A newly-filed lawsuit pits an influencer against a celebrity-backed lingerie company over allegations that it created and used a partially nude AI-generated “deepfake” of her in an ad campaign. In a complaint filed on June 9 in federal court in California, influencer Molly Tranchin – who creates content under the name “FashionVeggie” – accuses EBY of posting an unauthorized altered video that allegedly depicted her exposing her breasts through one of the company’s sheer bras without her knowledge or approval.
In addition to setting out a wide-ranging array of state law claims, the lawsuit that Tranchin is waging against the Sofia Vergara-backed intimates brand raises novel questions about the use of generative AI in influencer partnerships and the extent to which existing agreements and emerging deepfake laws can police those practices.
Inside an Alleged “Deepfake” Campaign
According to the complaint, Tranchin partnered with EBY to create promotional content for the brand. Instead of publishing the content she provided, however, Tranchin claims that EBY posted an unauthorized “altered video (or ‘deepfake‘)” that “expos[ed] her breasts … through one of EBY’s sheer bras” – imagery that, according to the complaint, she neither created nor approved and did not provide to EBY in that form.
At the same time, Tranchin claims that EBY had the ability to publish content directly through her Instagram account pursuant to a “whitelisting” arrangement. As a result, followers encountered the manipulated video as though it had been posted by Tranchin herself, the influencer asserts, making it more difficult for consumers to distinguish between content created by her and content generated by the brand.
Ultimately, Tranchin argues that the imagery “violated her body autonomy” and undermined the “carefully curated family-friendly personal brand and reputation” she had spent years building, all while EBY used her likeness “in order to sell underwear.” With the foregoing in mind, she advances claims under California’s non-consensual deepfake statute, as well as causes of action for defamation, copyright infringement, breach of contract, tortious interference, violations of her right of publicity, intentional infliction of emotional distress, non-consensual pornography, and negligence, among others.
She is seeking actual, statutory, and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as permanent injunctive relief requiring EBY to delete all copies of the disputed video and remove it from any public postings.
The Next Frontier of AI Liability
The lawsuit comes as fashion and beauty brands increasingly experiment with AI-generated models, synthetic voices, and other generative tools in their marketing efforts, and sheds light on an emerging frontier of AI liability: influencer partnerships. Much of the early litigation involving generative AI has focused on questions surrounding training data and copyright ownership. This case, by contrast, centers on authenticity and consent. At issue is whether a brand can alter creator content using AI in a way that departs from both the parties’ agreement and the carefully cultivated identity that gives influencer marketing its commercial value.
It also highlights the increasingly fragmented legal landscape surrounding AI-generated likenesses. Rather than relying solely on traditional causes of action, Tranchin invokes California’s relatively new statutory protections targeting non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes alongside a broader array of common law and statutory claims, reflecting the patchwork approach that litigants may increasingly employ as disputes involving generative AI make their way through the courts.
As brands increasingly experiment with AI-enabled creative tools, companies and creators alike may find that existing influencer agreements are ill-equipped to address whether – and to what extent – a person’s image, likeness, and content can be altered using generative technologies.
The case is Tranchin v. EBY, Inc., 3:26-cv-05559 (N.D. Cal.).
Share
