9th Cir.

Johnson v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

July 2, 2026 ·2:24-cv-01070-JNW ·Unpublished · By Maria Santos

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court dismissal of a pro se complaint alleging misappropriation of likeness and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The panel held that the plaintiff failed to state plausible claims under Washington law regarding a commercial featuring a celebrity chef.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / --:--

Background

Sheri Johnson, known professionally as HotPink, sued Amazon.com and Megan Pete, known as Megan Thee Stallion, in the Western District of Washington. Johnson alleged that an Amazon Prime Day commercial misappropriated her likeness and personality by depicting Pete as a chef holding a purple phone. She also claimed intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed the pro se suit for failure to state a claim, ruling that further amendment would be futile.

The court’s reasoning

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, applying the Twombly plausibility standard. Regarding the likeness claim, the court noted that Washington law defines likeness as a clear representation of distinctive appearance or mannerisms. Citing White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., the court found that showing a celebrity in a specific job, wearing certain clothing, and holding a specific colored phone was not sufficiently distinctive to constitute a protected likeness. Regarding the emotional distress claim, the court held that the alleged conduct did not meet the high bar of being extreme and outrageous or beyond all possible bounds of decency.

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces that generic attributes like clothing, props, or professions are insufficient to establish a protectable likeness under Washington’s Personality Rights Act. It also clarifies that commercial advertising, even if perceived as copying a persona, rarely meets the extreme and outrageous threshold for intentional infliction of emotional distress.