Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 JULY 2026

NIL Rights In The Age Of AI Deepfakes

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Explore more from Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

Artificial intelligence has made it possible to create convincing videos of athletes endorsing products without their knowledge or consent, fundamentally challenging what name, image and likeness (NIL) rights mean in practice. As deepfakes become more sophisticated and widespread, existing legal protections designed to give athletes and public figures control over their identities are proving inadequate against unauthorized commercial exploitation and reputational harm. This emerging threat requires busines

United StatesIntellectual Property
Jessica M. Goedel
Jessica M. Goedel
Kenley A. French
Kenley A. French

A convincing video of a star athlete promoting a product can now be created without the athlete ever stepping in front of a camera, approving a script or signing an endorsement deal. That reality is forcing businesses, brands, athletes and public figures to rethink what control over name, image and likeness (NIL) really means in the age of artificial intelligence. Since 2021, the expansion of NIL rights has given athletes and public figures unprecedented control over how their identities are used and monetized. But as AI-generated deepfakes become more realistic and easier to distribute, the same personal brands that NIL rights were designed to protect are increasingly vulnerable to unauthorized commercial exploitation, reputational harm and consumer confusion. This article explores how deepfakes are testing existing NIL protections, why current legal remedies may fall short and what businesses should consider when using, licensing or monitoring likeness rights in an AI-driven

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

PTAB/USPTO Update - October 2026

The USPTO has released new templates and guidance for AIA trial proceedings, announced key appointments including a Chief AI Officer, and published updated procedures for patent applications and subject matter eligibility declarations. Director Squires delivered multiple addresses emphasizing the constitutional importance of intellectual property rights while the agency expanded its community engagement efforts and international collaboration through WIPO's Global IP Assignment Platform pilot program.
United StatesIntellectual Property
WilmerHale
WilmerHale
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

Is This Real? Navigating AI Impersonation Under New And Existing Laws

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein
Article

Federal Court Strikes Down State Department’s 75-Country Immigrant Visa Ban: What Applicants Need To Know

A federal court has struck down the Department of State's policy suspending immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries, finding it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act by discriminating based on nationality. While the ruling restores individualized visa processing for affected applicants, separate travel restrictions remain in place, the government has appealed, and significant processing delays are expected as consulates work through accumulated backlogs.
United StatesImmigration
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Article

DHS Proposes $103,265 Additional Fee For H-1B Cap-Subject Petitions

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed a substantial new filing fee of $103,265 for H-1B cap-subject petitions, which would be imposed in addition to all existing fees and payment obligations. This proposed rule raises critical questions about legal authority, economic impact on employers, and whether the fee would apply to extensions, amendments, and change-of-employer petitions for workers already counted against the cap.
United StatesImmigration
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Article

SEC Charges Adit Ventures Management, Its CEO And Affiliated General Partners For Alleged Fraud

The SEC has filed a complaint against Eric Munson and Adit Ventures Management, alleging a multi-year scheme involving misrepresentation to investors, misappropriation of fund assets, and undisclosed conflicts of interest. The case involves over 60 funds with at least 1,000 investors, where the defendants allegedly induced investments through false promises, executed unauthorized loans between funds, and engaged in undisclosed self-dealing transactions while failing to properly register as an investment adv
United StatesFinance and Banking
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Article

CMS Proposes Mandatory Provider-Based Attestation Framework For Off-Campus Hospital Outpatient Departments

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has proposed a new framework requiring hospitals to submit mandatory provider-based attestations for off-campus outpatient departments, fundamentally changing how these facilities demonstrate compliance with Medicare requirements. With a January 1, 2028 implementation deadline, hospitals must navigate new National Provider Identifier requirements, centralized electronic submission systems, and detailed documentation processes that will significantly impact reimbu
United StatesFood, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Article

SEC Risk Alert Highlights Investment Adviser Annual Compliance Review Expectations

The SEC's Division of Examinations has issued a Risk Alert highlighting common deficiencies in how investment advisers conduct their mandatory annual compliance reviews under Rule 206(4)-7. The alert identifies critical gaps in review timing, documentation, and implementation that advisers should address to ensure regulatory compliance and operational effectiveness.
United StatesCorporate/Commercial Law
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Article

Ohio Supreme Court Reinforces Finality Of Binding Insurance Appraisals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has issued a landmark decision reinforcing the finality of binding insurance appraisal awards, establishing that courts will only set aside such awards in exceptional circumstances involving fraud or manifest mistake. The ruling clarifies the stringent pleading requirements parties must meet when attempting to challenge completed appraisals, particularly when alleging newly discovered property damage. This decision has significant implications for how property insurance disputes ar
United StatesInsurance
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP