Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing

São Paulo: voice actor says a shopping centre ad used their voice; centre says it was a Microsoft AI voice; appeal court orders evidence

A professional voice actor sued a São Paulo shopping centre, saying it used the actor's voice without authorisation in a marketing campaign shown on YouTube, and claimed lost earnings and moral damages. The centre answered that the voice was not the actor's but a synthetic voice produced with Microsoft's text-to-speech service, available to the public. According to the legal news site ConJur, a judge of the 18th Civil Court accepted that the voice was produced synthetically and dismissed the claim; on appeal the actor argued that a notarised record attesting to the similarity of the voices had never been assessed. The 6th Private Law Chamber of the São Paulo Court of Justice annulled that judgment for curtailment of the defence, holding that the use of AI does not by itself rule out misuse of third parties' rights, and sent the case back for evidence on how the campaign voice was generated and how similar it is to the actor's. The court docket shows the case back at first instance at the court-expert stage in 2025; no ruling on the merits is reported. Whether the AI voice reproduces the actor's voice is disputed.

AI system
Microsoft text-to-speech (reported)
Occurred
Event date unknown
Reported
12 November 2024
Event location
Brazil
What the AI did
Depicted or impersonated the person
Reported harm
Professional Harm
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Work · Justice
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution disputed · 2 sources
5 claims: 1 documented, 4 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Microsoft text-to-speech service that, according to the shopping centre, produced the synthetic human-like voice in its YouTube marketing campaign; the voice actor says the campaign used the actor's own voice

What Happened

The claim. According to ConJur, a professional voice actor with work in Brazil and abroad sued a shopping centre in the city of São Paulo, saying that it had used the actor's voice without authorisation in a marketing campaign shown on a YouTube channel. The actor asked for material damages for the earnings lost through the violation and for moral damages. The court docket records the action as filed on 28 August 2023 in the 18th Civil Court, under the subject of image rights, with a claim value of R$30,000.

The AI defence. The shopping centre said the actor had not proved the claim because the campaign voice was not the actor's: it was, the centre said, a product of artificial intelligence, produced by Microsoft through the conversion of text into synthetic human-like speech and available for public use.

First instance. The judge accepted that the voice had been produced synthetically with a freely available resource and rejected the idea that it was copied from the actor. The actor appealed, arguing that a notarised record attesting to the similarity of the voices had been filed but never assessed.

Appeal. The 6th Private Law Chamber of the São Paulo Court of Justice annulled the judgment for curtailment of the defence. The reporting judge, Costa Netto, wrote that using AI does not by itself remove the risk of misusing third parties' rights and that the defendant could be liable if, in using a software-generated voice, it breached a duty of care; deciding that requires studies of the similarity between the campaign voice and the actor's. The other two judges agreed.

Since then. The first-instance docket shows an expert-fee proposal in October 2025, questions for the expert in November 2025 and further petitions into April 2026; no ruling on the merits is visible to the public. The docket header also carries the label "Cancelado", which the inspected sources do not explain.

What is not known. When the campaign ran, whether the synthetic voice resembles or was derived from the actor's voice, and how the case ends.

Reported harm

A voice actor says a São Paulo shopping centre's YouTube campaign used the actor's voice without authorisation and claims lost earnings and moral damages; the centre says the voice was generated with Microsoft's text-to-speech. The harm is the actor's allegation and is unresolved.

How Harm Occurred

The voice actor says a shopping centre's YouTube marketing campaign used the actor's voice without authorisation, costing earnings; the centre says the voice was a synthetic Microsoft text-to-speech voice. The resemblance is disputed and is the subject of court-ordered evidence.

Outcome

Ongoing

First-instance judgment (18th Civil Court, Central Civil Forum of São Paulo) dismissed the claim, finding the voice synthetic. The 6th Private Law Chamber of the São Paulo Court of Justice annulled it for curtailment of the defence and ordered evidence on how the voice was generated and on its similarity to the actor's voice (reported by ConJur on 12 November 2024; appeal 1119021-41.2023.8.26.0100). The first-instance docket lists an expert-fee proposal (16 October 2025) and questions for the expert (November 2025); no ruling on the merits is visible.

What remains unknown

  • When the campaign ran and how long it was shown.
  • Whether the synthetic voice resembles or was derived from the actor's voice; the court-ordered expert evidence is not public.
  • How the case ends; the docket header label "Cancelado" is not explained by the inspected sources.
  • The actor's lost earnings, if any, beyond the claimed amount.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The shopping centre itself told the court that the campaign voice was a product of artificial intelligence, produced by Microsoft through text-to-speech conversion into synthetic human-like speech, and the first-instance judge accepted that it had been produced synthetically (both as reported by ConJur). The voice actor says that this campaign voice was the actor's own and filed a notarised record attesting to the similarity; the appeal court ordered evidence on how the voice was generated and how similar it is. The AI generation of the voice is the defendant's own account; whether it reproduces the actor's voice is disputed.

5 claims: 1 documented, 4 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported A professional voice actor sued, saying a São Paulo shopping centre used the actor's voice without authorisation in a marketing campaign shown on YouTube, and claimed lost earnings and moral damages.

Causal attribution. The actor's allegation; disputed by the defendant.

  • conjur.com.br(opens in new tab) supports · Portuguese
    'o autor narrou na inicial que o shopping, sem a sua autorização, utilizou a sua voz na campanha de marketing, que foi veiculada em canal de YouTube' ... 'ele requereu o ressarcimento por danos materiais, pelos benefícios que deixou auferir caso não tivesse ocorrido a violação, além de indenização por dano moral'
Reported The shopping centre said the campaign voice was not the actor's but a synthetic voice produced by Microsoft's text-to-speech conversion and available for public use.

Causal attribution. Defendant's account of how the voice was made.

  • conjur.com.br(opens in new tab) supports · Portuguese
    'a voz é produto de inteligência artificial (PIA), produzida artificialmente pela Microsoft com a conversão de texto em fala sintética semelhante à humana, sendo disponibilizada para o uso público'
Reported The first-instance judge accepted that the voice had been produced synthetically and dismissed the claim; the actor appealed, saying a notarised record attesting to the similarity of the voices had not been assessed.

Causal attribution. First-instance finding, later annulled.

  • conjur.com.br(opens in new tab) supports · Portuguese
    'Afasta-se a suposição de que a voz utilizada no vídeo é copiada do autor, visto que demonstrado que fora produzida de forma sintética' ... 'disse que juntou aos autos ata notarial que atesta a semelhança das vozes'
Reported The 6th Private Law Chamber of the São Paulo Court of Justice annulled the judgment for curtailment of the defence and sent the case back for evidence on how the campaign voice was generated and on its similarity to the actor's voice, holding that AI use does not by itself remove the risk of misusing third parties' rights.

Causal attribution. Appellate procedural ruling; no finding that the voice is the actor's.

  • conjur.com.br(opens in new tab) supports · Portuguese
    'a sentença deve ser anulada para que o juízo de primeiro grau possibilite às partes discutir, por meio das provas, como foi gerada a voz da campanha' ... 'O uso de inteligência artificial (IA), por si só, não elimina o risco de utilização indevida de direitos de terceiros'
Documented The court docket records the action as filed on 28 August 2023 in the 18th Civil Court and shows an expert-fee proposal in October 2025 after the case returned to first instance.

Causal attribution. Procedural record; no ruling on the merits is visible.

Sources

2 sources inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-26 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. ConJur legal news report of the TJSP appeal decision, read in full through the Internet Archive capture of 12 Nov 2024 (live site returned 403). Applies to s1.

Read in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-26 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Public first-instance docket page on TJSP e-SAJ, read on 2026-10-26; judicial movements and documents are not shown to anonymous users. Applies to s2.

Event countries: Brazil. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Brazil.

The campaign was made for a shopping centre in the city of São Paulo, so the event country is Brazil, and the case is before São Paulo courts. The actor works in Brazil and other countries; the actor's country of residence is not stated.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-26: Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated, as alleged): a voice actor says a shopping centre's YouTube campaign used the actor's voice without authorisation, and the centre itself says the voice was generated with Microsoft's text-to-speech. The São Paulo Court of Justice annulled a dismissal and ordered evidence on how the voice was made. The resemblance and the harm remain disputed. No private name appears in the public record.

People described

A professional voice actor who works in Brazil and other countries and says the campaign used the actor's voice without authorisation; not named in the reporting

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One voice actor, the plaintiff, reports the harm. The harm is alleged and disputed; no other person is described as affected.

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#court-ruling#brazil

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). São Paulo: voice actor says a shopping centre ad used their voice; centre says it was a Microsoft AI voice; appeal court orders evidence. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2023-sao-paulo-voice-actor-says-shopping-centre-ad-used-their-voice-centre-says-ai-text-to-speech-appeal-court-orders-evidence

BibTeX

@misc{2023_sao_paulo_voice_actor_says_shopping_centre_ad_used_their_voice_centre_says_ai_text_to_speech_appeal_court_orders_evidence,
  title = {São Paulo: voice actor says a shopping centre ad used their voice; centre says it was a Microsoft AI voice; appeal court orders evidence},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2023-sao-paulo-voice-actor-says-shopping-centre-ad-used-their-voice-centre-says-ai-text-to-speech-appeal-court-orders-evidence}
}

Related cases

High Unidentified image tool

Jeju: police refer a middle-school student over secretly filming teachers and making sexual deepfake composites; teachers dispute victim count and legal aid

Jeju Dongbu police announced on 23 September 2026 that a student at a middle school on Jeju had been referred to prosecutors without detention on 17 September for violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (filming with a camera or similar device). The student's phone was voluntarily submitted by his guardians and forensically examined; the examination found footage relating to some teachers and some sexual composites, and the student admitted the conduct. News1 reported that the student was booked for filming a teacher's body with his phone during a school field trip around mid-July 2026, that the offending had continued for several months with multiple victims, and that police found no indication the composites had been distributed. Police told Seoul Shinmun there were more victim teachers than the one first reported but withheld the number to avoid secondary harm, and that no student at the school was a victim; the Jeju teachers' union questioned whether the full scope of harm had been established. According to the union, two months on the victim teachers were receiving hospital treatment and counselling while teaching daily, gave police statements on 14 September without a lawyer, attended the regional teachers' rights protection committee on 17 September without institutional support, wrote the criminal complaint themselves, and were offered 3.3 million won in legal fees for all of them together, payable after the case ends; two requests to meet the superintendent were not accepted. On 29 September one of the victim teachers gave a press interview at the Jeju Teachers' Union office. She said that early in the investigation she had seen on the student's phone material showing other teachers and current students, had made a list of the people and types of harm, and that the material shown to her at the police victim examination was considerably less than what she had seen; Yonhap-chain outlets quote her as saying the students she recognised numbered 10 to 20 and that a graduate had suffered worse deepfakes. She said investigators asked the school only to identify the perpetrator and never requested material to identify the students in the footage, and that the school sent parents a letter premised on there being no student victims. Police replied that phone forensics had been thorough, that every act beyond social norms had been identified and proven, and that one student victim had been confirmed, a student at a different school. The teachers were notified on 22 September that the case had gone to the prosecution and on 24 September that it had been sent to the court's juvenile division as a juvenile protection case, before they had submitted further evidence and a victim opinion. The teacher said the original complaint had also asked police to examine whether physical contact in 2025 was forcible molestation and whether repeated approaching and waiting in 2026 was stalking, and Halla Ilbo reports that such conduct is said to date from 2025. Yonhap-chain reports describe the charged victims as five teachers. The same day the education office briefed on legal-aid rules (up to 6.6 million won per instance when a teacher is sued, 3.3 million won per case when a teacher files a complaint; office lawyers cannot act as a teacher's private counsel), said it had linked the teachers to the national Digital Sexual Crime Victim Support Center, announced an integrated support system through a hotline, and its section head said the office was sorry that early support had not been felt. The KTU Jeju branch (28 September) and the Jeju Teachers' Union (14 and 29 September) demand a victim-support system, per-teacher legal fees paid in advance and a dedicated support team. On 6 October 2026 Seogwipo Broadcasting reported, citing people in education and a tipster, that the education authority had finally rejected the victim teachers' application for lawyer fees for an additional criminal complaint, saying in a written opinion that with a police investigation already under way a further complaint could hardly stop or prevent the infringement of their teaching, so the support requirements were not met; critics contrast this with full legal-cost support in earlier sexual-offence cases.

Low Unidentified AI drafting tool

Paraíba, Brazil: judge fines a lawyer R$32,800 over hidden AI commands in a petition, G1 reports; state bar later suspends two lawyers in such cases

A judge of the 5th Mixed Court of Sousa, Paraíba, found hidden instructions aimed at artificial intelligence tools spread over seven pages of a lawyer's motion for clarification in a public-competition case in June 2026, including an order to ignore impartiality and a note calling it a test of whether the judge used only AI to decide. The judge fined the lawyer two penalties of R$16,400 (R$32,800 in total) for bad-faith litigation and contempt of the court's dignity, and referred the case to the Paraíba bar (OAB-PB) and the state prosecutors, G1 reports. The defence said the commands were not inserted deliberately and blamed an error in exporting a file prepared with AI support. An appeal judge refused to suspend the fines on 30 June, the trial judge kept them on reconsideration, and in July, G1 reports, the OAB-PB preventively suspended two lawyers after opening procedures into two hidden-command cases, one of them the Sousa case.

Medium Galileu

Pará labour court fines two lawyers about R$84,000 over hidden instruction aimed at the court's Galileu AI; the lawyers deny manipulating the decision

In May 2026 a judge of the 3rd Labour Court of Parauapebas, in the Brazilian state of Pará, fined two lawyers about R$84,000 after text in white font on a white background was found in a document they filed for a worker in a labour claim. According to the sentence as reported by G1, the hidden text was detected while the judgment was being drafted with Galileu, a generative AI tool the labour courts use to help judges and staff draft sentences, and its evident intention was to make the AI produce a superficial defence or a compromised draft judgment. The judge called the technique prompt injection. The lawyers said they disagreed with the decision and that there was never any command to manipulate the judge's decision, describing the text as an attempt to protect their client from the AI; one of them said she did not work on labour cases. In October 2026 the regional labour court announced that a Connecticut Superior Court judge had cited the decision when sanctioning a litigant for misuse of AI.

Medium ChatGPT

Brasília labour court upholds the for-cause dismissal of a manager it found used ChatGPT to alter a delivery photo to contest an iFood customer's complaint

In a judgment of 30 July 2026, the 2nd Labour Court of Brasília (Regional Labour Court of the 10th Region) upheld the dismissal for cause, on 19 March 2026, of a manager hired in June 2024. The employer said he had used artificial intelligence to falsify photos of orders on the iFood delivery app. A witness told the court she saw him use ChatGPT to alter a photo of an incomplete order, in which two of four soft drinks had been sent, so that it appeared complete, and use it to contest the customer's complaint to iFood support. The judge found this an act of dishonesty and misconduct that broke the trust required of a manager, rejected his claim that the dismissal was fabricated in retaliation for a claim he had filed the day before, dismissed all his claims, denied severance items and ordered him to pay 10% counsel fees, suspended because he was granted free legal aid. The legal news site Migalhas reported the judgment on 3 August 2026. No appeal is reported.

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