Beijing Internet Court says a sales host's videos for a book company used an older parenting educator's AI-synthesised voice without consent; company liable
According to the Beijing Internet Court's account, released on 16 October 2026 among typical cases on online infringement involving older people, a culture company selling family parenting books commissioned a livestream sales host in 2024 to make promotional short videos. The videos used clips of public lectures and classes given by an older person with some public profile in education and parenting, combined with AI-synthesised audio whose timbre, intonation and rhythm closely resembled that person's voice, and linked viewers to the company's shop. Neither the images nor the audio had been authorised. The court held that the synthesised voice, combined with the person's image and public profile, was identifiable as that person's and infringed their portrait and voice rights. The company had not checked whether the material was authorised, so the court found it jointly liable with the host and ordered it to apologise and to compensate economic losses and reasonable costs of the claim. The amounts, the judgment date and the tool are not reported.
- AI system
- Unidentified voice-cloning tool
- Occurred
- 2024
- Reported
- 16 October 2026
- Event location
- Unknown
- What the AI did
- Depicted or impersonated the person
- Reported harm
- Financial Loss
- Whose AI use
- Someone else’s AI use
- Setting
- Privacy · Justice
- Evidence
- AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account
- 3 claims: 3 reported. 4 open questions
- People reported harmed
- 1 person
AI system as recorded: AI-synthesised audio, made with a tool the court account does not name, whose timbre, intonation and speech rhythm closely resembled the plaintiff's voice, set over clips of the plaintiff's public lectures in a livestream sales host's promotional short videos (court account)
What Happened
The videos. The Paper's report of the court's release says the plaintiff, anonymised by the court, was an older person with some renown in education and parenting. In 2024 a culture company, also anonymised, commissioned a livestream sales host to promote family parenting books with short videos. Several of the host's videos used clips of the plaintiff's public speeches and lectures together with AI-synthesised audio; the court account says the audio's timbre, intonation and rhythm were highly similar to the plaintiff's own, and that clicking a video's link took viewers straight to the company's shop. The court account says none of the images or audio was authorised. The company's agreement with the host made the company responsible if a video infringed a third party's rights, but the company did not check where the material came from.
The ruling. The plaintiff sued the company for an apology and compensation for economic loss and costs. According to The Paper, the court held that whether an AI-synthesised voice infringes a person's voice rights turns on whether it identifies a specific person, and that here the audio, used with the plaintiff's image and drawing on the plaintiff's public profile, could be linked by the public to the plaintiff, infringing the plaintiff's portrait and voice rights. The court found the company negligent for not reviewing the material's authorisation and a joint tortfeasor with the host, and ordered it to apologise and to pay economic losses and reasonable costs. China News Service's report of the same press conference quotes the court's vice-president summarising the case in the same terms.
What is not established. The reports do not give the judgment date, the amounts awarded, the number of videos or viewers, the platform, the tool used to make the audio, or whether the host was a party to the suit. Both reports rest on the court's release; the judgment itself was not read.
Reported harm
According to the Beijing Internet Court's account, AI-synthesised audio identifiable as an older educator's voice was used without consent, with clips of the educator's lectures, to sell books; the court found the person's portrait and voice rights infringed and ordered the commissioning company to apologise and compensate economic losses and costs.
Outcome
ResolvedThe Beijing Internet Court found the commissioning culture company jointly liable with the livestream sales host and ordered it to apologise and compensate economic losses and reasonable costs (court account relayed by The Paper). The court released the case on 16 October 2026 among typical cases on online infringement involving older people. Amounts and judgment date not reported.
What remains unknown
- The judgment date, the amounts awarded and whether the host was a party to the suit.
- The tool used to synthesise the voice, the platform, and the number of videos and viewers.
- The text of the judgment; both reports rest on the court's release.
- How the court established that the audio was AI-synthesised; the reports do not give the technical basis.
What the evidence supports
AI involvement: supported. The court's account, relayed by The Paper, says the host's videos set clips of the plaintiff's lectures to AI-synthesised audio whose timbre, intonation and rhythm closely resembled the plaintiff's voice, and the court decided the case as an AI-synthesised voice infringement; China News Service quotes the court's vice-president describing the merchant's unauthorised synthesis of the older person's voice. The AI output is the synthesised voice imitating the plaintiff (depicted_or_impersonated), which the court found identifiable and infringing. The tool is not named.
3 claims: 3 reported. What the statuses mean
Reported In 2024 a culture company selling family parenting books commissioned a livestream sales host to make promotional short videos; several videos used clips of the plaintiff's public lectures with AI-synthesised audio closely resembling the plaintiff's voice, linked viewers to the company's shop, and were not authorised by the plaintiff.
Causal attribution. The facts are the court's account in its 16 October 2026 release, relayed by The Paper (detail) and China News Service (the vice-president's summary). Both depend on the same release, so the claim is reported.
- thepaper.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
'2024年，某文化公司为销售家庭育儿类图书，委托带货主播制作短视频开展商业推广。'; '主播发布的多条宣传视频中'; '公开演讲、授课的画面片段'; '同时配置AI合成音频'; '用户点击视频跳转链接，可直接进入该文化公司店铺购买图书。'; '在教育、育儿领域具有一定知名度'
- chinanews.com.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
'在“带货主播利用AI技术实施侵权案”中，商家未经许可合成老年人声音用于商业宣传，该声音结合音色、语调、发音节奏及社会知名度，能够识别特定老年人的'
Reported The Beijing Internet Court held that the AI-synthesised voice, used with the plaintiff's image and public profile, was identifiable as the plaintiff's and infringed the plaintiff's portrait and voice rights; it found the company, which had not checked the material's authorisation, jointly liable with the host and ordered it to apologise and compensate economic losses and reasonable costs.
Causal attribution. The ruling is attributed to the court as relayed from its release; the judgment text was not read, so the claim is reported rather than documented. The court's finding establishes the infringement for the purposes of the case.
- thepaper.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
'法院审理认为，判断AI合成声音是否构成对自然人声音权益的侵害，核心在于能否识别特定自然人。'; '本案中文化公司未对素材授权情况进行审查，存在过失，与带货主播构成共同侵权，据此判决该文化公司赔礼道歉，并赔偿经济损失及维权合理支出。'
- chinanews.com.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
'该声音结合音色、语调、发音节奏及社会知名度，能够识别特定老年人的，构成对其人格权益的侵害；委托方未尽审查注意义务的，承担连带责任。'
Reported The court released the case on 16 October 2026 at a press conference on online infringement cases involving older people, and said that AI deep synthesis of older people's portraits or voices for improper purposes has appeared in such cases.
Causal attribution. Both outlets report the same press conference.
- thepaper.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
'在北京互联网法院10月16日发布的涉老年人网络侵权典型案例中'
- chinanews.com.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
'这是记者16日从北京互联网法院涉老年人网络侵权案件审理情况新闻发布会上获悉的。'; '已出现非法使用AI技术深度合成老年人肖像或声音用于不当目的的情形'
Sources
2 sources inspected, from 1 underlying account. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.
- The Paper, 16 October 2026: court case on AI-cloned voice of an older person used in livestream book sales(opens in new tab)
s1 · thepaper.cn · News report · Chinese · Inspected · 16 October 2026 · Shares an underlying account with another listed source · Primary
- China News Service, 16 October 2026: Beijing Internet Court press conference on online infringement cases involving older people(opens in new tab)
s2 · chinanews.com.cn · News report · Chinese · Inspected · 16 October 2026 · Shares an underlying account with another listed source
How the sources were read, and where the events happened
Read in Chinese and translated by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-17; no human reviewer inspected the text. The Paper's report of a case from the Beijing Internet Court's 16 October 2026 release of typical cases on online infringement involving older people ('据通报'). Applies to s1.
Read in Chinese and translated by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-17; no human reviewer inspected the text. China News Service report of the same Beijing Internet Court press conference, quoting the court's vice-president. Applies to s2.
Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: China.
The Beijing Internet Court decided the case. The reports anonymise the parties and do not say where the company or host was based, where the videos were published or where the plaintiff lives, so no event or affected-person country is recorded.
Reviewed for publication 2026-10-17: Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): according to the Beijing Internet Court's account, a sales host's promotional videos used AI-synthesised audio identifiable as an older educator's voice without consent, and the court found the commissioning company jointly liable and ordered an apology and compensation. One reporting chain (the court's release, read in two outlets); the parties are anonymised by the court.
People described
An older person with some public profile in education and parenting, anonymised in the court's account
People reported harmed in this case
1 person
0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed
One person: the plaintiff whose voice and image the court found were used without authorisation (court account relayed by The Paper). Exact 1.
Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.
Tags
Cite this case
Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.
APA
NOPE. (2026). Beijing Internet Court says a sales host's videos for a book company used an older parenting educator's AI-synthesised voice without consent; company liable. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2024-beijing-internet-court-ai-synthesised-voice-of-older-parenting-educator-in-book-sales-videos-company-liable
BibTeX
@misc{2024_beijing_internet_court_ai_synthesised_voice_of_older_parenting_educator_in_book_sales_videos_company_liable,
title = {Beijing Internet Court says a sales host's videos for a book company used an older parenting educator's AI-synthesised voice without consent; company liable},
author = {NOPE},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {AI incidents},
url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2024-beijing-internet-court-ai-synthesised-voice-of-older-parenting-educator-in-book-sales-videos-company-liable}
} Related cases
Shanghai: an appeal court upheld a 50,000 yuan award to a voice actor after finding that AI-synthesised audio in a company's online promotion was identifiable as the voice actor's voice
Chinese outlets reported on 29 September 2026, citing the Shanghai courts, that the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court had concluded what it called Shanghai's first voice-rights case arising from AI-synthesised speech. According to the court's account, a voice actor who publishes work on an app learned from a friend in January 2025 that a company appeared to be using the voice actor's voice in an online user-acquisition promotion, judged the audio to be AI-synthesised, had it notarised and sued for 300,000 yuan. The company said the audio was generated by AI it had developed but that the training material could not be confirmed, and denied using the voice actor's voice. A forensic comparison rated about 90 percent of the measured features as fairly or highly similar. The first-instance court awarded 50,000 yuan and both sides appealed. The appeal court held that the company had put an identifiable synthetic voice to commercial use without consent, dismissed the appeals and upheld the award.
Bhopal: a security guard lost about Rs 35,000 to a caller whose voice sounded like a friend, reported as a suspected AI voice-cloning fraud
Free Press Journal reported on 4 October 2026 that a 50-year-old security guard from the TT Nagar area of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, was cheated of nearly Rs 35,000 after a caller impersonated a friend by mimicking the friend's voice. According to the report, the call came on 30 September from an unidentified person who claimed to need money urgently and sent a QR code. The guard made three transfers (Rs 5,000, Rs 10,000 and Rs 20,000), then reached the friend on the friend's own number and learned that the friend had not called. The outlet calls it a suspected case of AI-enabled fraud with a suspected AI-cloned voice. TT Nagar police registered a case and opened an investigation. No source confirms that the voice was AI-generated.
Picos, Piauí, Brazil: a digital influencer lost more than R$56,000 when fraudsters sent him audio messages in his uncle's AI-cloned voice 'confirming' a car he was buying in Fortaleza
On Monday 10 August 2026 a digital influencer from Picos, in the centre-south of Piauí, began negotiating a car advertised online for sale in Fortaleza (Ceará), where an uncle of his lives, and asked the sellers to take the car to the uncle so he could inspect it. On Tuesday 11 August a contact using a different number but the uncle's photo sent him audio messages in a voice identical to his uncle's, generated with artificial intelligence, saying the car was in good condition and telling him to make the bank transfer. Believing he was speaking to his uncle, he transferred the money; when he then called the uncle's real number he learned he had been defrauded. The loss exceeded R$56,000, money he says he had saved for years. He registered a police report on 11 August; the Piauí property-crimes unit (Depatri) is investigating and he is seeking a refund from the banks. The account is the victim's own, reported by G1 Piauí on 13 August 2026 from his social-media posts and an interview; the police unit did not respond to G1 before publication.
Khulna: a businessman paid Tk3.5 crore for old jute-mill machinery after WhatsApp calls in a voice presented as National Parliament Whip Raqibul Islam Bakul's, which the complaint and Khulna DB police describe as cloned with AI; four to five people arrested, the prime accused confessed
Khulna Gazette, the Daily Times of Bangladesh, Newsbangla24 and BD Today (all 29 September 2026) report from the first information report and Khulna Metropolitan Police Detective Branch (DB) statements that a businessman in Khulna city was joined on 29 July 2026 to a WhatsApp group call with a person introduced as National Parliament Whip Raqibul Islam Bakul, who discussed the sale of old machinery from Platinum Jute Mill and asked for advance payment. The businessman handed over Tk2 crore in cash that afternoon to men sent as representatives and a further Tk1.5 crore after inspecting the mill (30 July per Khulna Gazette and BD Today; 2 August per the Daily Times of Bangladesh and Newsbangla24), a total of Tk3.5 crore. When the businessman met the Whip in person in Khulna on 1 September, the Whip disclaimed any knowledge of it. The complaint filed on 18 September under the Cyber Security Act says the caller's voice had been changed with digital technology and artificial intelligence to pass as the Whip's; the DB deputy commissioner described the case to Asia Post as fraud by imitating the Whip's voice through AI. A press release from the Khulna city BNP media cell, sent on 4 September and published by Jaijaidin on 5 September, had already said a ring was using a US number and AI to clone the Whip's voice and demand money. Police arrested four people, recovered Tk12 lakh, and the prime accused gave a confessional statement before a magistrate on 28 September; on 29 September a court added two more detained men to the case. The voice-cloning tool is not identified and no forensic finding has been reported.
If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.