Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing

Former NPR host alleges Google's NotebookLM AI podcast voice imitates his own; California judge lets his publicity claims proceed

Former NPR Morning Edition co-host David Greene alleges that the default male AI host voice in Google's NotebookLM Audio Overviews, a feature introduced in September 2024 that turns uploaded documents into podcast-style conversations, imitates his voice and speaking habits and was used to market the product without his permission. He told NPR that in fall 2024 friends and colleagues messaged him that it sounded like him, and that listening to it felt creepy. He sued Google in Santa Clara County Superior Court on 23 January 2026; the complaint cites listeners and a forensic voice-recognition firm. Google calls the allegation baseless and says it hired a professional actor and built the voice around him. In October 2026 Judge Shella Deen overruled Google's demurrer to all four causes of action, while stating that whether the voice was made from Greene's recordings or from another source that resembles him is a factual question still to be decided.

AI system
NotebookLM
Google LLC
Occurred
2024
Reported
17 February 2026
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Depicted or impersonated the person
Reported harm
Psychological DistressExploitation or Abuse
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Work · Justice
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts
9 claims: 9 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: The default male AI host voice of Google's NotebookLM Audio Overviews feature, which generates podcast-style conversations between two AI hosts from uploaded documents

What Happened

The product. NotebookLM's Audio Overviews, introduced in September 2024, generate a podcast-style conversation between a male and a female AI host from documents a user uploads.

Greene's account. Greene told NPR on 17 February 2026 that in fall 2024, before he had heard of NotebookLM, friends and colleagues he trusted emailed and texted him that a podcast they had made with it sounded like his voice and asked whether he had given permission. Listening himself, he said he heard his own verbal habits, including the way he puts a sentence and a question together, which felt creepy.

The suit. Greene filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court on 23 January 2026, alleging that Google used recordings of his voice to create the default male voice and used it to market and sell NotebookLM without his permission. He claims a statutory right of publicity, unfair competition, common-law misappropriation and unjust enrichment. The complaint cites listeners and a forensic voice-recognition firm; Hoodline, relaying CNET, reports a firm he hired gave a 53 to 60 percent confidence rating that his voice was used in training.

Google's position. Google calls the allegation baseless and says the male voice is not based on Greene: it hired a professional actor and built the voice around him.

The ruling. After a federal court remanded the case in July 2026, Judge Shella Deen overruled Google LLC's demurrer in October 2026, finding it reasonable to infer that a radio host's voice is widely known and that the claims concern the program's outputs. She wrote that whether Google made the voice from Greene's recordings or from another source that merely resembles him is a factual question. The ruling decides only that the claims may proceed.

Reported harm

A broadcaster alleges that Google's NotebookLM AI voice imitates his voice and was used commercially without his consent, says hearing it felt creepy, and is suing; Google says the voice was built around a hired actor.

Outcome

Ongoing

Greene v. Google LLC, Santa Clara County Superior Court, filed 23 January 2026. Google removed the case to federal court; the US District Court for the Northern District of California remanded it on 23 July 2026. In October 2026 Judge Shella Deen overruled Google LLC's demurrer to all four causes of action and sustained Alphabet Inc.'s demurrer with leave to amend (Hoodline, relaying Law360, dates the ruling 23 October; Voice Over Herald reported a tentative ruling after a hearing earlier that week). Google must respond within 10 days after service of any amended complaint. No ruling on the merits has been made.

What remains unknown

  • How Google built the male voice and whether recordings of Greene were used.
  • The written order's date and full text, which were not read (reports differ on whether the 23 October ruling was the final order after a tentative ruling).
  • Whether Greene amended the claims against Alphabet and how Google answered.
  • The forensic reports cited by Greene, which were not inspected.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. NotebookLM generated the male AI host voice that Greene and listeners say sounds like him (NPR played an example and stated that it is AI; Google says it built the voice). Greene alleges the generated voice imitates his voice and habits and was used to sell the product without consent, which is the harm claimed (depicted_or_impersonated). Google disputes that the voice is based on him and says it was built around a hired actor; the court left that factual question open.

9 claims: 9 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported Google's NotebookLM Audio Overviews feature, introduced in September 2024, turns documents a user uploads into a podcast-style conversation between two AI hosts, one male and one female.

Causal attribution. Description of the product as reported; the male host voice is AI-generated, which Google does not dispute.

  • rbr.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Audio Overviews, introduced in September 2024, turns documents a user uploads into a podcast-style conversation between two AI hosts, one male and one female.'
Reported David Greene says that in fall 2024, before he had heard of NotebookLM, friends and colleagues emailed and texted him that a podcast they made with it sounded like his voice; when he listened he heard his own verbal habits, which he said felt creepy.

Causal attribution. Greene's own account in an NPR interview.

  • wfae.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'It was in the fall of 2024. I had never heard of NotebookLM or used it.'; 'I just made a podcast, and it really sounds like your voice.'; 'I think that was, you know, a real big part of it as well that just felt creepy.'
Reported Greene sued Google in Santa Clara County Superior Court, filing on 23 January 2026, alleging that Google used recordings of his voice to create the default male voice for Audio Overviews and used that voice to market and sell the product without his permission; his claims are statutory right of publicity, unfair competition, common-law misappropriation and unjust enrichment.

Causal attribution. The plaintiff's allegations as reported; not tested at trial.

  • rbr.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'He alleges Google used recordings of his voice to create the default male voice for the Audio Overviews feature in NotebookLM, then used that voice to market and sell the product without his permission.'; 'Greene filed Jan. 23.'; 'His four claims are a statutory right of publicity under California Civil Code section 3344, unfair competition, common law misappropriation, and quasi-contract and unjust enrichment.'
Reported The complaint cites listeners who wrote that the male voice sounds exactly like Greene and a forensic voice-recognition firm that found relatively high evidence of a match.

Causal attribution. Evidence cited in the complaint, as reported; the forensic report was not inspected.

  • rbr.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The complaint cites listeners who wrote that the male voice'; 'and a forensic voice-recognition firm that found'
Reported According to CNET as relayed by Hoodline, a forensic software company Greene hired gave a confidence rating of 53 to 60 percent that his voice was used to train the software behind NotebookLM.

Causal attribution. A party-commissioned analysis as relayed second-hand; it does not establish how Google built the voice.

  • hoodline.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'a forensic software company Greene hired returned a confidence rating of 53% to 60% that his voice was used to train the software behind NotebookLM'
Reported Google calls the allegation baseless and says the male NotebookLM voice is not based on Greene: it says it hired a professional actor and built the voice around him.

Causal attribution. Google's statements to NPR and TheWrap; one party's position.

  • wfae.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Now, Google is calling your allegation baseless. They say the male voice on NotebookLM is not based on you, that they hired a professional actor and built it around him.'
  • voiceoverherald.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'A company spokesperson told TheWrap the claims were'
Reported Judge Shella Deen of Santa Clara County Superior Court overruled Google LLC's demurrer to all four causes of action and sustained Alphabet Inc.'s demurrer with leave to amend; the ruling does not decide whether the claims are true.

Causal attribution. Court order as reported by two outlets drawing on the same court record; the order itself was not read.

  • rbr.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Shella Deen overruled Google LLC'; 'She sustained Alphabet Inc.'; 'The ruling does not decide whether Greene'
  • hoodline.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'attempt to dismiss all four causes of action in Greene'; 'complaint on October 23'
Reported The judge found it reasonable to infer that a radio host's voice is widely known, rejected Copyright Act preemption because the claims concern the program's outputs, and wrote that whether Google made the male voice from Greene's recordings or from another source that merely resembles him is a factual question.

Causal attribution. The court's reasoning at the pleading stage as quoted in the report; no finding on how the voice was made.

  • rbr.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'A radio host reaches the audience through the voice, and it is reasonable to infer that the voice is widely known.'; 'finding a voice is not copyrightable and that the claims concern the program'; 'is a factual question,'
Reported Google had removed the case to federal court; a judge of the US District Court for the Northern District of California sent it back to state court on 23 July 2026.

Causal attribution. Procedural history as reported.

  • rbr.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Google moved the case to federal court, and a US District Court judge in the Northern District of California sent it back July 23.'

Sources

4 sources inspected, from 2 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English on 2026-10-30 (HTTP 200). Radio and Television Business Report account of the Santa Clara County Superior Court order on the demurrers, quoting the order and recounting the complaint; the order itself was not read. Applies to s1.

Read in English on 2026-10-30 (HTTP 200). NPR Morning Edition transcript of 17 Feb 2026 (interview with David Greene, including Google's statement to NPR), as carried by member station WFAE. Applies to s2.

Read in English on 2026-10-30 (HTTP 200). Hoodline summary of the ruling relaying Law360, CNET and Radio Ink; treated as dependent on the same reporting of the court record. Applies to s3.

Read in English on 2026-10-30 (HTTP 200). Voice Over Herald report of the tentative ruling, relaying Bloomberg Law, NPR and Google's statement to TheWrap. Applies to s4.

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

The suit is in Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, so the court country is US. No source states where the voice was made or heard or where Greene lives, so the event and affected-person countries are left unknown.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-30: Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): a named broadcaster alleges, in a suit a California court let proceed in October 2026, that the AI-generated male voice in Google's NotebookLM imitates his voice and was used commercially without his consent. The AI generation of the voice is not disputed; its derivation from him is, and Google's denial is recorded. Two source chains were read: Greene's NPR interview and reports of the court record.

People described

David Greene, a former NPR Morning Edition co-host and current podcast host, the named plaintiff

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One person, the named plaintiff whose voice he says the AI host imitates. Listeners and users of NotebookLM are not counted.

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

Tags

#voice-imitation#right-of-publicity#lawsuit#notebooklm#broadcaster

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). Former NPR host alleges Google's NotebookLM AI podcast voice imitates his own; California judge lets his publicity claims proceed. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2024-former-npr-host-alleges-google-notebooklm-ai-podcast-voice-imitates-his-court-lets-claims-proceed

BibTeX

@misc{2024_former_npr_host_alleges_google_notebooklm_ai_podcast_voice_imitates_his_court_lets_claims_proceed,
  title = {Former NPR host alleges Google's NotebookLM AI podcast voice imitates his own; California judge lets his publicity claims proceed},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2024-former-npr-host-alleges-google-notebooklm-ai-podcast-voice-imitates-his-court-lets-claims-proceed}
}

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.

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 Unidentified face-swap and voice-synthesis tool

Hangzhou Internet Court rules a skincare seller used AI face swap and voice synthesis to fake a beauty blogger's sales videos, awarding damages

A CCTV News report of 29 September 2026 says the Hangzhou Internet Court in Zhejiang recently concluded a portrait-rights case brought by a beauty blogger. According to the report, from June 2024 an online skincare-sales company, without the blogger's consent, took short videos and livestream footage the blogger had published and used AI synthesis to make more than 30 fake videos in which the blogger appeared to promote its products. The court found that the company had used AI face swap and the recombination of image and sound tracks to fabricate the videos for commercial gain, infringing the blogger's portrait rights. In court the company acknowledged that it had synthesised and published the videos without the blogger's authorisation, said staff had made them out of fun and curiosity, and said it had taken them all down after receiving the lawsuit papers. The court ordered the company to pay 15,000 yuan for economic loss and the costs of protecting the blogger's rights and 5,000 yuan in compensation for emotional distress, and to publish an apology prominently on the platform concerned for at least 30 days. The blogger's claim that the products sold more than 100,000 orders was not accepted as proof of loss or profit.

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.

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