When a name, image, or likeness dispute cannot be talked through, it goes to court, and we handle both sides. We pursue claims for people whose identities were used commercially without permission, and we defend advertisers, publishers, and platforms hit with right of publicity claims that overreach. Either way, the fight turns on state-specific elements and the constitutional limits that ride alongside them.
Pursuing Misappropriation Claims
When your identity gets used to sell something without your say-so, we build the case under the applicable state's law: the protected aspects of your identity, the commercial use, the absence of consent, and the resulting harm. We move quickly for injunctive relief to shut down ongoing use and press for damages that reflect what the misuse was actually worth, not a token number.
Defending Advertisers And Publishers
We defend businesses, media companies, and platforms accused of misusing someone's identity. Many of these claims run straight into the First Amendment, and we develop defenses around newsworthy, editorial, and transformative uses while attacking the elements of the plaintiff's case. Where some liability is real, we work to narrow the exposure and contain the damages rather than let a claim balloon.
Choice Of Law And Forum
Because publicity rights are state-specific, a multi-state dispute can hinge on which law applies and where the case is heard. We analyze the competing state statutes and common law, weigh forum selection, and litigate choice-of-law questions that often decide the outcome before the merits are reached. Knowing how the elements and defenses shift across jurisdictions lets us pick the ground we want to fight on.
Proving And Attacking Damages
The money in these cases can be significant, and it is contestable. We work with economists and licensing evidence to value an unauthorized use, build a damages case for plaintiffs, or take apart inflated demands on the defense side. Comparable license deals and real market data anchor the numbers, so a jury or judge sees a figure grounded in evidence rather than wishful arithmetic.