Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Lawsuit Filed

Hangzhou court rules a company infringed a former employee's voice rights by training AI on work recordings and using the AI voice commercially

The Binjiang District People's Court in Hangzhou ruled that a culture company infringed a former employee's voice rights when it trained an AI on recordings the employee had made at its request and used the synthesised voice to dub a virtual character, according to the court's bulletin as reported by China Youth Daily and Cover News on 25 June 2026. The employee had worked as a 'virtual performer' doing livestreams and videos. In August 2023 the company, citing internal testing, had the employee record material for a voice and AI training project without signing a formal agreement and without clearly answering the employee's requests about terms and a licence fee. After leaving in September 2024, the employee found the AI-synthesised voice in use for the character in livestreams, shopping-centre displays and online product listings. The court found the AI-processed voice so close to the employee's intonation and speaking style that ordinary listeners could identify the person, held that the company's copyright in the work recordings did not extend to personality rights, and ordered it to stop, pay 20,000 yuan for economic loss and issue a written apology. Neither side appealed.

AI system
Unidentified voice-cloning tool
Occurred
Event date unknown
Reported
25 June 2026
Event location
China
What the AI did
Depicted or impersonated the person
Reported harm
Financial Loss
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Work · Justice
Evidence
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account
5 claims: 5 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: An AI voice model that the company trained on the employee's recordings and used to synthesise the voice of its virtual character, according to the court as reported; the tool is not named

What Happened

What happened. According to the Binjiang District People's Court bulletin as reported by China Youth Daily and Cover News, the plaintiff worked for a Hangzhou culture company as a 'virtual performer' responsible for livestreams and video production, under a labour contract stating that intellectual property and other property rights arising from the work belonged to the company. In August 2023 the company, citing urgent internal testing, arranged for the employee to record material for a voice-use and AI training project. No formal agreement was signed, and the company did not clearly answer the employee's requests about signing terms and a licence fee. The employee left in September 2024 and afterwards found that the company had trained an AI on the recordings and was using the synthesised voice to dub a virtual character in livestreams, shopping-centre displays and online product listings.

The ruling. The court held that a voice processed by AI remains protected as a natural person's voice when it can still be identified with that person, and found that the AI-processed voice matched the employee's intonation and speaking style closely enough for ordinary listeners to identify the employee. It held that an agreement assigning intellectual property does not include personality rights, so the company's copyright in the recordings did not give it the right to use the voice through AI. China Youth Daily reports the court as finding that the company knew AI training and use of the voice needed separate paid authorisation and used the synthesised voice commercially without the employee's informed consent. The court ordered the company to stop, pay 20,000 yuan for economic loss and issue a written apology; the employee had claimed 100,000 yuan. Neither side appealed.

What is not known. The AI tool, when the commercial use began, how long it lasted and how widely the character's livestreams and displays reached people are not reported. The sources give no further account of the employee's own experience beyond the claim and the court's findings.

Reported harm

A Hangzhou court found that a company used an AI voice trained on a former employee's work recordings to dub a virtual character commercially without consent, and awarded the employee 20,000 yuan in economic loss and a written apology.

How Harm Occurred

A company trained an AI on a performer-employee's work recordings, made for what it called internal testing without a signed agreement, and used the synthesised voice commercially to dub a virtual character after the employee left; the court found the voice identifiable as the employee's and the use an infringement.

Outcome

Resolved

The former employee sued in the Binjiang District People's Court, asking the company to stop, pay 100,000 yuan in economic loss and apologise. The company argued that it owned the copyright in the recordings and that its use was lawful. The court ordered the company to stop the infringement immediately, pay 20,000 yuan for economic loss and issue a written apology; neither party appealed the first-instance judgment (court bulletin as reported by China Youth Daily and Cover News, 25 June 2026). The judgment date is not given beyond 'recently'.

What remains unknown

  • Which AI tool the company used to train and synthesise the voice.
  • When the commercial use of the AI voice began, how long it lasted and whether it has stopped.
  • The date of the judgment, which the bulletin describes only as recent before 25 June 2026.
  • How the use affected the employee beyond the economic loss the court recognised.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: supported. According to the Binjiang District People's Court bulletin as reported by China Youth Daily and Cover News, the company trained an AI on the employee's recordings and used the synthesised voice to dub its virtual character in livestreams, shopping-centre displays and online listings, and the court found that the AI-processed voice matched the employee's intonation and speaking style closely enough for ordinary listeners to identify the employee. The AI voice therefore presented the employee's voice to audiences without consent, which the court held infringed the employee's voice rights. The AI tool is not named and the judgment text was not read.

5 claims: 5 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported The plaintiff worked for a Hangzhou culture company as a 'virtual performer' responsible for livestreams and video production; in August 2023 the company, citing internal testing, had the employee record material for a voice and AI training project without a formal agreement, and did not clearly answer the employee's requests about signing terms and a licence fee.

Causal attribution. Court bulletin as reported; one origin.

  • c.m.163.com(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '任职虚拟艺人岗位' '录制AI声音训练素材，但双方未签订正式授权协议'
  • cbgc.scol.com.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '任“虚拟艺人”岗位，负责直播、视频制作等工作' '2023年8月，理某文化公司以内部测试急用为由，安排' '声音使用及AI训练项目”相关素材。双方未签订正式合作协议'
Reported After leaving the company in September 2024, the employee found that it had trained an AI on the recordings and was using the synthesised voice to dub a virtual character in livestreams, shopping-centre displays and online product listings.

Causal attribution. Court bulletin as reported; the employee discovered the use, and the court accepted that the AI voice was used.

  • c.m.163.com(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '离职后发现，该公司擅自将其声音素材经AI训练合成后，用于“梦某”虚拟角色配音，覆盖直播、商场展示、线上商品上架等商业场景。'
  • cbgc.scol.com.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '2024年9月，' '从理某文化公司离职。不久后，发现公司擅自将其声音素材经AI训练后，用于项目“梦某”角色的配音，涵盖直播、商场展示等场景。'
Reported The court found that the AI-processed voice matched the employee's intonation and speaking style closely enough for ordinary listeners to identify the employee, held that an intellectual-property assignment does not include personality rights, and found that the company knew AI training and use of the voice required separate paid authorisation but used the synthesised voice commercially without informed consent.

Causal attribution. Court reasoning as reported in the bulletin coverage; the judgment text was not read.

  • c.m.163.com(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '经AI处理后的声音与' '的语调、发音风格高度一致，足以使一般公众准确识别其身份' '公司明知声音AI训练及使用需另行授权付费，仍在未获' '知情同意的情况下商用AI合成声音，无合法权利来源，已构成声音权侵权。'
  • cbgc.scol.com.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '具有高度一致性，足以使一般公众准确识别出' '知识产权归属约定不包含人格权益'
Reported The company argued that it owned the copyright in the recordings and that its use was lawful.

Causal attribution. The defendant's position as summarised in the court bulletin coverage.

  • c.m.163.com(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '被告公司则辩称，公司对涉案录音制品享有著作权，使用行为具备合法依据。'
Reported The employee asked for the use to stop, 100,000 yuan in economic loss and an apology; the court ordered the company to stop the infringement, pay 20,000 yuan for economic loss and issue a written apology, and neither party appealed.

Causal attribution. Judgment as reported by three outlets from one court bulletin; one origin.

  • c.m.163.com(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '要求停止侵权、赔偿经济损失10万元并赔礼道歉' '经济损失2万元，并出具书面道歉声明。一审判决后，双方当事人均未提起上诉。'
  • cbgc.scol.com.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '最终，法院判决理某文化公司停止侵权、赔偿经济损失2万元并出具书面道歉声明。一审判决后，当事人未提起上诉。'
  • finance.sina.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '法院最终判决企业停止全部侵权内容，赔偿2万元经济损失，出具书面道歉声明。一审结束后双方都没有上诉。'

Sources

3 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 Simplified Chinese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-30 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. China Youth Daily reports the Binjiang court bulletin issued that day, including a judge's comments. Applies to s1.

Read in Simplified Chinese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-30 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Cover News reports the case as obtained from the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court; the page is labelled as a preview address on the Sichuan Daily app. Applies to s2.

Read in Simplified Chinese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-30 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Kuai Technology retells the same court bulletin three weeks later, relayed by Sina. Applies to s3.

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

China Youth Daily describes the company as a culture company in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, and the case was decided by the Binjiang District People's Court in Hangzhou. Where the employee lives is not stated, so affected-person countries are left empty.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-30: Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): a Hangzhou court found that a company used an AI voice trained on a former employee's work recordings, identifiable as the employee, to dub a virtual character commercially without consent, and awarded damages and an apology. The employee is not named.

People described

A former employee of a Hangzhou culture company who worked as a 'virtual performer' doing livestreams and videos; not named here.

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One former employee whose voice the court found was used after AI processing; no other person is described as harmed.

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

Tags

#voice-cloning#voice-rights#personality-rights#employment#virtual-character#court-ruling#hangzhou#china

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). Hangzhou court rules a company infringed a former employee's voice rights by training AI on work recordings and using the AI voice commercially. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2024-hangzhou-court-rules-company-used-former-virtual-performers-voice-for-ai-dubbing-without-consent

BibTeX

@misc{2024_hangzhou_court_rules_company_used_former_virtual_performers_voice_for_ai_dubbing_without_consent,
  title = {Hangzhou court rules a company infringed a former employee's voice rights by training AI on work recordings and using the AI voice commercially},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2024-hangzhou-court-rules-company-used-former-virtual-performers-voice-for-ai-dubbing-without-consent}
}

Related cases

Low Unidentified voice-cloning tool

Beijing Internet Court finds an AI text-to-speech voice made from a voice actress's recordings was sold without her consent and awards her 250,000 yuan

According to the Beijing courts' case digest and reports of the April 2024 judgment, a voice actress found in May 2023 that works using her voice were circulating widely on several well-known apps. The court found that a software company had used only one of her sound recordings, supplied by a media company that held the recording rights, to make a text-to-speech product with AI and other techniques, and sold it on a cloud-service platform; an app operator then called the product through an interface for use on its own platform, where the voice was shown as played 3,256,728,530 times. The authorisation document had not been signed by her. On 23 April 2024 the Beijing Internet Court held that her voice rights extend to an identifiable AI-synthesised voice, ordered the app operator and the software company to apologise in writing, and ordered the media company and the software company to pay her 250,000 yuan for economic loss. It rejected her claim for mental-harm damages. Neither side appealed.

Low Unidentified voice-cloning tool

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.

Medium Unidentified voice-cloning tool

Chinese voice actor says AI clones of his voice cost him bookings and led platforms to flag his real recordings as AI-generated

Sixth Tone reported on 10 July 2026 that a voice actor in Jiangsu province, who narrates film-explainer videos on Douyin, has found voices that sound like his narrating videos he never recorded since 2023, including sports news, product promotions, conspiracy theories and swearing. According to the report, sellers offer what sounds like his voice in downloadable packages and editing apps let users select it and generate new recordings from text. He says that by 2024 former collaborators stopped hiring him and turned to AI-generated voices, others offered to use an AI version of his voice at a much lower rate, and his household income no longer covered living costs. From 2025, platforms flagged some of his real recordings as AI-generated, which could cut his clients' views and earnings, and he has had to record videos proving that he is human. Friends and relatives asked to borrow money, uploaders mostly ignored his requests and some abused him, and he describes fury, helplessness and lost sleep. He has taken the matter to court; Sixth Tone says he would need to show that the synthetic voice derives from his recordings, which lawyers said could require forensic voice analysis. The account is the actor's, relayed by one outlet; no court finding is reported.

High Unidentified voice-cloning tool

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.

Back to all incidents