In May of 2026, fashion model Francheska Pujols filed a lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court against fashion retailer Rainbow Shops. Pujols alleged that Rainbow used artificial intelligence (AI) to create “doppelgängers” of her likeness for use in its online marketing materials. The lawsuit highlights the potential issues that can arise for models and creators as industries integrate AI into their business models.
In June 2025, a studio manager for Rainbow sent an email to models stating that the company had begun “styling certain products and generating avatars with the assistance of AI.” Shortly thereafter, several Rainbow models began to notice images on Rainbow’s website, social media, and newsletters that featured models with a close resemblance to their facial features, body type, and in outfits they had worn. The problem was that the models, including Pujols, had never posed for those specific photos. The photos the models were seeing involved different poses and backgrounds, compared to what had originally been shot.
According to Pujols’s lawsuit, Rainbow allegedly took original photos of her wearing Rainbow apparel against plain backgrounds and used AI to create entirely new photos. Pujols states that her contract with Rainbow only covered actual images captured during her photo shoots and did not “in any way authorize the creation of entirely new images, scenes, poses, or compositions.” Furthermore, Pujols claims that the AI generated images of her in poses that she would never agree to in real life. As a result, Pujols sued for defamation and misappropriation, along with false endorsement and violation of the right of privacy.
In response, Rainbow stated that the company is “responsibly evaluating emerging AI technologies in the marketplace, and has and is committed to doing so in a proper manner.” Rainbow also asserted that the company has acted in compliance with its contracts with the models.
Pujols initially withdrew her lawsuit on May 29, 2026, in an effort to achieve an out of court settlement with Rainbow. However, Pujols has since refiled her case against Rainbow in New York State Supreme Court on June 15, 2026. We are still awaiting the outcome.
For models and creators, this case serves as a great example of why contract language matters. In this era of generative AI, signing a contract that does not explicitly prevent AI replications of one’s likeness, can mean inadvertently granting rights to create entirely new, AI-generated content from your services. If a model or creator wants to protect themselves from broad usage rights by a brand, their contracts should explicitly address whether or not a party has the right to use the creator’s likeness for AI training, AI generation, or any other uses outside of the scope of what the model or creator originally intended.
The outcome of cases like Pujols’s has the potential to influence how the fashion, digital media, and advertising industries balance use of AI technology with the rights of human talent to control their own likenesses. We will continue to monitor developments in Pujols’s case and the ongoing integration of AI across these industries.
Sharma Law remains committed to staying at the forefront of evolving legal and technological developments. If you are a creator seeking to protect your likeness or you would like our attorneys to review your brand partnership agreements, please contact us here.
