I think lawsuits are a good alternate source of income for models over 35.

Your article title is inflammatory and wrong! She isn’t suing because she wasn’t Photoshopped. She is suing because 1.) they used her image in this campaign without her consent or knowledge, 2.) she has NEVER USED the product in question and 3.) her image was aged (aka Photoshopped) on the left side to make her appear older.

This is a sham. Estee Lauder hired a 35 year old model to showcase products intended for 45 plus market. Furthermore, they do not have confidence in the before and after effects. Save your money.

If the company had gotten the permission from Caroline Louise Forsling by running it by her before having it printed then it would be all gravy baby.

She’s a model. Her career is based on her looks to influence others. Most models and celebrities pay people to photoshop and airbrush all their photos, anyways, so it’s not uncommon.

She will probably settle out of court, but she would have won this case anyways. Regardless, she will be getting paid by Estee Lauder either from the court or if they choose to work together, to introduce a new line targeted for women with aging skin since Forsling is 35 and may be approaching a new stage in her career.

I’ve shot lots of model’s and am an expert at retouching ( digital and traditional).
Basically, the model release and or the contract will spell it all out. Photoshop has nothing to do with the case. If the contract stipulates that the ‘client’ , even by extension has all rights to the images and how they are used , for all time in perpetuity ; then Caroline Louise Forsling has no case at all.
Rarely, an actor or celebrity or dignitary, may stipulate control of the final image manipulation. I doubt that as a model she has such a stipulation anywhere in writing. Sorry ! Ironically, by making a fuss, she”s drawn even more attention to those crow’s feet than they might otherwise have garnered.

which side was retouched? i can’t tell what she’s complaining about, but i bet she can whine in 3 languages, being all european ‘n stuff.

LOL after reading these comments, you people crack me up. do you ACTUALLY think when you see a photo/ad that says ‘without our product on the left, with our product on the right’ that they are telling you the truth? “marketing” has absolutely nothing to do with “truth in advertising” and they spend all their days walking that line and *sometimes* trying to stay on the proper side of it.

i weep for humanity.

She’s old and washed up and obviously isn’t making enough money to survive on her modeling job so she has to find other means.

Why isn’t the story about how Estee Lauder completely FABRICATED the results of their product???

Is this just to be expected and now we laugh at the model instead?

The takeaway from this should be that Estee Lauder completely lied about the effects of their product and evidently they don’t have enough confidence in the product to use REAL shots…

Way to miss the story news people.

I’m sure she will find a wise use for—
her faverite works.

Sorry, but I sorta agree with her. AND I think this highlights the problems with ads like this.
If there was truth in advertising they would hire an older model and photograph her and then actually have her use the product for four weeks and take another photo.
Just more proof that their products don’t work. Its one thing to buy a lipstick or mascara. But the anti-aging stuff is complete junk. You might as well use botox, at least that works (you won’t smile again )

The model is objecting that the picture used was without makeup. The test shot was taken under full (harsh) lighting, lighting that was designed to be used with makeup, so her face was ‘aged’ by the non-natural light. Once made up, her skin appeared flawless. Yes, the makeup gives us an ‘artificial’ look — but so does the use of the lighting without makeup. A true picture would have been no-makeup, in natural light.

I once did a national commercial for a beauty product that intimated I was in my 40′s but didn’t have to lie about being younger because the product was so effective.
The catch? I was 28 when I shot the ad.
Everyone in the business knows that real age has nothing to do with ‘advertising age’. I doubt her career was damaged. Her agents should be doing a better job, however, at keeping on top of releases. If there was no release for this job then they should definitely sue.

Yeah, this headline is maliciously misleading. If indeed they used that photo without her permission, then she can sue, but I don’t think she has a case. She took the picture willingly and while under contract and she got paid for it, right? Next.

“…she has never used the Plantscription serum. ”

Is anyone upset that Estee Lauder apparently completely faked this campaign and their claims for their product? Has everyone just been lied to so often that it doesn’t surprise us? Unbelievable.

The title of this article is misleading and COMPLETELY FALSE. Bad job, Rachel Adler.

I dunno, I don’t think she has a case over Estee Lauder…they’re Estee Lauder and have 100 lawyers making sure that they always win in whatever argument is laid out before them. I never believed in anti-aging product before and I certainly don’t use the pictures as any “evidence” that a product works. She looks pretty good for 35 though. I’ve seen some #### wrinkly 30-year olds in my life lol

News is Entertainment!!! Talk about nothing.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA, some one is shallow and VAIN…..hahahahaha, get over it, you’re old…..

Not only do I agree with Forsling’s assertions, I also believe that consumers should be able to sue companies who mislead them with stunts like this. A Photoshopped “after” shot instead of an actual example is just plain wrong.

Where in this article does it say she’s suing for not being photoshopped? Does the suit even say this? She’s suing, this says, because the company used a test shot without her permission, and mentions her not wearing makeup, and having her hair pulled back, and being 35 when the ad implies she’s 45 or older. I don’t get it. …This weirdly bad journalism.

why wouldn’t they photoshop that? no one is going to use a product on just half of their face.

Such a poorly written article…shame…and shame on CNN for sharing a link to it.

Wow! Well I won’t be using Estee Lauder! Shame on them for fooling people into thinking their photoshopped work was the work of their products!

Sara is absolutely right. This article was poorly written. She was obviously taken advantage of and NO model believes their test shots will be used. I know from experience. It just doesn’t happen unless the model gives permission at a later date…in writing. Unbelievable that you would skew this story the way you did. Shame on your reporting.

Also, they were claiming that the product was tested on women over 45 and the model is only 35. I can see why she’d be upset. It’s also dishonest to consumers to use before and after shots that are not only photoshopped but feature a woman who is only 35-years-old when the product is supposed to be an anti-aging product. Gee, she looks 35. No duh, she IS 35.

She is suing b/c they photoshopped the wrinkles ONTO her skin thus aging her. The after side of the shoot is what her actual skin looks like, but they misrepresented her appearance with their falsified before photoshopping. Because she never used the serum, their before/after claims are wrong. Seriously, who wrote this article? Know your facts.

Wait. The ad CLAIMED to show the improvement to skin with the product, an ‘improvement’ due entirely to photoshopping (whether 1 side was made worse, or the other better, we don’t know). In any case that demonstrably false advertising.

” Do you think she should be relying on Photoshop so much when going into a shoot? ”

Rachel Adler, nobody is said to be relying on Photoshop. Why do you ask this question? Journalism fail.

She should definitely be paid the 2 mill. Shot was used without permission.
If she never used the product then this plain false advertising.
BOYCOTT ESTEE LAUDER

Anyone relying on advertising whatsoever deserves to be lied to.

More goes into a finished photo from a shoot than just photoshop. She did not have any hair or makeup done in the test shoot and as always, tests shoots are tests. They are never meant to be used for advertisment purposes unless with written consent from the model. Like others have said, this has nothing to do with not using photoshop and everything else. All I wanted to add was that models look like human beings. with the added benefit of a great makeup artist and wardrobe stylist, they look like the models we know them to be. (quick trivia, most models do not know how to put makeup on themselves)

She signed up to shoot for the product. She signed up for an anti-aging product that she had full knowledge of she hadn’t used. She was willing to accept payment for it as well. What did she expect would happen? Her career is already dying at 35 years.

The fact that she chose to sue them makes it worse. Who is going to higher a 35 year old hard to work with model now? Lets be fair shes no Cindy Crawford. I’m also sure Estee Lauder contract is iron clad so shes going to loose the law suite. You do not bite the hand that feeds you over something as stupid as this. If she is well known in the industry her portfolio should speak for itself as everyone hiring her knows all about ad campaigns.

I agree with some of the comments below. This model isn’t suing because she wasn’t Photoshopped, she’s suing because they used this picture to falsely exhibit their product. Not only did they use this photo without her consent but she never even had used the product.

Did Forsling signed an agreement for a before-and-after ad for a face cream? If she did, she got what she asked for.

If the image of Forsling on the right was not the result of the product it is false advertising.

Am I missing something? No where in your article does it say that the model “relied on Photoshop” … the author of this article seemed to be the only person documented who thinks she was relying on Photoshop. Is everyone out to lunch? The problem is this was a test shot, and false advertising!

I agree with Sarah. The title is misleading. She is suing because the photo was used without consent. However, as a former model myself, any bad shots of you out in circulation can affect your career negatively. Test shots at a shoot are simply to test lighting etc and are not generally used and especially not used without consent. I would like to know what kind of release she signed for the shots taken for the other Estee Lauder company (Origins). She should have made sure all her bases were covered in her release before signing.

I think the model has every right to be upset with Estee Lauder if they had not told her what the test shot was being used for; not to mention the implications of false advertising. Makes you wonder how much you can truly believe about these miracle products. Being a graphic designer, to me, that before/after shot is so obviously photoshopped that it falls pretty flat.

I absolutely agree from the perspective that this smacks of false advertising. I don’t think Forsling’s claim has anything to do with NOT being Photoshopped but that she was photographed under false pretenses. Who the heck came up with the idea that she was mad about not being Photoshopped? I think the title of this article is also misleading. Words to the wise: don’t trust cosmetic ads and don’t trust online “news” reporting.

where is the article about “…Suing Over NOT Being Photoshopped…?”

I love Estee Lauders products, but they need to rethink thier marketing technics. Maybe this will be a wake up call for EL’s marketing Department.

I don’t ever believe any of these advertisements anyway! I am glad this model is standing up for what is right! These companies need to be called on the carpet for false advertising. Suing over here picture is most likely the best way to legally get her point made with some effectiveness! More power to her!

I agree with sara

Photoshop is a verb?

Well, I guess as a model and making your living off of looking good I can see why she is suing for 1) using her image without her consent (or her being paid for it) for 2) Product she has never used then 3) it being for woman aged 45 and up which would make it seem like this model is much older than she really is and 4) altering her image for the after shot misleading people into thinking this was the actual end results.

Personally, any time I see those before and after results I do not believe them. Nice to know that I was right.

She is beautiful and natural. Move on, lady!

Your headline is misleading. She is actually suing because:
1) She never gave permission for the shot to be used for that product.
2) The left side of the photo was photoshopped to make her look older.
3) The ad inaccurately gives her age as 45.

She is not complaining that she should have been photoshopped. There is no indication that she is ever relying on photoshopping.

Estee Lauder probably has the right to use any photo that was shot that day for any of their products, depending upon the consent form she signed.

Anyone who thinks that ads include real before and after photos of models is just dumb.

Kudos to the model for coming forward to say that she never used the product in question!

I have hated this practice by cosmetic companies for years where they alter shots to make us believe their product will produce XYZ results. It’s completely dishonest and I’m glad one of these make up giants has been exposed for their fraudulent behaviour. Good on her for suing…

Do you still confuse which one to choose from so many Gucci outlet online shops? if so,pls just keep your steps with our store,we mainly sell the newest design gucci handbags, and also matches some other gucci accessories,like gucci wallets,gucci belts, gucci sunglasses and so on.
We will fast delivery to your order, top convenient for your business.they are so many styles that you can find the one you like best to fit your every occasions and to show your personality and style. If you are having trouble deciding which of our fabulous gucci bags to choose from, or can’t seem to find exactly what you are looking for – pls just contact us. We are online 24 hours to service for you.

She should also sue over the ridiculous and inaccurate title of your article; seems borderline defamatory to me!

I agree with Sara; Caroline Louise Forsling is suing because of 1.) they used her image in this campaign without her consent or knowledge, 2.) she has NEVER USED the product in question and 3.) her image was aged (aka Photoshopped) on the left side to make her appear older.
Whatever happened to the idea of “TRUTH in advertising”? It makes me never want to try Plantscription serum by Origins (which is owned by Estee Lauder) because I’m wondering why you would have to fake the results for a before and After photo!

I think you should read and not jsut assume that models are relying 100% on photoshop. The top of this article state that she is suing “over claims that she was made to appear to look older in an advertisment for their anti-aging skincare.” That is a direct quote from this article, clearly not that she wasn’t photoshopped to look good. Your article title is a direct and Blantant LIE as indicated by your lead in sentance. Additionally, she never used the product and they used her photo without her permission. Her claims have significantly more weight than your trite article wants readers to believe

I can’t believe that people actually thought that previous ‘before’ and ‘after’ pictures in ads were real! How stupid and naive. Advertisers lie for a living and our government allows them to legally do so. What did you expect? You are probably the same people that believe our politicians are looking out for your best interests and the media doesn’t try to manipulate you. Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ has been thwarted by civilization and technology. Now the stupid and incompetent breed at a faster rate and all of nature’s checks and balances are taken out of the picture. I bet the human race loses a few IQ points every decade or so. The responses here tend to prove that theory. LOL

The problem is her stated age is off by ten yr. And she never used product so the good side is p.shopped and bad side is probably p.shopped too. I hope she wins a ton of money shows ESLauder is bunch of cheats!

I think it is horrible that Estee Lauder is lying about the results of their products. After reading this article, I will never purchase an Estee Lauder product…EVER. PS, I hope the model received the entire 2M for exposing a fraudulent company!

The word “attitude” in this article that Rachel Adler uses when referring to Ms Forsling, infers some type of emotions involved. This makes Ms Forsling appear less than believable.

If she states a fact that she was made to appear older in the ad, she WAS photoshopped, which would be highly unethical way for the company to market its product. A company who makes millions of dollars at the expense of woman buying the product. Woman who statistically already make just 70 cents to every dollar a man makes. And the product must not even work if they couldn’t show real results.

Why does Rachel spend one sentence on the real story line.

“We definitely see the wrong in using a test shot without permission, especially if Forsling was not told that was the shot which would be used.”

What could have been a reporter’s dream article became nothing much more then fluff. Not only did she not write about the facts, she didn’t edit her own statements made in the title of the article, DUH

Ms Forsling’s career chances were compromised as result of this ad. And after all she does make her living on good skin, so what?

The real story would have been really interesting if the writer had done some research

Most of us know that all those beauty ads are manipulated.
Instead of the love potions, fountains of youth and magical brews they sold back in the middle ages, these quacks now sell creams and serums. nothing’s changed really

As far as the model goes, if they didn’t ask her permission to use the photo for the ad and it’s not stated in any contract, I think she has every right to sue. It’s still her face!

If she has that enough wrinkles at age 35 to make her look 45-60, she’s probably either a smoker (you know, to hold down her weight), she spends an inordinate amount of time in the sun without sunblock, or both. Considering the known carcinogenic effects of both behaviors, I’d say crows’ feet are the least of her worries.

Regarding the title of the ad, it is somewhat misleading, but I don’t think it was intended to mislead. A more truthful title–”35 Year-Old Model Is Suing Over Being Misrepresented In Ad As 45-60 And Over The Fact That She Has Never Used The Beauty Product The Ad Claims She Has”–is, to say the least, a bit of a mouthful.

I agree the ad itself is deceptive. The most honest ad would have had an *actual* 45-60 year-old model (Brooke Shields and Paulina Porizkova come to mind) using the product on one side of her face for the claimed four weeks, like those old Head & Shoulders ads; but of course, that would mean either taking four weeks off from any other modeling jobs (lest she look like Two-Face), or Estee Lauder would have to pay her for four weeks of her time (or she could work but stick to profile shots of her “good” side for the four weeks). An acceptable compromise would have been completely unretouched before and after shots of said model after actually *using* the product. But since anti-aging creams are little more than overpriced snake oil, there probably wouldn’t be much difference.

Bottom line: If you want to stay young, quit smoking, drink moderately if at all, and for the love of God, stay out of the sun!

she signed a release so they could have made half her face Wolfman for all it mattered, she can’t sue. if she looks that bad at 35 her career is already over anyway.

And I have to agree with a lot of the other comments below and say that this article and the misleading title and summery have put me off this site. I don’t think I’ll be returning.

Personally, this article made my day. I am ten years older than the “model” and look younger than she does — without Photoshop!

If Estee Lauder wants a woman in the right age group – the company can pick ME – I’ll do the ad for less than half what they can pay a ‘real’ model for the work – just keep me in product (if it works) -

Isn’t that called fraud?

The real issue is that it’s completely false advertising. They should be in trouble for that. The model never used the product being advertised. If Lauder owns the image and there is no contract dictating the use of it, they might be in the clear against the suit. They may only be guilty of doing what cosmetics companies do to move product to aging women: lying. They are selling spackle, after all.

Does anyone edit these articles? This is terrible reporting, the person who wrote this stated the facts but didn’t understand them or disregarded them to make a salacious headline?!?! That’s internet reporting for you!

You are missing the point. She is suing because they didn’t get her permission to use the article, evidently misrepresented the purpose in taking the picture, misled readers about her use of their product and misled readers into thinking she was at least 45 years old. She should sue the pants off them. As readers, WE should be just as angry as she is. With the recent revelation about Julia Roberts in a similar situation, how can we believe anything these companies say about their product?

The picture is Photoshopped. It is Photoshopped on the left (the forehead wrinkles are clearly enhanced, as are a couple of the crows’ feet and some lines around the mouth and the “orange peel” effect), and it is Photoshopped on the right (where the skin itself has been smoothed out).

The model depends on *makeup* to make herself look better–many of the unevenness of the complexion would have been smoothed out on the left. In makeup, she probably looks a lot like the image on the right.

Seriously–if you aren’t better with nothing Photoshopping than this (look for places where the additions look “flat” and enhanced), then you really shouldn’t be commenting.

Your title was fraudulent and deceitful (as was pointed out by many others). You should be ashamed of yourself.

She has every right to sue, since Estee Lauder has clearly engaged in fraud and misrepresentation both towards her and the general public. Estee Lauder would be well advised to immediately settle this suit out of court. This issue could very quickly escalate to class action law suits and investigation by federal prosecutors; probably better to pay $1M than possibly face criminal prosecution for conspiracy to commit fraud by a scheme of enrichment to falsify information about Plantscription serum.

So where is the Photoshop claim. Make up and hair do not a photoshop make.

My initial reaction was that we as consumers should be outraged for the constant deception coming from the cosmetics companies such as this! This article states that the product tested was used on women from 45-60. And they’re doctoring photos of a 35 year young model? Why not seek a woman who in reality looks good for age and uses the product? They ARE out there, at least the women who look good for their age are. Apparently the product, however, is not of sufficient quality if Estee Lauder doesn’t trust it enough to prove beneficial to women in the age range they are targeting. As a ‘mature’ model whose bookings are those for women at least ten years younger, I speak from inside the industry AND as a consumer.

Estee Lauder was dishonest with the model. They will pay, she will collect.

EVERY cosmetics company uses Photoshop and other cheats to claim results which are actually completely unattainable in real-life. Several have been fined and banned in the UK. But, in North America, those same ads for skin care, foundations, and mascaras continue to run with complete impunity. Why aren’t they being punished for FALSE ADVERTISING here?

There should be truth in advertising. The FCC should get involved.

This article should really have been about how Estee Lauder fakes their products results, and not about the lawsuit, furthermore you have misrepresented the lawsuit in the title of this article..

just poor reporting really

Models of all ages have been photoshopped and are photoshopped to excess no matter what their age or weight. Though it’s kinda low to take a photo that she is unaware will be publicly used and use it in an ad campaign she didn’t sign up for – if Estee Lauder can prove that they would have paid her the same for the Serum campaign they could just state they are the parent company and own ALL images – so that doesn’t matter.

They used her image without permission, they say the product is for women 45-60 while she is 35, the made her look older on the left side of the picture, and her career will be affected because prospective employers may see this and think she isn’t right for a job. I say, sue them.

@the person who said they photoshopped her before picture to make her look older. That is incorrect. She didn’t say they photoshopped it. That’s her gripe. That they showed what she really looks like in the before. A 45+ yr old woman. Then they removed her lines/wrinkles a la photoshop. And she’s never used the product before.

I disagree with you. She is suing for very valid reasons. It has nothing to do with her NOT being photoshopped. It has everything to do with the deceit Estee Lauder tried to pull on her and the consumers. While this isn’t the most pressing issue in the world, I do think her lawsuit has merit.

Using the same picture, but photoshopped for the after look effect is nothing short of total fraud.
IF they had added the after part from an actual picture of the after effect face, that would have been honest.

The title of the article is misleading !!!

Your article’s title was just as misleading as the ad that says she used a product that she didn’t use is.

Yikes! Agreed on the alternative income source for old models Steph Some older women just don’t know when to ‘fold em’ [go back to knitting and quilting]-clearly this ‘model’ likes to see herself as younger…a horrible role model for younger women-just as bad as photoshopping models to appear thinner-should be outlawed

I agree with Sara, the conclusion of this article is way off. How do you gather that she’s “relying on Photoshop?” She’s suing because her image (a test shot) was used without her permission, she was not given hair or makeup in the shot which is typical of the industry (and what most women do every day before they leave the house let alone put their face on a national ad campaign…) and because they misrepresented her age and DID photoshop half of her face to look younger than it is.

I personally think she’s stunning without her hair or makeup done but I don’t blame her for suing.

At 30 something she is definitely close to being over the hill as a model . Time to get a real job or a rich” Partner” or better yet ; sue your former bosses. I myself used to be a model in Australia and boy does it feel lonely and lazy once you exit the modelling business.

Wow, the author of this article completely missed the point. 1)She wasn’t even doing a photo for this product, 2)they used a test shot as a “before” picture of said product, 3)she never used the product in the “after” images, misleading the consumer, and 4)the company advertised the product for people over 40 years, when the model isn’t even that old. This has nothing to do with a model getting upset that she wasn’t photoshopped.

People keep commenting on how Estee Lauder have falsely claimed this model used the product for 4 weeks – if you believe any ad campaign that claims the model/actress has been transformed by their product and that they swear they use it every day WAKE UP!! how stupid do you have to be to believe that #### – they get paid a lot of money to put their faces on something, they smile, claim its the best hair dye, mascara, anti wrinkle cream and take home a cheque. People need to stop being blinded by pretty faces and shiny ads and make up their own minds on which products to buy. Idiots

She goes to a photo shoot for Estee Lauder, has her hair pulled back tightly, absolutely no make up on her face and they take tight shots of her bare, naked face. Did she believe this was for EL’s cologne line? She claims it was for another of EL’s lines, but she’s a model, she has seen EL ads, she had to have known this would be for cosmetics. But wait, with no make up on her face, it wouldn’t have been for the “color” part of a cosmetics line! She brings “dumb model” to a new level when she believes people won’t see right through her! She’s older in the modeling world and looking for a last big paycheck! Besides, if she doesn’t look like the before picture, wouldn’t it be apparent in her other pics and in person? The grapevine is short in that world, and so is the career of most models.

This seems very simple to me. The photo was taken during a different photo shoot for a different product. Models have the right to be very concerned about how they are presented and how their image is used. I can well understand a model not wanting photos of her without makeup and hair styling to be used. These things typically are covered in the written agreement between the model and the client. If the client violates the agreement in some way, such as claiming that the model used their product, or using a photo that was not covered under the agreement then she has every right to be upset. Remember that her looks are her “product”…. portraying her image in a way that does not show her in her best light is, in my opinion, something she should be legitimately concerned with. The fact of if the image is or is not “Photoshopped” is not really the issue here at all.
The fact that the image does not show a real before and after image of a face using the product is reprehensible. Truth in advertising laws should be strengthened.

Dear author, you are a tool. Your article states a perfectly good cause of action that this women is suing over and you distort the very facts of the lawsuit to try and make a story out of nothing. Your analysis of the situation shows a clear bias towards the story you want it to be, not to the facts at hand. Even though this is Fox “News”, I still expected a tad better.

If anyone thinks any photo of any model or any person in any magazine or media is an actual representation of reality, they need professional help.

That should say f*kkkk you

Well Rachel, did you think of the headline yourself or is your editor responsible for making you look such a t*t?

Tell you what: I will take the words of your article, switch them around to take them completely out of context and then submit them, without your permission to a publication that will make you look less than how brilliant you really are. I will inbox you my phone number and see how fast you sue me then. lol…dumbass.

The lawsuit is about using a photo that wasn’t to be published and photoshopping it to look older. She’s not suing for being photoshopped; she suing for being photoshopped and false advertising.

Wow, was that headline even intended for this article?
Was it mix-up, or just an assumption that no one would ever read as far as the second sentence?

Well, of course I prefer undoctored photos but it simply won´t happen, so I am skeptical of any advertising nowadays , about the lawsuit I don´t have an opinion, actually I don´t care, a spoiled model against a tricky corporation, not really any side to cheer on.

Since when do advertisements ever tell the whole truth. Doctoring things is the oldest trick in the book, like picking out the perfect pieces of cereal and then pouring glue instead of milk, or attaching cardboard to a pizza to make it look sturdy. The bottom line is, Estee Lauder paid her to get her picture taken and they used the picture that bet fit their ad. If she didn’t know what product she was pedling and had never used it, shame on her, thats part of a model’s job! People should stop leeching money in frivalous lawsuits!

If it is all true, and not just hype, the model must have been very mad that it was not a standard beautiful glossy poster she thought she was getting. The details should have been in the contract.

If she didn’t use the product, she should be suing over false advertisement that used her face. I’m not so sure about the photoshop argument…