On March 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico issued its Opinion in the case of Friger Salgueiro v. Mech-Tech College, LLC et al., 2026 TSPR 30, interpreting Act No. 139-2011 (“Right of Publicity Act”), which generally protects a person’s right to control the commercial use of his/her image (name, photograph voice, signature, likeness, or any aspect of the person that serves to identify him/her), and establishing the following: (1) a person’s right of publicity may be transferred only by written agreement or through intestate succession; (2) a third party may use a person’s image only with the right holder’s written consent; (3) in the absence of a written agreement, a third party may use a person’s image only with the right holder’s verbal consent, which may be revoked at any time; and, (4) even a single unauthorized commercial use by a third party violates the Act, regardless of any employment, contractual, or other relationship between the parties.
The Supreme Court also emphasized that Act 139-2011 provides remedies of compensatory damages (which may be tripled if the violation was intentional or in bad faith), or statutory damages for up to $20,000 per violation, or up to $100,000 per violation if the conduct was intentional or grossly negligent. The statute also allows recovery of attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.
In this case, the plaintiff worked as an independent contractor for Mech-Tech College for approximately 7 years, producing promotional content. During this period, the plaintiff also appeared in promotions that Mech-Tech used for commercial purposes. After Mech-Tech terminated the contract, it continued to use promotional content that contained the plaintiff’s image and voice, notwithstanding a cease-and-desist letter the Plaintiff sent a year after the termination of his engagement.
The Supreme Court found that after the plaintiff sent the cease-and-desist letter, Mech-Tech used the promotional material for commercial purposes on at least one occasion. The Court ruled that, in the absence of a written agreement from the plaintiff authorizing Mech-Tech to use his image and his voice or his consent authorizing the continued use of the plaintiff’s image and voice, Mech-Tech had violated the plaintiff’s rights under Act 139-2011. Accordingly, it awarded the plaintiff $20,000 in statutory damages since he could only prove a one-time violation.
This decision is a practical reminder that image rights should not be handled informally. Employers and businesses should promptly review their agreements, consents and disclaimers with employees, independent contractors, vendors, customers, clients, or any other person whose image, voice, name or likeness may be used in marketing or promotional materials, in any medium (including social media). They should ensure they have written authorization to use the third party’s image and right of publicity, which is clear in its scope and appropriate for the intended use. Going forward, such written agreements must be carefully drafted to reduce the risk of monetary exposure under Act 139-2011.
The content of this McV Alert has been prepared for information purposes only. It is not intended as, and does not constitute, either legal advice or solicitation of any prospective client. An attorney-client relationship with McConnell Valdés LLC cannot be formed by reading or responding to this McV Alert. Such a relationship may be formed only by express agreement with McConnell Valdés LLC.
