LBS Case Briefs: Module 20
Name of Case
Vanna WHITE v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS (1992)
Who started the litigation? Who is the plaintiff or government entity or agency? What do
they want?
Vanna White was the one who filed the lawsuit as the plaintiff, alleging that Samsung Electronics
had violated her right of publicity under California law. Her primary goal was to put a stop to
Samsung's unauthorized use of her likeness and to be compensated for it.
What legal question must the court decide, and what is the common law rule, constitutional
provision or statute that the question will turn on?
The legal question was whether Samsung Electronics violated White's right of publicity under
California law, which turned on the common law rule of the right of publicity and the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Samsung argued that they didn’t intent on using
her actual name or likeness, no photos, sketch, etc.
What is the court’s reasoning? (Might include reliance on precedent, statutory
interpretation and legislative history & societal considerations). If there’s a dissent, what
are the main points of disagreement?
The court in Vanna White v. Samsung Electronics (1992) ruled that Samsung Electronics had
violated White's right of publicity under California law. The court's reasoning was based on the
likelihood of consumer confusion and the false impression that White endorsed Samsung's
products created by the use of a robot resembling White's appearance. The court also held that
the First Amendment did not protect Samsung's use of White's likeness because it was a
commercial use and not expressive speech. The court's decision relied on the common law rule
of the right of publicity and referenced the cases Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets (1983)
and Midler v. Ford Motor Co. (1988). The court also considered the societal interest in protecting
individuals' rights to control the commercial use of their identities.
What is the precedent or holding established by the court’s ruling that will be followed in
Name of Case
Vanna WHITE v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS (1992)
Who started the litigation? Who is the plaintiff or government entity or agency? What do
they want?
Vanna White was the one who filed the lawsuit as the plaintiff, alleging that Samsung Electronics
had violated her right of publicity under California law. Her primary goal was to put a stop to
Samsung's unauthorized use of her likeness and to be compensated for it.
What legal question must the court decide, and what is the common law rule, constitutional
provision or statute that the question will turn on?
The legal question was whether Samsung Electronics violated White's right of publicity under
California law, which turned on the common law rule of the right of publicity and the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Samsung argued that they didn’t intent on using
her actual name or likeness, no photos, sketch, etc.
What is the court’s reasoning? (Might include reliance on precedent, statutory
interpretation and legislative history & societal considerations). If there’s a dissent, what
are the main points of disagreement?
The court in Vanna White v. Samsung Electronics (1992) ruled that Samsung Electronics had
violated White's right of publicity under California law. The court's reasoning was based on the
likelihood of consumer confusion and the false impression that White endorsed Samsung's
products created by the use of a robot resembling White's appearance. The court also held that
the First Amendment did not protect Samsung's use of White's likeness because it was a
commercial use and not expressive speech. The court's decision relied on the common law rule
of the right of publicity and referenced the cases Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets (1983)
and Midler v. Ford Motor Co. (1988). The court also considered the societal interest in protecting
individuals' rights to control the commercial use of their identities.
What is the precedent or holding established by the court’s ruling that will be followed in
