If you have ever signed a model release without reading every clause, pay attention to what just happened in a New York courtroom. Rainbow Shops, the budget retailer being sued by model Francheska Pujols over AI-altered marketing images, has filed a defense that should worry every independent model, muse, and content creator who has ever signed a standard release. The retailer's position: its existing paperwork already gave it the right to generate the images in dispute, AI or not. This is the first real test of a theory brands have been quietly banking on for two years, that yesterday's boilerplate covers tomorrow's generative tools. How a New York court treats that argument will shape what every release you sign this year actually means.

The claim

Francheska Pujols filed suit in New York state court in June 2026. Her complaint accuses Rainbow of exceeding the scope of a September 2024 modeling release by using AI to generate entirely new images and poses she never shot, some of which she says were suggestive and damaging to her professional reputation. Rainbow's answer takes the opposite view of the contract: according to The Fashion Law, the retailer's filing offers an early example of how brands may defend AI-related advertising claims by relying on existing contractual language. The case is docketed as Pujols v. Rainbow Shops, Inc., 157543-2026, in New York. It runs on a parallel track with another closely watched dispute, Tranchin v. EBY, Inc., filed June 9, 2026 in the Northern District of California. There, influencer Molly Tranchin, known as FashionVeggie, alleges the intimate-apparel brand EBY used AI to alter footage she supplied into an explicit video and posted it to Instagram without her review or consent. Her complaint brings claims for violation of the California deepfake statute, aiding and abetting disclosure of a nonconsensual deepfake, invasion of privacy, defamation, breach of contract, tortious interference and copyright infringement.

Why it matters

Both cases turn on the same unglamorous question, and it is not really about artificial intelligence at all. It is about what your contract says. Generative tools did not rewrite the law of consent, but they did expose how imprecise most model releases and creator agreements have always been. A release that authorizes a brand to "use, edit, and modify" your image for advertising was written for cropping and color correction, not for synthesizing scenes you were never photographed in. Rainbow is now asking a court to read that old language broadly enough to cover wholesale AI generation. If it works, brands everywhere will treat existing releases as blanket AI licenses. If it fails, every company using generative tools on creator content will need new, AI-specific consent language, and fast. For independent models and creators, this is the whole ballgame. Your leverage lives in the specificity of your contract, not in your assumption that AI is obviously different. As one industry analysis put it, the earliest AI advertising disputes may turn less on the novelty of generative AI than on a more familiar question: what rights did the parties' contracts actually grant.

What to watch

Watch the briefing in Pujols v. Rainbow Shops over the coming weeks. If the court lets Rainbow's contract defense survive a motion to dismiss, expect brands to cite it immediately in the EBY case and in any similar dispute that follows. Watch also how the patchwork of new state laws interacts with these contract fights. New York's synthetic-performer disclosure law took effect June 9, 2026, requiring advertisements that use an AI-generated performer to carry a conspicuous disclosure, with civil penalties for noncompliance. California's nonconsensual deepfake statute, which Tranchin is invoking, gives victims a more direct statutory hook than contract law alone. None of these laws answer the Rainbow question directly: whether old consent language reaches new technology. That is being litigated right now, in real time, by two working models. My plain advice to designers, models, and creators has not changed. Do not sign a release that lets a brand "modify" your image without defining what modification means. Ask, in writing, whether AI tools may be used to alter, extend, or regenerate your likeness. If the answer is vague, that vagueness is exactly what Rainbow is trying to exploit in court today.

Sources