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 marketplace.
When drafting legislation, lawmakers may not have anticipated the ability of AI, specifically deepfakes, to generate synthetic endorsements capitalizing on athlete’s and public figures’ likeness. Deepfakes use AI to create realistic videos, images or audio to appear as though someone said or did something they never actually did or provided consent to do. For athletes and public figures, this can mean fake endorsements, misleading social media content or unauthorized advertisements using their face or voice. As the technology becomes cheaper and easier to use, these scenarios are no longer hypothetical – they are increasingly common. Undoubtedly, existing NIL protections were not designed to handle such risks.
Student-athletes and emerging public figures are particularly vulnerable as a single viral deepfake, such as a fake endorsement or altered video, can affect sponsorship opportunities, team relationships or public trust and perception. For student-athletes, whose marketability and professional prospects may depend heavily on public perception, even brief exposure to a harmful or deceptive deepfake can have outsized consequences. Existing legal remedies offer only partial protection, and even when legal claims are available, enforcement often lags behind the speed at which content spreads on social media platforms.
Current laws also struggle to address practical realities. Deepfake creators may be anonymous or located outside of the United States, making accountability harder. Even if the United States implements its own remedies, the likeness of athletes and public figures can be exploited in other jurisdictions. As such, an international plan will likely need implemented via treaties to ensure uniform rights and enforcement mechanisms. Although social media platforms and websites may eventually remove content, takedowns are rarely instantaneous.
Meanwhile, traditional legal tools utilized in the United States are often inadequate to challenge harmful deepfakes. For example, copyright law offers little help since a person’s likeness itself is not protected as a creative work. Defamation is a possible remedy; however, public figures must demonstrate a heightened standard, actual malice by the third-party creator and harm to reputation. Similarly, false light claims require the published statements to be highly offensive to the reasonable person. The Lanham Act provides a potential avenue through false endorsement claims, but plaintiffs must show a likelihood of consumer confusion, which is a challenging standard in fast-moving digital contexts.
In response, U.S. lawmakers and regulators have begun to address deepfake harms through targeted legislation, particularly in areas involving elections, sexual exploitation and impersonation. However, comprehensive protection for AI-generated misuse of likeness remains underdeveloped. Any reform must balance NIL enforcement with First Amendment concerns, especially where parody or expressive uses are involved.
Looking ahead, clearer statutory recognition of AI-generated likeness within NIL frameworks is essential. Standardized consent and licensing mechanisms, platform-level disclosure requirements and faster takedown processes could help restore meaningful control. Without adaptation, NIL rights risk being undermined by technologies capable of exploiting identity faster than the law can respond. In the meantime, proactive brand monitoring, careful contract language, and early legal intervention are critical tools.
As such, clear consent, carefully drafted licensing terms, monitoring for unauthorized uses and rapid response procedures can help reduce legal exposure and protect both the business and the individuals whose NIL rights are at stake. Companies that use athlete or public-figure likenesses should treat AI-generated content as a rights-clearance and brand-risk issue, not merely a marketing tool.
For questions regarding NIL rights and how to best protect your brand as this area of law evolves, reach out to your Dinsmore Intellectual Property attorney.