New York model Francheska Pujols has taken discount retailer Rainbow USA to court, claiming the chain swapped out her neutral modeling shots for AI-generated, sexualized ads that copy her likeness after her contract ended. Filed on May 22 in New York County Supreme Court, the complaint argues that the altered images are hurting her reputation and costing her future work as a high-end model, and the case is now on the court's docket.
Complaint lays out side-by-side examples
According to Let's Data Science, which summarized original reporting, the lawsuit includes side-by-side comparisons that put Pujols' original test shots on a plain white background next to finished ads the complaint describes as AI-altered. The reported filing points to ads placing a Pujols-like figure in more suggestive settings, with coverage citing examples such as a model perched on a barstool and another posed on another woman's lap. Pujols is seeking damages and wants the court to force Rainbow to identify the people and systems behind the allegedly generated images.
New York's new AI rules add a legal backdrop
The case lands as New York rolls out new rules for so-called "synthetic performers," which will require clear disclosure when AI-generated people appear in advertising. Those provisions are set to take effect in June 2026. As noted in legal guides, the state law requires express consent for digital replicas and authorizes fines when companies fail to disclose AI use, raising the stakes for brands that reuse or remix model images without explicit permission. If Pujols' lawsuit moves into discovery, Rainbow and any involved agencies could be ordered to turn over original image files, metadata and any logs tied to image-generation tools used to create the ads.
What Pujols is alleging and possible legal claims
Pujols frames her suit as an unauthorized-use and image-rights case that allegedly undercuts her marketability. Claims like this can draw on New York's right of publicity and related consumer-protection theories. Legal commentators note that courts are still working through how those long-standing publicity and privacy rules apply when the disputed images are synthetic outputs rather than straightforward photographs. In similar disputes, plaintiffs often pursue injunctions and damages while trying to find out who trained or prompted the AI systems at issue. A courtroom win for Pujols could push brands and agencies to tighten model releases and spell out AI-related consent much more clearly.
Part of a wider trend of AI-image litigation
Pujols' complaint arrives amid a broader surge of lawsuits over nonconsensual or sexualized AI images, including actions targeting AI developers and platforms. Coverage of similar cases by NBC New York shows courts are still sorting out where liability lands, how much responsibility platforms bear and what kind of safety guardrails are legally expected. That larger backdrop makes this case one to watch for models, agencies and retailers experimenting with AI in their creative pipelines.
Retailer response and next steps
As of the latest published coverage, Rainbow USA has not issued a public statement on the lawsuit. The retailer's website lists a customer-care phone number and email address for general inquiries, but no dedicated comment on the case. Pujols' suit is still at the early pleading stage, so the next key moves will be Rainbow's initial response and any early motions the company files. If the case survives that round, discovery could force production of modeling contracts, original photo files and any relevant machine logs tied to ad production.
Observers are watching for whether Rainbow moves to dismiss or instead files an answer, whether Pujols seeks a preliminary injunction or expedited discovery, and how prominently New York's AI disclosure rules figure into the arguments. If the lawsuit proceeds into full discovery, documents about how the images were created, what the model releases allowed and how any AI prompts were crafted could become central to how the dispute is resolved.
