## Facts

- Vanna White was widely known as the letter-turner and cohost of the television game show *Wheel of Fortune* and had commercial value associated with her identity.
- Samsung Electronics America, Inc., ran a print advertising campaign making “predictions” about the future tied to Samsung products.
- One Samsung advertisement showed a robot posed on a game show set, wearing a blond wig, evening gown, and jewelry, positioned next to a letter-board styled like the *Wheel of Fortune* set.
- The robot image was designed to call White to mind, even though the ad did not use White’s name and did not use White’s actual photograph or image.
- Samsung did not seek or obtain White’s permission for the advertisement and did not pay her.
- White sued Samsung (and the ad agency involved in creating the campaign) in federal court, asserting claims that included:
  - California statutory right of publicity under Cal. Civ. Code § 3344,
  - California common-law right of publicity (misappropriation of identity),
  - Lanham Act § 43(a) false endorsement (and related unfair-competition theories).
- The district court granted summary judgment to Samsung on all claims, reasoning that Samsung had not used White’s name or likeness as required for liability.
- White appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Under Cal. Civ. Code § 3344, did the robot image qualify as White’s “likeness” so that the statutory right of publicity applied?
2. Under California common law, can a defendant be liable for violating a celebrity’s right of publicity by appropriating the celebrity’s identity in an advertisement without using the celebrity’s actual name or likeness?
3. Did the advertisement create a likelihood of consumer confusion that White sponsored or endorsed Samsung’s product under Lanham Act § 43(a)?

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit **affirmed** summary judgment for Samsung on the **§ 3344 statutory** claim because the robot depiction was not White’s “likeness” within the statute’s terms.
- The Ninth Circuit **reversed** summary judgment for Samsung on the **California common-law right of publicity** claim, holding that a reasonable jury could find the ad appropriated White’s identity for commercial gain even without using her name or literal image.
- The Ninth Circuit **affirmed** summary judgment for Samsung on the **Lanham Act § 43(a)** false-endorsement claim, concluding the parody-style ad did not support a reasonable finding that consumers would think White endorsed Samsung.
- The case was **remanded** for further proceedings on the common-law right-of-publicity claim.

## Legal Principles

- Under **California common law**, the right of publicity protects a person’s **identity**, not only a person’s name or photograph; the key question is whether the defendant appropriated the plaintiff’s identity for commercial advantage.
- A use can appropriate identity through **identifying elements** (such as a familiar role, setting, and appearance cues) even if the ad does not use the celebrity’s actual image or name, so long as the depiction is sufficient to evoke the celebrity to the public.
- Cal. Civ. Code **§ 3344** is **text-limited** to unauthorized use of a person’s “name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness”; a look-alike concept that stops short of a “likeness” may fall outside the statute even if it supports a common-law claim.
- A **Lanham Act § 43(a)** false-endorsement claim requires evidence of **likely consumer confusion** about sponsorship or endorsement; a humorous or parody-like reference, without more, may fail to show confusion as a matter of law at summary judgment.
- The **common-law** right of publicity is not displaced simply because § 3344 exists; the common law can reach conduct not covered by the statute’s specified categories.

## Conclusion

White v. Samsung held that, although California’s statutory publicity right did not apply because the robot was not White’s “likeness,” California common law could still impose liability where an advertisement appropriates a celebrity’s identity through recognizable cues designed to evoke the celebrity, and the Ninth Circuit therefore revived White’s common-law right-of-publicity claim while leaving the Lanham Act false-endorsement claim dismissed for lack of likely consumer confusion.


White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992)