She wants $2 million after a test picture of her was used in an ad campaign that she didn't know about (for a product she didn't use). It's one of those before and after pictures, where the before and after sides were shot at the same time.
Obviously, she signed a contract. What did it say? Is there some understanding that the test shot photo will not be used, that she retained some control over which products her image could be used to promote, or that her image could only represent youth and beauty? What went on before the lawsuit was filed? She's damaging both herself and the product by going public with the dispute, because we're all invited to stare at her aged face, in the unflattering photograph we might otherwise never have seen or noticed. Meanwhile, the company suffers from having their ad revealed as a fraud. I'm thinking Forsling tried to get more money when she saw how the photo was used, and threatened to file the lawsuit, which we're seeing now, because the company called her bluff. So, great, everybody loses. Except us, the consumers who might have believed a little too much in Plantscription serum by Origins.
(Personally, I never buy a product called "serum." It sounds spookily medical.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
:.
0 comments:
Post a Comment