Perfect Corp. Model Lawsuit: Rainbow, AI Images, and NY Law

If you’re searching for a Perfect Corp. model lawsuit tied to AI-generated fashion advertising, the case you’re likely looking for does not involve Perfect Corp. as a party. It is Pujols v. Rainbow Shops, filed in New York Supreme Court in May 2026 by model Francheska Pujols, who accused the discount retailer Rainbow Shops of using artificial intelligence to fabricate advertising images of her from an earlier photo shoot and publishing those images without her consent.

Why Perfect Corp. Gets Named but Isn’t a Defendant

Perfect Corp. (NYSE: PERF) is a widely used vendor of AI and augmented reality tools for beauty and fashion brands, including virtual try-on, skin analysis, and generative AI product photography.¹²³

Nothing in the court filings, news reporting, or public statements around the Pujols case connects Perfect Corp. to the dispute. Rainbow Shops does not appear on Perfect Corp.’s published client list, and the AI system Rainbow’s own chief digital officer publicly endorsed for product photography is a separate program called Lica.⁴ Perfect Corp. is prominent in the same corner of the industry the lawsuit touches, which is likely why searches conflate the two, but it is not a defendant.

Who Sued and What They Sell

Francheska Pujols is a 28-year-old model and actress based in Manhattan. She has walked New York Swim Week, appeared on the cover of the Canadian magazine Vigour, and acted in the Amazon Prime series Hood Deals and the feature film What Happened at 625 River Road?⁵

Rainbow Shops, operating as Rainbow USA, is a Brooklyn-founded retailer established in 1935. It operates more than 800 stores across the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, selling juniors’, women’s, and plus-size apparel along with shoes, accessories, and home goods.⁶

What the Lawsuit Alleges

Pujols signed a modeling contract with Rainbow in September 2024 to pose for studio photo shoots against a plain white background in neutral, professional positions. The contract expired March 15, 2026. According to her complaint, it authorized only “minor tweaks” like cropping and “stylistic alterations” to the original images, not the fabrication of new compositions.⁷

The complaint says Rainbow used AI to generate what Pujols called “doppelgänger” images: pictures that closely replicated her face and body but placed her in poses, outfits, and settings from shoots that never occurred. Examples cited in the filing include:

A figure resembling Pujols in a white top and mini denim skirt, legs spread over a barstool, holding a camera to one eye and a drink in the other hand.
An AI-generated twin in a brown cropped top and skirt, posed on another woman’s lap while holding a cocktail.
Images placing her likeness on baskets of autumn vegetables and in a field alongside another person.

Pujols called the images “sexualized” and “crude,” and said they ran on Rainbow’s website, in digital ads, and in stores after her contract had already expired.⁷ A cease-and-desist letter sent in March 2026 was ignored, according to the complaint.⁸

The core argument in the filing is that her contract “does not in any way authorize the creation of entirely new images, scenes, poses, or compositions that did not exist in the original content.”⁴

The Legal Claims

The complaint asserts four causes of action under New York law: defamation, misappropriation of likeness, false endorsement, and violation of New York’s Right of Privacy Law under Civil Rights Law Sections 50 and 51.⁷ Pujols argues that the AI images created public confusion about whether she endorsed Rainbow’s products and damaged her reputation as a high-end model, costing her licensing fees she would otherwise have earned.⁵ The suit also seeks to compel Rainbow to identify the specific individuals and AI systems used to generate the images.⁹

How Rainbow Has Responded

Rainbow rejects the characterization. Chief Legal Officer Joan McGillycuddy said “Ms. Pujols’ images were used properly and in accordance with the agreement she signed” and that “[t]here is no violation of her rights.”⁴ Chief Digital Officer David Cost added that the company disputed “much of the purported ‘facts'” and that “Rainbow has acted appropriately and in accordance with its commitments, including contracts signed by models.”¹⁰

The two sides read the same contract in opposite ways. Pujols says it allowed modest post-production editing of real photos and nothing more. Rainbow says its usage fell inside the agreement.

Where the Case Stands

Pujols filed her original complaint on May 22, 2026, in New York Supreme Court. She voluntarily withdrew it a week later, on May 29, 2026. Her attorney, Richard Altman, said the parties were “seeking to resolve this matter privately.”⁷

Private resolution apparently failed. On June 15, 2026, Pujols refiled the case in New York State Supreme Court.¹⁰⁴ As of late June 2026, the refiled case remained active with no publicly reported hearings, motions, or preliminary rulings. News coverage referenced other models who suspected their likenesses had been used similarly, but none had filed claims or joined the suit.

The New York Laws That Frame the Dispute

New York has been building the legal machinery for exactly this kind of case, and three provisions matter for understanding where Pujols’s claims fit.

Civil Rights Law Sections 50 and 51

Enacted in 1909, New York’s right-of-privacy statute prohibits using a living person’s name, portrait, picture, or voice for advertising or trade without written consent. A Section 50 violation is a misdemeanor; Section 51 allows civil suits for injunctions and damages.¹¹ These are the statutory provisions Pujols cites alongside her common-law claims.

The New York Fashion Workers Act

Effective June 19, 2025, this law directly addresses AI in modeling. It requires clients and model management companies to obtain “clear and conspicuous prior written consent” before creating or using a “digital replica,” defined as a significant computer-generated or AI-enhanced representation that substantially replicates or replaces a model’s appearance or performance. Routine edits like color correction are excluded. The consent must state the scope, purpose, rate of pay, and duration of the replica’s use, and for agencies it must be separate from the standard representation agreement.¹²

Enforcement runs through the New York Department of Labor, with civil penalties of $3,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for each subsequent one. Models can file complaints with the Labor Commissioner for up to six years after an alleged violation, and the Attorney General can bring enforcement actions for repeated fraudulent or illegal acts.¹²

Pujols’s original contract predates the law’s effective date, which complicates a direct application. Reporting has treated the act as important backdrop for disputes like this one going forward.⁸

AI Transparency in Advertising Law

Signed by Governor Hochul on December 11, 2025, and effective June 9, 2026, this law requires advertisers to conspicuously disclose when a commercial ad features a “synthetic performer,” meaning a digitally created asset generated by AI or algorithms that is intended to appear as a real human but is not recognizable as a specific identifiable person. First violations carry a $1,000 penalty; subsequent violations, $5,000.¹³¹⁴ It took effect less than two weeks before Pujols refiled her case.

The right of publicity itself is a state-law doctrine, recognized in roughly 36 states, with no federal equivalent. Courts have held that liability for misappropriating someone’s identity does not depend on the technical method used, so AI-generated imagery faces the same analysis as older techniques like hiring look-alikes or sound-alikes.¹⁵ That is the doctrinal ground on which the Pujols case will be argued.

1
BusinessWire. Perfect Corp. Unveils Next-Generation AI Beauty Agent and API Innovations
2
Perfect Corp. How Fashion Brands Are Using 3D AR and Virtual Try-On Solutions
3
WWD. Perfect Corp. AI and AR Beauty Technology
4
Business Insider. Rainbow Shops Fashion Models AI Use
5
Yahoo Entertainment. NYC Model Replaced by AI Clone
6
Rainbow Shops. About Us
7
New York Post. NYC Model Allegedly Cloned for Unauthorized AI Ads by Clothing Retailer
8
Yahoo News. Crude Ads Spark Lawsuit From Model
9
Hoodline. NYC Model Says Discount Fashion Chain Faked Her With Sexy AI Ads
10
PetaPixel. Models Claim Fashion Brand Used AI to Create Their Doppelgangers
11
New York State Bar Association. New York’s New Right of Publicity Law
12
New York State Senate. Senate Bill S823
13
New York State Senate. Senate Bill S8420-A
14
Governor of New York. Governor Hochul Signs Legislation to Protect Consumers and Boost AI Transparency
15
OECD. AI Incident: Rainbow Shops Model Likeness