On February 22, 2015, Gladys Wambui Irungu, a model, sat across the table with officials from Brainwave Communication, a casting agency, to sign a deal on behalf of L’Oréal East Africa.
The deal was for her face to be on the packaging of L’Oréal’s Gold Touch cream. She would become the face of the product.
In the two-year contract, Ms Irungu was to earn Sh250,000 in the first year for the use of her image, with the fee rising by 10 percent annually. Over the contract period, the deal was expected to earn her a total of Sh525,000, subject to deductions by the casting agency.
Eleven years later, what began as a modelling assignment has since evolved into a dispute over a question that is increasingly becoming important in Kenya’s influencer marketing and advertising industry. Just how long can a brand continue to make money from a face after the contractual right to use it has expired?
Ms Irungu has now sued L’Oréal East Africa, a subsidiary of French cosmetics giant L’Oréal, and is seeking damages exceeding Sh8 million. She accuses the company of breaching its licensing agreement and infringing on her image rights by continuing to use her likeness without a valid licence.
In court documents filed on September 28, 2026, Ms Irungu claims that L’Oréal continued to distribute Gold Touch products bearing her image after the expiry of licensing agreements, despite her efforts to have the company stop using it or negotiate fresh terms.
A model’s commercial value
The dispute raises questions about the commercial value of a model’s identity, particularly when an image initially commissioned for product packaging continues to circulate through retail outlets and advertising platforms long after the original deal has run its course.
According to her pleadings, trouble began after the first year (2015) of the original agreement, when payments allegedly stopped even as the company continued benefiting from the use of her image. During the two years, she was not to work with another brand but also waived the rights to the use of her image, handing power to L’Oreal to use her image for marketing however it deemed fit.
‘After the first year ended as I was never paid any money thereafter despite the fact that the Defendant continued to benefit from the use of my image and likeness to date,’ she argues.
By 2022, Ms Irungu says, L’Oréal owed her Sh2.12 million in unpaid fees.
‘In 2022, it was seven years since I entered into the contract. The Defendant had continued to use my image and likeness and had until then refused to pay the requisite licence fees,’ she says.
She subsequently sued the company and the casting agency in Milimani Commercial Chief Magistrate’s Court in a case filed in 2022. The matter was later settled out of court, with the parties recording a consent and the suit being withdrawn. L’Oréal then entered into a direct agreement with Ms Irungu on May 19, 2022, allowing it to use her image and likeness until December 31, 2025.
That agreement appeared to give the relationship a fresh lease of life. But its expiry has now opened another chapter in the dispute. Ms Irungu maintains that the latest licence expired on December 31, 2025, and that L’Oréal had no right to continue using her image from January 1, 2026, without obtaining a renewal.
On April 29, 2026, she says she emailed the company to remind it that the licence had expired four months earlier and invited it to make an offer if it wished to continue using her image.
The company proposed a new three-year renewal deal running from January 1, 2026, to December 31, 2028, with a fee of Sh2.25 million.
The proposed payment translated to Sh750,000 annually, three times the initial annual fee of Sh250,000 under the original deal.
But the offer did not resolve the dispute. By then, Ms Irungu says, other brands had approached her with more lucrative offers for the use of her image.
She also wanted assurances that Gold Touch products bearing her likeness would be withdrawn from the market after the agreed licensing period, allowing her to pursue other commercial opportunities without an indefinite association with the cosmetics brand.
In her filings, Ms Irungu says she discovered Gold Touch products in various outlets bearing expiry dates extending into 2029, despite the proposed renewal agreement ending on December 31, 2028.
She interpreted this as a sign that the company intended to continue selling products bearing her image beyond the proposed licensing period. She subsequently sent a communication expressing her objection to any continued use of her face after the proposed expiry date.
The model says she made a counteroffer that would allow L’Oréal to clear existing stock bearing her image, while allowing her to work with other brands.
The negotiations, which revolved around Sh8 million as compensation, however, broke down, with her claiming the company had initially agreed but then began taking her into circles, hence prompting her to issue a cease-and-desist notice demanding that the company stop using her image.
According to the court documents, she also accuses L’Oréal of continued assigning or granting exploitation rights in her image to third parties for advertising, marketing and promotional purposes without her authorisation.
Commercial exploitation claims
These allegations broaden the dispute beyond the physical packaging of the cream. They place the commercial exploitation of one’s likeness across advertising and media platforms at the heart of the case.
A licensing agreement does not simply put a face on a product, but also defines the commercial terms under which that identity may be used, including the duration and scope of the permission granted.
‘When a licence expires, the question of whether a company can continue using the image, and under what circumstances it may sell existing stock, can become a source of conflict if the parties have not agreed on what happens next. In Ms Irungu’s claims, the proposed renewal did not produce an agreement, and her pleadings indicate that she wanted the company to stop using her image rather than extend the relationship indefinitely,’ Manasses Mwangi, an intellectual property lawyer tells BDLife.
The model is now asking the court to award Sh750,000 in special damages for the alleged infringement of her image rights from January 1, 2026, until the filing of the suit. She also wants the amount adjusted to cover the entire period the case has been in court.
In addition, she is seeking general damages for the alleged unauthorised granting of exploitation rights to third parties and the use of her face in advertising and marketing across internet and media platforms. She also wants a permanent injunction barring L’Oréal from using her image for any purpose, as well as further damages, interest and legal costs.
By the time of going to press, L’Oréal had not filed its defense in the case despite having already appointed lawyers to represent them in the matter.