sell its televisions.

Lipa's complaint characterizes the case as seeking redress for the “massive, continuing, unauthorized commercial exploitation” of her image and likeness.

The complaint alleges that Samsung “used a copyrighted image of Ms. Lipa” without authority or license and prominently displayed it on television boxes offered at retail.

Lipa goes considerably further than simply alleging that her face appeared on a box.

She alleges that Samsung “did not have, and does not have, any license, authorization, permission, or consent” to use the photograph or her likeness on the products.

That allegation is potentially important at the dismissal stage.

Lipa also alleges she discovered the use around June 2025 and immediately demanded that Samsung stop. According to the complaint, Samsung refused and continued selling the products bearing the photograph.

Samsung disputes the allegations and has publicly maintained that a third-party content partner provided the image and expressly assured Samsung that permission had been secured, including for retail packaging.

That creates what could become one of the central factual questions in the litigation: What rights did that content provider actually possess, and precisely what rights—if any—were transferred or licensed to Samsung?

Lipa’s Copyright Claim May Be the Hardest Claim to Eliminate at the Pleading Stage

Lipa's first cause of action is straightforward on its face.

She alleges ownership of the registered copyright and claims Samsung infringed it by “reproducing, distributing, and/or displaying the DL Image” on the television packaging without authorization. She seeks damages, Samsung's attributable profits, costs and injunctive relief.

For purposes of analyzing Samsung's dismissal request, this distinction matters.

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is not a trial and is not the same thing as summary judgment. The court is principally deciding whether the complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to state legally viable claims. At this stage, well-pleaded factual allegations are generally accepted as true and reasonable inferences are ordinarily drawn for the plaintiff.

Samsung therefore is not necessarily entitled to dismissal merely by asserting that somebody else told it the photograph had been cleared.

If determining whether Samsung possessed a valid license requires examining contracts, communications, licensing chains, emails or testimony from the third-party content provider, those are precisely the kinds of factual materials that can become subjects of discovery rather than matters resolved simply from competing allegations in a complaint.

Samsung's third-party authorization defense could ultimately prove powerful. If Samsung establishes that an entity possessing the necessary rights actually granted a license broad enough to cover the packaging use, the copyright claim could face serious difficulty.

But the complaint itself alleges the opposite: that no license, authorization, permission or consent existed.

That makes complete dismissal of the copyright theory at the pleading stage a materially different question from whether Samsung might ultimately prevail after evidence is developed.

The Complaint Also Contains Evidence Directed at Consumer Confusion

Lipa's false-endorsement theory may face a more complicated legal battle, but her lawyers included an interesting factual component in the complaint.

They reproduced social-media reactions from consumers discussing the packaging.

One consumer allegedly wrote: “I wasn’t even planning on buying a tv but I saw the box so I decided to get it.”

Another allegedly said they would “get that tv just because Dua is on it.” A third commented that if someone needed something sold, they should put Lipa's picture on it.

Those comments do not, by themselves, prove legally actionable consumer confusion or false endorsement. Someone purchasing a product because a celebrity's image appears on the packaging is not necessarily the same thing as believing that celebrity endorsed the product.

But the allegations help explain Lipa's theory that her photograph was not commercially meaningless decoration.

Her Lanham Act claim specifically alleges that consumers believed Lipa “endorses, approves, recommends, or is affiliated or associated with” the televisions because of Samsung's use of her photograph.

Samsung attacks that proposition. Its dismissal position is essentially that the packaging depicted the Samsung TV Plus interface and content available through the television, rather than communicating that Lipa herself endorsed Samsung televisions. Samsung also argues that Lipa cannot simply convert a recognizable photograph of herself into a trademark.

That may give Samsung a more substantial legal attack against the trademark portions of the complaint than against the basic copyright theory.

The California Publicity Claim Presents Another Potential Vulnerability

Lipa separately invokes California Civil Code § 3344, alleging Samsung knowingly used her likeness for the commercial purpose of advertising and selling televisions without authorization.

Her complaint says the televisions were distributed throughout the United States, including California, and seeks damages, Samsung's profits, attorneys' fees, punitive damages and injunctive relief.

Samsung reportedly challenges whether California publicity law can apply given Lipa's domicile outside the United States. The complaint itself expressly states that Lipa is an individual “residing outside of the United States.” 

That choice-of-law question could give Samsung a path toward dismissal of the California publicity count even if the federal copyright claim survives.

Again, however, dismissal of one theory does not automatically mean dismissal of the entire lawsuit.

Why Samsung’s Motion Does Not Mean the Case Is About to End

There is an important procedural difference between filing a motion to dismiss and winning one.

Samsung is asking Judge Snyder to determine that the complaint, or particular claims within it, cannot legally proceed. Samsung expressly seeks dismissal of the complaint in its entirety.

But several outcomes are possible.

The judge could dismiss the entire complaint. The court could dismiss only certain claims while allowing others to proceed. It could dismiss claims with leave to amend, permitting Lipa's attorneys to correct pleading deficiencies. Or Judge Snyder could deny Samsung's motion and allow the existing claims to proceed.

That last possibility would move the litigation into a considerably different phase.

Discovery could require production of licensing agreements, communications with the content provider, internal Samsung communications concerning the packaging, information about how the image was selected and approved, sales and revenue information, and evidence bearing on Samsung's knowledge after Lipa allegedly demanded that the company stop using the image.

Those documents could either strengthen Lipa's allegations or substantially strengthen Samsung's defenses.

This is also why a motion to dismiss should not be confused with summary judgment. Summary judgment ordinarily comes after the parties have had an opportunity to develop an evidentiary record and asks whether a genuine dispute of material fact requires trial. A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motion ordinarily attacks the legal sufficiency of the allegations at the beginning of the case.

The Legal Strength of Lipa’s Case at This Stage

Based strictly on the complaint, Samsung's dismissal arguments reported publicly, and the procedural record presently available, Lipa has pleaded several concrete facts supporting continued litigation rather than relying solely upon the proposition that she is famous and her photograph appeared on a box.

She alleges a specifically identified photograph; a federal copyright registration; ownership of that copyright; reproduction and distribution by Samsung; lack of permission; nationwide commercial use; prior notice to Samsung; continued use after that notice; and identifiable commercial exploitation of the packaging.

Those allegations do not establish that Lipa will win. Samsung can contest ownership, authorization, scope of license, infringement, causation, damages and the legal sufficiency of individual causes of action.

The trademark and right-of-publicity counts also present distinct legal questions that could be decided differently from copyright.

But Samsung faces an important procedural reality: to obtain dismissal of the entire lawsuit at this stage, it must establish that Lipa's pleaded claims cannot proceed under the governing dismissal standards—not simply demonstrate that Samsung has a competing factual explanation for how the photograph ended up on the boxes.

The parties themselves are now preparing for that fight. The September 15 joint stipulation confirms that Lipa's opposition—or an amended complaint—is due October 15, Samsung's reply is due November 13, and the hearing is set for December 14.

For now, Dua Lipa's case against Samsung remains alive, no liability has been established, and Samsung's request to end the litigation remains exactly that—a request awaiting judicial determination.

Stay Ahead of the Story
For exclusive investigative reporting, breaking legal analysis, and insider-level coverage you won’t find anywhere else—subscribe to the USA Herald newsletter.

👉 Follow us on X: @RealUSAHerald