Huffer withdraws legal letter against model who challenged AI images
Friday, 19 June 2026
Fashion brand Huffer has withdrawn a legal letter to a local model who went public with allegations the company had used artificial intelligence to create marketing images.
But Elijah Timmins-Scanlon says he is still waiting for a personal apology - and believes he and other models deserve financial compensation.
The Post was first to report that Huffer had engaged lawyers against Timmins-Scanlon, raising the potential of proceedings under the Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA).
It came after Timmins-Scanlon, who had previously modelled for Huffer, claimed on social media that the fashion company had used his likeness to create an image of an artificially-generated model.
Read More:
Huffer’s managing director Kate Berry has vehemently rejected the claim that the image was in any way similar to Timmins-Scanlon, though the brand has since acknowledged in a social media post that “an AI design tool” was used to create the original image that sparked this saga.
In correspondence obtained by The Post, Huffer told Timmins-Scanlon the company reserved the right to complain to both Netsafe and the police over the claims made in his social media posts.
“You are entitled to express your views, but we asked that you ensure anything you publish is accurate, fair, and does not cross the line into harassment, intimidation, false allegations, or harmful personal commentary,” the June 6 letter from Berry stated.
“Please be reminded that digital communications in New Zealand are subject to the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 which is intended to deter, prevent, and reduce harm caused by online communications.”
In separate correspondence to Timmins-Scanlon’s manager, Mandy Jacobsen from Red Eleven Management, Berry described comments being posted by the model’s Instagram followers as “in some cases appalling”. In one instance, she claimed a comment had been “reported to Netsafe”.
In its acknowledgement post on Instagram last week, Huffer said: “We want to be clear. We did not use this individual’s face to create an AI model.”
Huffer said it was “genuinely sorry” that the models were upset.
“Our community creators and models are a hugely important part of our brand. While we stand by our position, it was never our intention to make anyone feel that their identity, creativity, or contribution had been appropriated.”
Timmins-Scanlon described the response as “disingenuous” given it was shared before the company had withdrawn its letter against him.
He is seeking a public apology across the brand’s social media accounts for “taking me [through] the ringer”, and for any other models or photographers affected.
“At most they said ‘I'm sorry for how this made you feel’,” said Timmins-Scanlon of Huffer’s comments. “Like there was no ‘I'm sorry that we have done this’.”
Timmins-Scanlon is also seeking financial compensation for himself and other creatives he claimed to have been affected.
Huffer did not respond to questions about whether it would apologise or offer compensation.
Its managing director Kate Berry replied to The Post’s questions with a one-sentence statement: “We are actively engaged in discussions with Elijah Timmins-Scanlon and have no further comment at this time.”
In the days since the June 6 letter was received, the Free Speech Union wrote to Huffer, claiming as a registered company the fashion brand was unable to make an application under the Harmful Digital Communications Act.
Netsafe’s website states that the HDCA provides that the harmful content must relate to an individual and “does not apply to harmful digital communications which target an organisation such as a company or a business”.
The Free Speech Union’s letter invited Huffer to comment on the following: “How does Huffer, as a registered company, have the right to make a complaint under the HDCA with Netsafe or the Police? [And] what specific posts and comments does Huffer allege breach the HDCA and why were they not identified in your letter to him of 6 June 2026?”
The complaint was dropped days later and it’s understood Huffer has expressed a desire to find a resolution with Timmins-Scanlon.
The union decided to intervene after becoming concerned Huffer had attempted to impinge on Timmins-Scanlon’s free expression, said Free Speech Union chief executive Jillaine Heather.
“You can't sort of threaten to weaponise the law to shut people's expression down, so it really is just aiming to protect people's expression and [the union’s] next steps will be very dependent on what [Huffer’s] next steps are, and of course what Elijah wants as well,” she said.
While she anticipated that Huffer’s actions had been “a knee-jerk reaction”, she said the union would consider providing further support to Timmins-Scanlon if required.
“It's very possible, context [and] situation-dependent, and all of our legal decisions need to go to our council before we weigh in, but yeah, it is possible.”
Heather said that there were “deficiencies” with the HDCA. “The no notice provision, no defence for truth, no public interest or really sort of journalism protection there. Those are holes that were unintended and that people have utilised, so we think it can be improved.”
Red Eleven’s Jacobsen told The Post the agency had a 20 year relationship with Huffer, “and it’s disappointing how our models have been treated through this process”.
She would be thinking “very carefully” about whether that relationship would continue, Jacobsen added.
“I am disappointed how it's been handled by them. Our models work in good faith with them and love working for a brand - [an] iconic New Zealand brand - and to be treated like this has been eye-opening.”
Another model, Aliah Morpeth, says while she has not worked professionally with Huffer before, the company’s response to the claims would make her think twice about contracting with them.
“I've tried to make sure that who I work for ethically and whatnot really align with me,” she told The Post.
“I was not frustrated that they had used AI-generated models. What has been frustrating … is just the response. So, no, I don't align with them morally, and on a personal sense, and don't see myself working with a brand like that.”
Morpeth said there remained broader questions about the use of AI in the creative world, describing a “snowball effect” from replacing models with artificially-generated images.
“If we don't use a model and we use an AI model, then yes, we're replacing the work of the model - but then we're also replacing the work of a photographer and a stylist and a makeup artist, and all these people that make an income,” she said.
“I think that's a consequence to being in a world that just is moving too fast all the time, and I think technology is moving at a rate that is not allowing us to have the time to ethically keep up with it, and I think … AI replacing the work of people, is so evident of that.”
A few weeks ago, Morpeth said another brand she worked with had proposed using AI to generate different outfits onto her.
It would be “100% my face and body” but they would be putting about 100 garments onto her, rather than the 15 she would normally model in a day.
For that, she would be paid $250 as opposed to the “$3000 to $4000 mark - so [a] significant decrease in pay”.
Morpeth ultimately signed the contract, but after reaching a “middle ground” in which AI could be used but only to create a similar number of garments as she could model in a typical day, with her pay reflecting that.
“So I signed a contract saying that basically nothing should change other than, yes, I'll allow you to do that.”