مسئولیت مدنی ناشی از سوءاستفاده از حقّ شهرت توسط اشخاص مشهور در تبلیغات کالا و خدمات

شناسایی حقّ شهرت، به‌عنوان یک حقّ مالی برای اشخاص مشهور، سبب می‌شود تا این اشخاص بتوانند با حضور در تبلیغ محصولات مختلف کسب درآمد کنند. باتوجه‌به اثرگذاری این اشخاص در فروش محصولات، این پرسش اساسی مطرح می‌شود که در صورت ورود خسارت به مصرف‌کنندگان، آیا مسئولیتی متوجۀ این اشخاص خواهد بود؟ در نبود قوانین و مقررات خاص و رویۀ قضایی مشخص، انتخاب مبنای حقوقی مناسب برای مسئولیت اشخاص مشهور، تعیین شرایط و دامنۀ این مسئولیت و به‌ویژه احراز رابطۀ سببیت میان زیان و تقصیر، با چالش‌های حقوقی جدی مواجه است. در این مقاله تلاش شده است، مسئولیت اشخاص مشهور برمبنای نظریۀ سوءاستفاده از حق، توجیه و تبیین گردد. براساس یافته‌های این پژوهش، نظریۀ سوءاستفاده از حق با کمک معیار رفتار نامتعارف، می‌تواند نقض قواعد و مقررات مربوط به تبلیغات و بی‌احتیاطی در اعمال حق را به‌عنوان مصادیق سوءاستفاده از حقّ شهرت معرفی کند. بنابراین، در مواردی که شخص مشهور، با استفاده از حقّ شهرت خویش نسبت به تایید محصولی اقدام می‌کند، نقض تعهد مبنی بر تایید عملکرد کلی محصول، که ماهیتاً تعهد به نتیجه است، موجب استناد خسارت وارده به شخص مشهور می‌شود. در چنین شرایطی، وی متضامناً با عامل یا عاملان اصلی، مسئول جبران خسارت خواهد بود.

civil liability arising from the abuse of the right of publicity by celebrities in advertising goods and services

nowadays, the presence of actors, athletes, and other celebrities and influential figures in advertising goods and services is common, as exercising their right to publicity. however, the question arises: if the use of these goods and services causes damage to the consumer, on what basis and under what conditions would the celebrity be held liable for compensation? generally, if the involvement of a celebrity is limited to merely appearing in advertisements without explicitly endorsing the product, they cannot be liable. in these cases, any damage, even if resulting from deception or misrepresentation, is not attributable to the celebrity but to the producer or advertiser who has misused the right of publicity. in such cases, the celebrity may even seek compensation for damage to their reputation due to such misuse.however, when a celebrity explicitly endorses a product, they use their right to publicity directly. if harm occurs, they may be liable under certain conditions. in this case, the celebrity affirms the quality and characteristics of the goods or services, and consumers are encouraged to use them based on their trust in the celebrity. despite various perspectives on this liability basis, the article analyzes the liability of celebrities based on the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights. this analysis aligns more closely with the nature of their actions in using their right of publicity to endorse products. to determine abuse of the right of publicity, the application of unreasonable conduct (fault in exercising the right) is so they may be liable, if a celebrity’s endorsement of goods or services constitutes illegal advertising practices, such as misleading customers, making false statements, or deceptive advertising. this is true even if the celebrity was unaware of the inaccuracy of their statements or had no intention to deceive consumers.the most challenging aspect of proving liability is establishing the causal relationship between the harm and the fault, as defective goods or services typically cause the harm and are primarily attributable to the producer or service provider. proving the celebrity’s role in this liability is difficult. several theories have been proposed to establish causation, including the influence on the audience, the occurrence of deception, reasonable reliance, and the breach of an obligation to endorse the overall performance of the product. the theory of influence on the audience, broadly interpreting, significantly expands the scope of liability, whereas a narrow interpretation limits it. proving deception is also challenging in most cases and only holds the celebrity liable if there is intent to cause harm. the criterion of reasonable reliance requires proving that consumers relied on the celebrity’s endorsement when purchasing the product, which is challenging to establish unless presumed.therefore, the final criterion—the breach of an obligation to endorse the overall performance of the product—can be considered the best standard for determining causation. in other words, if a celebrity endorses a product, they implicitly confirm that they have thoroughly examined it and vouch for its overall performance. this explicit or implicit statement constitutes a result obligation to confirm the product’s overall performance, and the mere failure to achieve this result leads to liability. this analysis has two implications: first, the celebrity’s liability arises from their endorsement and is independent of the producer’s liability. second, attributing harm to the celebrity does not require proving their knowledge or fault. thus, if it is established that their false statements caused damage, they will be held liable even if they were unaware of the inaccuracies unless they can prove that they exercised all reasonable efforts to obtain accurate information and ensure the truthfulness of their statements.in the liability of celebrities, deception or false statements are not prerequisites, and even proving the accuracy of their statements does not absolve them of liability. this is because what the celebrity explicitly states may not be false, or they may not have made explicit statements but merely expressed support for the product. however, if the ordinary interpretation of their actions constitutes an endorsement of the overall product, they should be held liable for breaching the general obligation to endorse the product. conversely, since celebrities only endorse the overall performance of a product, their obligation is limited to the product’s general performance. they are not liable for specific or minor defects unless they have explicitly endorsed those aspects.based on this analysis, in cases where a celebrity is held liable, a form of joint liability between the producer and the celebrity can be considered. on one hand, the harm to the consumer is attributable to the producer (liability arising from product defects). on the other hand, the celebrity is liable for the abuse of the right of publicity by endorsing the product (liability arising from endorsing the overall performance of the product), and the entire harm is attributable to them as well