How Huffer turned an AI accusation into a PR crisis
Sunday, 14 June 2026
Stewart Sowman-Lund’s media column, The Sunday Report - dissecting talking points from NZ media, entertainment and pop culture - appears weekly on Sundays on thepost.co.nz and in the Sunday Star-Times.
ANALYSIS: When model Elijah Timmins-Scanlon took to Instagram little over a week ago to make a video about a local fashion company allegedly using artificial intelligence to generate content for its marketing, it opened a can of worms.
While the broader purpose of the video was not to “shame” one company, it was Huffer, a company Timmins-Scanlon had previously modelled for, that he singled out.
As The Post reported, Timmins-Scanlon alleged that Huffer had used AI to mimic his and other models’ likenesses in images then used to market its clothes.
The company quickly went on the defensive, with its managing director Kate Berry telling The Post that computer-assisted design was part of “everyone's design philosophy now” but repeatedly refusing to address whether the image that looked like Timmins-Scanlon was created by AI or not.
She also said: “Maybe he should just think about why he's not getting work from other people.”
In the week that followed, Timmins-Scanlon has appeared across a range of media outlets. Berry, too, was interviewed by a number of publications and appeared on 1News.
Then things exploded again. Huffer had sent a legal letter to Timmins-Scanlon. It has since emerged, via the Free Speech Union, that the potential legal proceedings were under the Harmful Digital Communications Act.
Timmins-Scanlon’s Instagram account, on which he had since shared a few more videos around the AI issue, was later disabled - not of his own doing.
Huffer, however, has largely gone silent - at least in the media. Berry did not respond to follow-up questions from The Post earlier in the week, and it appears the company’s only new comment in recent days has been to The Spinoff.
“Shame on the broadcasters and journalists for fueling [sic] this,” Berry told the outlet.
On Thursday, in a statement on its Instagram, Huffer finally acknowledged the furore publicly - and admitted it had used “an AI design tool” to create the original image that sparked this whole saga but vehemently denied using Timmins-Scanlon’s likeness to generate the image.
It has been a fascinating story to observe, not just because of the questions it raises about the creative industries in New Zealand and how ready they are for the AI race, but because of the way a well-known, popular company chose to respond to claims against it - claims it could have addressed from day one.
The story became bigger than just one man or even one industry against Huffer. Instead, at least in the eyes of social media commentators, it was about how Huffer responded.
Anna Farrera from Pead PR tells the Sunday Star-Times that Huffer “could have done better” in addressing both Timmins-Scanlon’s concerns and questions from the media.
“Huffer has been on the defensive,” she says. “It would have been smarter for them to get ahead of this, own the mistake, and acknowledge it's a fast-moving space.”
While businesses were increasingly using AI for various reasons, the difference here is that people are involved. “Transparency and consent is really key,” she says.
Though social media is hardly a representative pool, it’s hard, having taken a quick glance across social media, to find comments supportive of Huffer’s response.
Max Burt, general manager at One Plus One Communications, says Huffer should have taken a moment to consider its response rather than immediately choosing to engage with the media.
“I would always advise clients in situations like this, rather than wading into the media immediately … just just take a beat to work out what's actually happened, so you're on really sound footing,” he says.
“You need to slow down and work out what's happened inside your business, so that you can comment in a way that's helpful to your business and to the customers who are obviously really passionate about your products and what you do.”
As AI use rises more broadly, companies should think about what they’re signalling to the consumer through the use of it, said Burt. For example, while telecommunications company Skinny certainly copped a degree of flak over its fully AI ad campaign centred around the likeness of one consenting woman named Liz, the purpose of that promotion was to signal affordability.
“The campaign creative baked into it is we've made this campaign with AI because it's cheaper, and we've done that because we want to pass on the cost to our customers. It's the same concept with the Pak‘nSave stick man,” he says.
“If you're a brand that wants to be a premium brand or a cool brand, then when you're thinking about your usage of AI, you need to think about what that's signaling to your audience.”
Huffer is not alone in choosing to use modern technology in this way, but Farrera says transparency is key. Denim brand Levi’s faced its own AI backlash moment in 2023 when it announced a campaign that saw it use technology to generate photo-realistic images depicting diverse models.
But the company publicly disclosed that it was experimenting with AI-generated models.
“This all comes back to transparency and clear attribution, which is where Huffer has failed,” says Farrera.
There is clearly going to be more to this saga. Huffer is in the eye of the storm, but New Zealand - like many other countries - is struggling to keep up with technological advances.
“This is where there is a huge role for policy-makers and regulators to help clarify what is and isn't OK, what's in bounds and not and out of bounds,” says Burt.
Just this week, ACT MP Laura McClure - who has a bill that would criminalise the non-consensual creation of deepfakes in pornography - acknowledged that the Huffer debate exposed another grey area. One that would take further time to address, and relied on both businesses and individuals to take some responsibility in the meantime.
“Globally we've seen all kinds of criticism for those that don't do the right thing,” she says.
“The models need to do some work on making sure they're protected. Companies need to look at how to be collaborative and work in a really transparent way when it comes to AI, and then maybe there needs to be potentially some kind of regulation in the space as well.”
In other news…
BSA boss touts need for regulation
A few weeks back, it was confirmed the coalition government was planning to axe the Broadcasting Standards Authority. At the time, BSA chair Stacy Wood offered a very diplomatic response via written statement, effectively just acknowledging the decision.
This week, in an opinion piece for Stuff, Wood went a lot further, offering a defence of not the BSA per se but the concept of media regulation. “If a new radio station starts up – let’s call it EXTREMISM 247 – with a breakfast show called The Racist Hour, shall we just tell people to turn it off?” she asked.
“Disestablishing the BSA is only half of a solution. Audiences and the community will need an outcome that not only continues to protect freedom of expression but also reflects the societal values, standards, an right to trustworthy information they’ve come to expect.”
Separately, Newstalk ZB was pinged by the authority this week for “dehumanising” remarks made about former Green MP Benjamin Doyle.
Metro may be back from the dead (again)
Auckland’s Metro magazine may have been saved. The Post was first to report last year that the long-running Auckland publication was undergoing staff changes, with the departure of editor Henry Oliver and three other full-time staff later confirmed. At the time, it was expected guest editors would step-in to fill the breach, but only one further print edition was ever published.
On Wednesday it was confirmed the magazine had been acquired by Simon Farrell-Green and Hannah Kidd, the publishers of Here magazine, from its previous owner, Still.