## Facts

- Vanna White, a well-known television personality associated with *Wheel of Fortune*, commercially licensed her identity to advertisers.
- Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and its advertising agency, David Deutsch Associates, Inc., ran a national print campaign placing Samsung products in humorous “future” scenarios.
- The challenged advertisement showed a robot posed beside an instantly recognizable *Wheel of Fortune*-style game board.
- The robot wore a wig, gown, and jewelry deliberately chosen to resemble White’s hair and attire, and it stood in a pose associated with her role on the show.
- The ad caption read: “Longest-running game show. 2012 A.D.”
- Defendants referred to the advertisement internally as the “Vanna White ad.”
- White did not consent to the advertisement and was not paid.
- White sued under California Civil Code § 3344 (statutory right of publicity), California common-law right of publicity, Lanham Act § 43(a), and related state unfair-competition theories.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims; the Ninth Circuit later affirmed in part and reversed in part, and rehearing en banc was denied.

## Issues

1. Whether depicting a robot styled to evoke White constituted use of her “likeness” under California Civil Code § 3344.
2. Whether an advertisement can misappropriate a celebrity’s identity under California common law without using the celebrity’s name or literal image.
3. Whether the advertisement created a likelihood of consumer confusion as to White’s endorsement under Lanham Act § 43(a).

## Decision

- Rehearing en banc was denied, leaving the panel disposition in place.
- Summary judgment for defendants was affirmed on the § 3344 statutory claim because the robot was not White’s “likeness” within the statute’s terms.
- Summary judgment for defendants was affirmed on the Lanham Act § 43(a) claim for insufficient evidence of likely consumer confusion about endorsement.
- Summary judgment for defendants was reversed on the California common-law right of publicity claim; the case was remanded because a reasonable jury could find defendants used White’s identity for commercial advantage without consent.

## Legal Principles

- California’s common-law right of publicity protects the commercial value of a celebrity’s identity and is not confined to use of name or literal likeness.
- The key inquiry for common-law publicity is whether the defendant appropriated the plaintiff’s identity for commercial gain, not the specific method of imitation.
- California Civil Code § 3344 is narrower than the common-law doctrine and requires a statutory category such as “name” or “likeness”; an evocative depiction may fall outside the statute yet still support common-law liability.
- A humor or parody characterization does not necessarily defeat a common-law publicity claim at summary judgment where the challenged use is a commercial advertisement using identity to sell products.
- A Lanham Act false-endorsement claim requires evidence supporting likely consumer confusion; mere evocation of a celebrity is not enough without adequate proof of confusion.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit’s disposition, left intact after denial of rehearing en banc, drew a line between statutory “likeness” and broader common-law protection of identity: an advertiser may avoid § 3344 liability and still face common-law right-of-publicity exposure when an ad is constructed to call a particular celebrity to mind for commercial advantage, while Lanham Act liability requires proof of likely endorsement confusion.


White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 989 F.2d 1512 (9th Cir. 1993)