Questions are swirling after Sydney Sweeney was linked to a late-night publicity stunt at the Hollywood Sign that officials say was carried out without permission. Video footage showing the actress near the landmark has prompted backlash, raised legal questions and reignited debate over how celebrities are allowed to use protected public symbols for commercial promotion.
TMZ reported on 26 January that Sweeney, 28, climbed part of the Hollywood Sign at night while filming what appeared to be a promotional stunt for an upcoming lingerie brand. Footage obtained by the outlet shows bras strung together and attached to the sign, with Sweeney dressed in black and accompanied by a small production crew.
Sydney Sweeney reclaiming her body from Hollywood by putting her new lingerie line on the Hollywood sign. 👏🏻 pic.twitter.com/1vR0VyyWvI
— kayla (@jadedkayla) January 26, 2026
The Hollywood Sign is one of the most tightly regulated landmarks in Los Angeles, with access restricted due to safety concerns, preservation rules and intellectual property protections.
Why the Stunt Was 'Not Authorised'
In a statement shared with PEOPLE, Steve Nissen, president and CEO of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, confirmed that the organisation did not approve the production.
The Chamber owns the intellectual property rights to the image of the Hollywood Sign and oversees its commercial use. Nissen said the Chamber 'did not grant a licence or permission of any kind' and added that no request was made ahead of the shoot.
'Anyone intending to use and or access the Hollywood Sign for commercial purposes must obtain a licence or permission from the Hollywood Chamber to do so,' he said.
What Permissions Are Normally Required
Commercial use of the Hollywood Sign requires specific authorisation from the Chamber of Commerce. This includes marketing campaigns, brand promotions and staged photo or video shoots that use the landmark as a focal point.
Even productions that have general filming approval elsewhere in Los Angeles must seek separate clearance when the Hollywood Sign is involved due to its protected status.
FilmLA Permit vs Hollywood Chamber Approval
According to TMZ, Sweeney did obtain a permit from FilmLA, the organisation that handles film permits for the city and county of Los Angeles.
However, a FilmLA permit typically covers logistical filming permissions such as crew presence and equipment use. It does not grant rights to use or access the Hollywood Sign for commercial purposes. Officials have made clear that FilmLA approval does not replace authorisation from the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce.
Were Any Laws or Rules Broken?
At present, no criminal charges have been announced. TMZ reported that it remains unclear whether the Hollywood Chamber plans to file a police report related to trespassing or vandalism.
While the Chamber confirmed the stunt was not authorised, officials have not stated publicly whether enforcement action will follow. Any determination around legal consequences would depend on whether authorities believe site access rules or other regulations were violated.
Public Reaction and Online Backlash
The incident has drawn criticism online, with some users questioning how celebrities are able to access restricted landmarks and whether high-profile figures receive special treatment. Others expressed concern about potential damage to the sign and the precedent such stunts could set for commercial branding at protected sites.
The controversy comes at a time when celebrity-led marketing campaigns are facing increased scrutiny over how far promotion can go without crossing regulatory boundaries.
Context From Past Brand Controversies
Last summer, Sweeney faced backlash over an American Eagle jeans campaign that critics accused of being racially charged due to wordplay involving 'jeans' and 'genes.' Months later, she addressed the criticism in an interview with PEOPLE, saying she was surprised by the reaction and rejected claims that the campaign carried divisive messages.
She said she aimed to clarify her stance after realising that silence had widened misunderstanding rather than closing it.
