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

The recordings. According to the amended complaint as recounted in the court's opinion, a Fiverr user later identified by Lovo's counsel as a Lovo employee hired Lehrman in May 2020 to provide voice recordings for "research purposes", and confirmed in messages that the scripts would not be used for anything else; he was paid $1,200. Another Fiverr user, whom the plaintiffs allege was a Lovo co-founder, hired Sage in October 2019 and told her the recordings were test scripts for radio ads that would not be disclosed externally; she was paid $400.

The clones. The plaintiffs allege that Lovo used the recordings with its AI text-to-speech software to make clones of their voices, sold to subscribers as "Kyle Snow" and "Sally Coleman". They allege the Kyle Snow voice appeared in Lovo's advertising, website articles and tutorials and was the software's default voice, and that Lovo used a side-by-side comparison of Sage's real and cloned voice in an investor pitch at the Berkeley SkyDeck Demo Day in spring 2020, later posted on YouTube. They say they learned of the use when they heard an episode of the Deadline Strike Talk podcast, produced with MIT, narrated in part by a voice that MIT confirmed was generated with a paid Lovo subscription and that friends and colleagues told them was virtually identical to Lehrman's.

Lovo's position. In reply to an 18 August 2023 cease-and-desist letter, Lovo wrote (as alleged) that the "fictitious characters" had been created using the recordings obtained through Fiverr, that its use was "fully permissioned", that the voices were not popular and sales negligible, and that it had removed them; the plaintiffs dispute the removal. Lovo moved to dismiss all claims as legally insufficient.

The ruling. On 10 July 2025 the court held that, for the most part, the voices were not protected by federal trademark or copyright law as pleaded, but that misappropriation of a voice can be claimed under Sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law, and let those claims, the consumer-protection and contract claims, and Sage's copyright claim over her original recording proceed. The case was stayed in May 2026 after Lovo's bankruptcy filing.

Limits. The facts above are the plaintiffs' allegations, which the court presumed true for the motion only; Lovo's own briefs and the complaint exhibits were not inspected. The sources do not say when the plaintiffs heard the podcast or how many productions used the voices.

Two voice actors allege that Lovo turned recordings they made for promised internal use into AI clones of their voices that it sold and used commercially without their consent; a federal court let their voice-misappropriation, consumer and contract claims proceed.

Lehrman v. Lovo, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03770 (S.D.N.Y.), filed 16 May 2024. Opinion and Order of 10 July 2025 (ECF 45): Lovo's motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part; denied as to Sage's copyright claims based on her original voice recording and as to the contract, New York Civil Rights Law and New York General Business Law claims; training-based copyright claims dismissed with leave to amend; other claims dismissed. Lovo then moved to dismiss the training-based copyright claim in the second amended complaint (fully briefed by 31 October 2025). Lovo filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on 27 May 2026 (a Chapter 7 filing, according to TheStreet) and the court stayed the case on 28 May 2026; the latest docket entry read (30 July 2026) concerns a plaintiffs' attorney withdrawing. No trial, settlement or ruling on the pending motion is recorded.