Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Lawsuit Settled

Canadian voice actor alleged TikTok's text-to-speech feature used a computer-generated version of her voice without permission; suit settled in 2021

Canadian voice actor Bev Standing alleged in a May 2021 federal suit in New York that ByteDance's TikTok was using her voice, without permission or payment, as the female computer-generated voice of its text-to-speech feature, which lets users choose the words spoken over their videos. Her complaint says she discovered this in November 2020, that the voice came from recordings she had made for the Institute of Acoustics for work described as Chinese translations related to text-to-speech, and that some videos made the voice say foul and offensive language. About three weeks after she sued, users noticed a new female voice on the feature (CBC); TikTok did not comment and never confirmed that the original voice was hers. The case was dismissed in September 2021 after her lawyer reported a settlement, whose terms were not disclosed.

AI system
TikTok text-to-speech
ByteDance
Occurred
Nov 2020
Reported
5 May 2021
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Depicted or impersonated the person
Reported harm
Exploitation or Abuse
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Work · Privacy · Justice
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 1 underlying account
6 claims: 1 documented, 5 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: TikTok's text-to-speech feature, introduced in late 2020, which turns typed text into a computer-generated voice played over videos; the complaint alleges its original female voice was built from the actor's recordings

What Happened

The recordings. According to the amended complaint, Standing was hired by the Institute of Acoustics to perform voice work purportedly for Chinese translations; the work related to text to speech and artificial intelligence technology and left the institute with electronic files of her voice. She says she had no contract allowing it to pass the files on. She told CBC she believes the recordings, made in 2018, came into TikTok's possession.

The voice. The complaint says she discovered in November 2020 that ByteDance had acquired her voice files and was using her voice as the female computer-generated voice of TikTok, so that users decided what words were spoken in her voice, some involving foul and offensive language. She says she was not paid and never gave permission. She told CBC the voice had been used in videos seen around the world since late 2020.

Afterwards. About three weeks after she filed suit, TikTok users noticed a new female voice narrating videos; older videos kept the earlier voice. TikTok did not comment to CBC on the change or the case. In September 2021 her lawyer reported a settlement and the court dismissed the action; her lawyer told The Verge (relayed by MusicTech) that TikTok would license her voice.

Limits. The account of the recordings and of the voice's origin is the actor's allegation; TikTok never confirmed that its original text-to-speech voice was made from her recordings, and the settlement terms are not public. The original complaint and any defence filings were not inspected.

Reported harm

A voice actor alleged that TikTok used a computer-generated version of her voice, made from recordings she had supplied for other purposes, as its text-to-speech voice without permission or payment, including in videos with offensive language; the suit was settled.

Outcome

Resolved

Standing v. Bytedance E-Commerce, Inc., No. 7:21-cv-04033 (S.D.N.Y.), filed 5 May 2021; amended complaint 11 May 2021. Her lawyer wrote to the court about a settlement on 25 September 2021 and the court dismissed the action on 29 September 2021 without prejudice to reopening within thirty days if the settlement was not consummated; on 29 October 2021 a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice was filed (ECF 33). Terms were not disclosed; her lawyer told The Verge (as relayed by MusicTech) that TikTok would license her voice, with use left to TikTok. TikTok made no admission in the sources read.

What remains unknown

  • Whether TikTok's original text-to-speech voice was in fact built from her recordings; TikTok never confirmed it.
  • How her recordings reached ByteDance, if they did.
  • The settlement terms and whether TikTok used a licensed version of her voice afterwards.
  • How many videos used the voice.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. TikTok's text-to-speech feature generated speech in a computer-generated voice from text typed by users. The actor alleges, in her complaint and to CBC, that this voice was built from recordings she made for text-to-speech and AI work, so that it spoke in her voice whatever users typed, including offensive language (depicted_or_impersonated). That the voice was made from her recordings is her allegation; TikTok changed the voice after the suit but never confirmed its origin.

6 claims: 1 documented, 5 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported Standing says she was hired by the Institute of Acoustics for voice work described as Chinese translations, related to text-to-speech and AI technology, which left the institute with files of her voice, and that she had no contract allowing their transfer.

Causal attribution. The plaintiff’s allegations and interview; not tested in court.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Plaintiff was hired by the Institute of Acoustics to'; 'perform voice work purportedly for Chinese translations'; 'and artificial intelligence technology'; 'Plaintiff did not have a contract with the Institute of Acoustics'
  • cbc.ca(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'She thinks the company got her voice from recordings she says she did for the Institute of Acoustics'
Reported She alleges that she discovered in November 2020 that ByteDance had acquired her voice files and was using her voice, without permission or payment, as the female computer-generated voice of TikTok's text-to-speech feature.

Causal attribution. The plaintiff’s allegations; TikTok never confirmed the voice was hers.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'During November of 2020, Plaintiff discovered that her electronic voice'; 'generated voice of TikTok'; 'Plaintiff was not compensated for the use of her voice and likeness and'
  • cbc.ca(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'According to Standing, a computer-generated version of her voice was built into a feature that converts text typed into the app into a voice'
Reported The complaint says TikTok users chose the words spoken in her voice and that some videos had it say foul and offensive language.

Causal attribution. The plaintiff’s allegations.

Reported About three weeks after she sued, TikTok users noticed a new female voice narrating videos; TikTok did not comment on the change or the case.

Causal attribution. Reported observation of the voice change; the two reports give different intervals (two and three weeks).

  • cbc.ca(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'noticed a new female voice narrating their videos on Monday, about three weeks after a Canadian actor filed a lawsuit'; 'CBC News asked TikTok about the voice change, but the company did not comment on it or the case.'
  • musictech.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'they did change their text-to-speech voice two weeks after the original lawsuit'
Documented Her lawyer wrote to the court about a settlement on 25 September 2021 and the court dismissed the action on 29 September 2021, allowing reopening within thirty days if the settlement was not consummated; on 29 October 2021 a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice was filed.

Causal attribution. Docket entries.

  • courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'from Robert Sciglimpaglia dated 09/25/2021 re: Settlement'; 'hereby dismissed and discontinued without costs, and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within thirty days'; 'STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties and/or their respective counsel(s) that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice against the defendant(s) ByteDance Inc.'
Reported Her lawyer told The Verge the settlement was an amicable resolution whose details would not be disclosed and that TikTok would license her voice; TikTok never confirmed that she was behind its original voice.

Causal attribution. Plaintiff’s lawyer’s statement relayed by MusicTech; TikTok’s non-confirmation recorded as counterevidence.

  • musictech.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'told The Verge that the settlement is still being finalised, and the details should not be disclosed'; 'he added that TikTok would also license'; 'While TikTok has never confirmed that Bev was indeed behind their original text-to-speech voice'

Sources

4 sources inspected, from 1 underlying account. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200). Amended complaint (ECF 9); allegations only. Applies to s1.

Read in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200). Interview with the plaintiff and the reporter’s account of the voice change. Applies to s2.

Read in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200). Docket entries as listed on CourtListener (RECAP). Applies to s3.

Read in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200). Relays the plaintiff’s lawyer’s statement to The Verge. Applies to s4.

Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Canada. Court countries: United States.

The voice was used on a global app in videos the actor says were seen around the world, so no event country is recorded. The complaint says she is a Canadian citizen living in Ontario, recorded as the affected person's country. The court is the Southern District of New York.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-23: Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): a named voice actor alleged in a federal suit, later settled, that TikTok's text-to-speech feature spoke users' words in a computer-generated version of her voice made without her permission. One source chain, her complaint and interview with the litigation record, read in four sources; the voice's origin remains her allegation.

People described

A Canadian freelance voice-over actor, the named plaintiff Bev Standing

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One person, the plaintiff whose voice the complaint says was used (amended complaint; CBC). Exact 1.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#synthetic-voice#text-to-speech#voice-actors#tiktok#lawsuit#settlement

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Canadian voice actor alleged TikTok's text-to-speech feature used a computer-generated version of her voice without permission; suit settled in 2021. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2020-canadian-voice-actor-alleged-tiktok-text-to-speech-used-her-voice-without-permission-suit-settled

BibTeX

@misc{2020_canadian_voice_actor_alleged_tiktok_text_to_speech_used_her_voice_without_permission_suit_settled,
  title = {Canadian voice actor alleged TikTok's text-to-speech feature used a computer-generated version of her voice without permission; suit settled in 2021},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2020-canadian-voice-actor-alleged-tiktok-text-to-speech-used-her-voice-without-permission-suit-settled}
}

Related cases

High Unidentified image tool

Incheon high-school student jailed for AI deepfake nude composites of his teachers posted online; a civil court later orders him to pay one teacher damages

In July 2024 a high-school student in Incheon, South Korea, composited the faces of two female teachers at his school and of others, including an academy senior and an instructor, onto nude photos and posted them on social media, according to the charges as reported by Yonhap, the Hankyoreh, the JoongAng Ilbo and the Kyunghyang Shinmun, which describe the technique as AI-based deepfake technology. He had also secretly photographed teachers in class. He was expelled after a teachers' rights committee hearing. On 27 August 2025 the Incheon District Court gave him an indeterminate prison term of one year to one year six months and took him into custody; the court said that as a result the victimised teacher had left teaching and had not returned. On 19 December 2025, after he had turned adult, the appeal division raised the sentence to three years, calling the offence close to 'character assassination' and the teachers' mental shock considerable; OBS reports the sentence is final. On 21 October 2026, according to the Incheon Teachers' Union, a civil judge at the Incheon District Court ordered him, now 20, to pay one teacher 17.7 million won of the roughly 72 million won she claimed.

Low Lovo Genny (reported)

Voice actors allege AI voice firm Lovo sold clones of voices they recorded for research use; US court lets publicity, contract and consumer claims proceed

Voice-over actors Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage allege in a proposed class action in the Southern District of New York that Lovo, a text-to-speech company, hired them through Fiverr in 2019 and 2020 for recordings it said were for internal research or test scripts, then used its AI software to make and sell clones of their voices under the names "Kyle Snow" and "Sally Coleman". According to the complaint as recounted by the court, they learned of it when they heard a podcast narrated in part by a Lovo-generated voice that they say was identical to Lehrman's, and Lovo answered their cease-and-desist letter by saying the characters were created from those recordings and that its use was "fully permissioned". On 10 July 2025 Judge J. Paul Oetken dismissed most federal trademark and copyright claims but let their New York Civil Rights Law, consumer-protection and contract claims, and Sage's copyright claim over her original recording, proceed. The case was stayed on 28 May 2026 after Lovo filed a suggestion of bankruptcy. The allegations have not been tested at trial.

High Unidentified image and video tool

Chennai: police say a man used AI to make obscene images of a woman colleague and posted them from a fake Instagram account tagged with her home location

Police in the Chennai area arrested a man in early May 2026 who, according to their investigation as reported by the Times of India, DT Next and Daily Thanthi, used AI to turn a woman colleague's display pictures into obscene images and videos, posted them from a fake Instagram account in her name, and tagged the posts with her home location. A friend alerted the woman to the account; she complained to an all-women police station, and police traced the posts to a colleague's phone. Daily Thanthi reports that he admitted under questioning to making the images with AI after a workplace dispute. DT Next reports that the account and posts were blocked and that he was remanded in judicial custody. The AI tool is not identified, and the date the posts began is not reported.

Medium Unidentified image tool

Metz prosecutor says a soldier used the French armed forces' AI system to make nude images of two female colleagues; he is under formal investigation

The Metz deputy prosecutor told AFP in August 2026 that a soldier based in Moselle had used the artificial-intelligence system of the French Ministry of the Armed Forces to create images showing two female colleagues undressed, and that both colleagues had filed complaints against him. The prosecutor said the investigation also found more than 10,000 requests to the same system seeking child sexual abuse imagery, and that a search of his devices confirmed his use of the ministry's AI. Taken into custody on 22 July 2026, he admitted the facts according to the prosecutor and was placed under formal investigation and remanded in custody on 24 July. The judicial investigation includes the offence of disseminating algorithmically generated sexual content reproducing the image of a non-consenting person. When the colleague images were made and how widely they circulated are not stated.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents