How AI in Fashion is Sparking Controversy in the Industry

Published: June 10, 2026 Last Updated 18 seconds ago by Esther Ejoh

AI in Fashion has advanced so quickly that brands no longer need to hire models for routine catalog shoots. They do not need photographers, lighting technicians, or makeup artists. Fashion brands do not even need studios, travel budgets, or per diems.

All they need is a dataset of existing images and a generative AI tool. Feed it a few thousand photos of a model’s face, and the algorithm learns to produce infinite variations. Change the pose. Change the outfit. Change the setting. Change the lighting. The model never has to be informed. The model never has to be paid.

What happens when the face of a model becomes public infrastructure? What happens when your likeness can be scraped from social media, fed into a machine, and sold to the highest bidder without your permission? These are the questions at the heart of a growing legal firestorm that is forcing the fashion industry to confront its AI addiction.

The controversy exploded into public view when New York-based model Francheska Pujols filed a lawsuit against fast-fashion retailer Rainbow Shops. She alleged that the company used AI to generate new images of her without consent, placing her in different poses, different settings, and even alongside other models who were never there.

One image showed her straddling a barstool, a pose she called “crude” and damaging to her reputation. Her contract had expired. Her permission had ended. But her digital twin kept working.

The case, which has since been dropped as the parties seek a private resolution, has become a flashpoint in a broader conversation about consent, compensation, and the future of human creativity in an AI-driven world.

From H&M creating “digital twins” of thirty real models to Nike generating a virtual Serena Williams playing tennis against herself, brands are racing to embrace the cost-saving potential of AI in fashion. But at what cost to the human beings whose faces are being used as raw material?

This article unpacks the lawsuits, AI in fashion, and the existential crisis facing models and creatives as AI (Artificial Intelligence) reshapes the fashion industry from the ground up.

The Case Between Francheska Pujols vs. Rainbow Shops

The details of Francheska Pujols’s complaint read like a warning for every model in the industry. 

According to court documents filed in the New York Supreme Court on May 22, 2026, Pujols was hired by Rainbow Shops for a standard catalog shoot. She posed against a plain white backdrop, wearing various looks for the brand. 

Her contract, which began in September 2024 and allegedly expired on March 15, 2026, allowed for minor edits such as cropping and “stylistic alterations.” It explicitly did not authorize the creation of entirely new images.

But when the advertisements appeared, Pujols says she was shocked. Her original poses had been transformed. One image showed her straddling a barstool, a pose she called “crude” and damaging to her professional reputation. 

Another depicted her resting her head on the lap of another model while holding a cocktail. The settings had changed. Other models had been added. Her likeness had been digitally manipulated into scenarios she never consented to.

The lawsuit alleged that Rainbow Shops continued using these AI-generated images even after Pujols sent a cease-and-desist letter and her contract had expired. According to the complaint, she “did not consent to any use of her name, portrait, picture or likeness, including any AI-generated or AI-altered depictions” after the contract was up. The brand reportedly ignored her demands. Only when she got lawyered up did the conversation begin.

While Pujols has since dropped the lawsuit, with her lawyer stating that the parties are “seeking to resolve this matter privately,” the case has already achieved what legal action often does: it has started a conversation. And that conversation is spreading fast.

The Growing Wave of AI Exploitation Claims

The case of Pujols is not the only one making waves. Across the world, AI models are replacing real fashion and beauty models. 

In February 2026, a model named Mel posted a TikTok video that quickly went viral. In the video, she showed side-by-side comparisons of her 2023 modeling shots and an AI-generated ad from an unidentified fashion brand. The similarities were undeniable: identical freckles, eyebrow shape, eye colour, and even a distinct bump on her nose.

“I didn’t know I had an AI twin until today,” Mel said in the video. “But a friend of mine sent me an AI-generated ad today for fashion. And something about it felt very, very familiar.” 

She noted that the AI had even updated her hairstyle to match her current look, suggesting that the algorithm was not just copying a single image but continuously learning from her evolving appearance.

The comments section exploded. One user wrote, “They wanted you without having to actually pay for you.” Another said, “This is incredibly violating. i hope you can sue or something.” A third offered practical advice: “Send them an invoice. If they’re using your image, you deserve to be paid”.

These cases share a common thread: brands are using AI to bypass the traditional hiring process. Instead of paying models, photographers, hair stylists, makeup artists, and retouchers, they simply feed existing images into generative AI tools to create endless variations. The cost savings are enormous. The ethical implications are staggering.

The Industry’s AI Gamble: H&M, Nike, and the Digital Twin Boom

The fashion industry’s embrace of AI is not hypothetical; it is already happening at the highest levels. In 2025, H&M announced it would create digital twins of thirty real-life models for use in advertising and social media content.

The Swedish fast-fashion giant described the move as collaborative, with models retaining ownership rights to their digital replicas and being compensated for their use.

“We are curious to explore how to showcase our fashion in new creative ways and embrace the benefits of new technology while staying true to our commitment to personal style,” said Jörgen Andersson, H&M’s chief creative officer.

The company emphasized that this was about “augmenting” rather than replacing human creativity. But not everyone is convinced.

Similarly, Nike faced backlash for an AI-generated campaign featuring Serena Williams playing a tennis match against herself. While visually striking, the campaign raised questions: had Williams been properly compensated for the use of her likeness? Did she approve every frame? And what precedent does this set for other athletes and models? 

Even premium fashion brands have dipped their toes into AI. Balmain, Prada, and Calvin Klein have experimented with digital models.

In 2024, Mango launched an AI-generated campaign for a limited-edition collection aimed at teenage girls. The message is clear: AI is not a fringe experiment. It is rapidly becoming the industry standard.

How AI Product Photography Works: A Technical Overview

The technology behind AI-generated product photography has advanced rapidly in recent years. Most systems rely on generative adversarial networks (GANs) or diffusion models, which are trained on millions of existing images of clothing, models, and settings.

For a typical application, a retailer might take a standard flat-lay photograph of a garment on a white background. The AI then extrapolates how that garment would drape on a human body, generating realistic shadows, wrinkles, and fabric movement. It can also change the lighting, background, and even the model’s pose.

More advanced systems can generate entirely new garments, combining elements from existing designs to create variations. This raises additional intellectual property concerns, as it is unclear who owns the resulting designs and whether they infringe on existing copyrights.

The cost savings are substantial. A traditional product photoshoot might cost $5,000 to $20,000 per day, including photographer, models, lighting, studio rental, and post-production. AI-generated images can be produced for pennies per image, with no additional costs for reshoots or travel.

The Deeper Crisis: Beyond Models to an Entire Creative Class

While models are the most visible victims of AI exploitation, they are far from the only ones affected. Photographers, hair stylists, makeup artists, retouchers, and set designers are all seeing their livelihoods threatened by generative AI.

Consider the economics of a typical catalog shoot: it might employ a dozen or more professionals. When a brand uses AI, it can generate hundreds of images at near-zero marginal cost. No photographers to hire. No lighting to set up. No makeup artists to pay. No retouchers to correct flaws. The entire creative ecosystem is bypassed.

This has profound implications for entry-level opportunities. As brands increasingly rely on AI, there will be fewer paid shoot days for emerging talent.

Aspiring photographers and stylists rely on these low-stakes catalog jobs to build their portfolios, network with industry professionals, and learn their craft. If those jobs disappear, the pipeline of future creative talent could dry up.

Legal experts are already warning of this shift. Attorney Anthony Lupo, a specialist in fashion law, told the New York Post that AI will soon completely replace commercial catalog models.

“Customers shopping really don’t care who is wearing the clothes,” he said. “The fashion industry will always need supermodels, will always put on live runway shows. But those high-end activities represent only about 15 percent of the work. The remaining 85 percent is just routine sales promotion. And that is exactly the work that AI will take over.”

The result, Lupo warns, is that “models who are not yet established or who specialize in commercial work will face very serious problems earning a living.”

The Legal Landscape: New York’s Fashion Workers Act

Amid this growing controversy, lawmakers have begun to act. In June 2025, New York enacted the Fashion Workers Act, a landmark piece of legislation designed to protect models from exploitation, including the unauthorized use of their digital replicas.

The law, which went into effect on June 19, 2025, imposes strict requirements on both modeling agencies and the brands that hire them. Key provisions include:

• Written Consent for Digital Replicas:

Clients must now obtain “clear written approval from a model before creating or using a model’s digital replica.”

This includes any computer-generated or AI-enhanced representation that substantially replicates or replaces a model’s appearance or performance. Routine edits like color correction or minor retouching are exempt, but anything beyond that requires explicit permission.

• Separate Consent:

Importantly, this consent must be separate from the model’s general representation agreement. A model cannot sign away their AI rights in a blanket contract; they must specifically agree to each use of their digital likeness.

• Contract Transparency:

Agencies must provide models with deal memos and final agreements outlining compensation terms, expenses, and usage rights. They can no longer hide behind power-of-attorney clauses that give them broad, unchecked authority.

• Registration Requirements:

Model management companies must register with the New York Department of Labor, pay fees ranging from $500 to $700, and renew every two years.

The Fashion Workers Act is the first U.S. law to specifically address the intersection of AI and modeling. It closes a loophole that had left models vulnerable, giving them legal recourse when their faces are stolen and sold.

However, the law only applies in New York. And since the fashion industry operates globally, models in other states and other countries remain largely unprotected. As one social media user put it, “This is why this sh*t needs REGULATION asap!! CLEAR laws, bands, policies, and boundaries set into place”.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Evans Ugo (@mr.evansugo)

The Deeper Crisis of AI in the Fashion Industry

While models are the most visible victims of AI exploitation, they are far from the only ones affected. Photographers, hair stylists, makeup artists, retouchers, and set designers are all seeing their livelihoods threatened by generative AI.

Consider the economics: a typical catalog shoot might employ a dozen or more professionals. When a brand uses AI, it can generate hundreds of images at near-zero marginal cost. No photographers to hire. No lighting to set up. No makeup artists to pay. No retouchers to correct flaws. The entire creative ecosystem is bypassed.

This has profound implications for entry-level opportunities. As brands increasingly rely on AI, there will be fewer paid shoot days for emerging talent. Aspiring photographers and stylists rely on these low-stakes catalog jobs to build their portfolios, network with industry professionals, and learn their craft. If those jobs disappear, the pipeline of future creative talent could dry up.

Legal experts are already warning of this shift. Attorney Anthony Lupo, a specialist in fashion law, told the New York Post that AI will soon completely replace commercial catalog models. “Customers shopping really don’t care who is wearing the clothes,” he said. 

“The fashion industry will always need supermodels, will always put on live runway shows. But those high-end activities represent only about 15 percent of the work. The remaining 85 percent is just routine sales promotion. And that is exactly the work that AI will take over”.

The result, Lupo warns, is that “models who are not yet established or who specialize in commercial work will face very serious problems earning a living”.

Beyond the economic impact, there is a deeper, more personal violation at stake. For models, their face is their currency. Their body is their brand. Their image is their intellectual property. When a brand steals that image and manipulates it without consent, it is not just copyright infringement; it is a violation of identity.

In the comments section of Diet Prada’s Instagram post about the Pujols’ case, one user captured this sentiment perfectly: “They are robbing the model of her proper rates, her likeness, and also robbing the entire group of industries involved… robbing the photographers, the hair and makeup artists, producers, and retouchers. just completely eliminating an entire flow of money towards creatives, while still wanting to steal and benefit from everything we do. i hate this timeline. I HATE AI”.

Another user pointed out the absurdity of the situation: “If she signed a release form, this will be hard to fight legally until the laws about AI usage are strengthened. I know this hurt her. Very sad”.

The sentiment is echoed by the model whose TikTok video went viral. She never identified the brand, perhaps out of fear of legal retaliation. But her message was clear: this is happening, and it is happening now.

Brands argue that AI offers benefits to consumers: more diverse representation, faster product launches, and lower prices. Levi Strauss, for example, partnered with AI studio Levi Strauss to increase the range of body types, skin tones, and ages represented in its online product imagery.

But critics are skeptical of these justifications. They argue that brands are using the language of diversity and inclusion as a cover for cost-cutting. If brands genuinely cared about representation, they could simply hire diverse models. The fact that they are turning to AI instead suggests that the primary motivation is not inclusion but expense reduction.

There is also the question of transparency. Should consumers be told when they are looking at an AI-generated image? Most brands have been silent on this issue, leaving shoppers to wonder whether the face in the advertisement belongs to a real person or a digital fabrication.

Some industry observers predict a backlash. As AI-generated content becomes ubiquitous, consumers may begin to crave authenticity. “There will be a move to things that are human — handmade, imperfect things,” predicts Karen Fielding, chief strategy officer at General Idea, which works with Louis Vuitton and Coach to Media Post. “And those will become more prevalent in luxury”.

But for the mass market, the economics of AI may prove irresistible. Most consumers, Fielding acknowledges, “won’t spend much time poring over the endless stream of fashion images, challenging themselves to spot the imposters”.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by @by.shlabu

The Path Forward: Regulation, Litigation, and Education

The Pujols case, while settled privately, has already had an impact. It has put brands on notice that models are watching and are willing to fight back. It has also highlighted the inadequacy of existing contracts, which were drafted long before AI was a consideration.

Moving forward, several steps are necessary to protect models and other creative professionals:

• Stronger Federal Legislation: While New York’s Fashion Workers Act is a model, it only applies in one state. Models in California, Texas, Florida, and elsewhere need similar protections. A federal right of publicity law could provide consistent standards across the country.
• Contract Reform: Models should insist on contracts that explicitly address AI usage. Any clause granting “future usage rights” should be viewed with suspicion. The Fashion Workers Act’s requirement of separate, written consent for digital replicas should become industry standard, even where not legally required.
• Unionization and Collective Bargaining: Models have historically been difficult to organize due to the freelance, fragmented nature of the work. But the AI threat may be the catalyst that finally brings the industry together. A union could negotiate minimum standards, create a licensing framework for AI usage, and provide legal support for models whose rights are violated.
• Consumer Awareness: Ultimately, brands will respond to consumer pressure. If shoppers demand transparency and reject AI-generated imagery, the industry will adapt. Conversely, if consumers continue to buy regardless of how the images were produced, the economic incentive to replace humans will only grow.

The controversy surrounding AI-generated models is not a passing trend. AI is a fundamental challenge to the way the fashion industry has operated for generations. For models like Francheska Pujols and Mel, the violation is personal.

Their faces have been taken, manipulated, and monetized without their consent. For the broader creative workforce, the threat is existential. If AI can replace catalog models, it can replace photographers, stylists, and retouchers, too.

But there is reason for cautious optimism. The Fashion Workers Act shows that lawmakers are paying attention. The public outrage over cases like Pujols’s shows that consumers care. And the growing organization among models and creatives shows that the industry is fighting back.

The face of fashion’s future is being decided right now. Will it be human or digital? The answer depends on the choices we make today.

Photo: Instagram/prompts.ig