Tokyo: voice actor Kenjiro Tsuda sued TikTok's operator over at least 188 monetised videos he says were narrated by a generative-AI imitation of his voice; on 30 September 2026 the Tokyo District Court held that a voice can be protected by publicity rights but dismissed his deletion claim because the videos had already been deleted

Nikkei (23 May 2026) reported, from the plaintiff's lawyer, that Kenjiro Tsuda had sued TikTok's operator in the Tokyo District Court for deletion of videos that use a generative-AI imitation of his voice without permission. According to the complaint, an account run by an unidentified person posted 188 videos on urban legends, the occult and trivia between July 2024 and September 2025 with narration imitating his voice quality; TikTok pays according to view counts and the account is said to have earned 500,000 to 750,000 yen a month; at the November 2025 filing it had more than 210,000 followers and an average of 1.47 million views per video. The Asahi Shimbun reported the same complaint account (at least 188 videos from July 2024, about 210,000 followers in November 2025) and his argument that the videos cause confusion as though he were narrating them, contrary to the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and that his rights over his voice as a voice actor are infringed. Jiji Press (27 September 2026) added that viewers commented 'it sounds like Tsuken' and that the plaintiff's audio analysis found similarity to his low, deep voice, and reported TikTok's position that the poster said they had trained generative AI on a friend's voice, that it is a generic male voice, and that the videos were deleted with the account after the filing. Nikkei reports the poster explained on an outside site that they made the voice by training AI on a friend's voice. A Jiji Press feature (26 September 2026) reports that the Japan Actors Union receives a stream of complaints from voice actors about unauthorised AI imitation, including characters being made to say sexual words, and that veteran actors are watching the Tsuda ruling. Nikkei and the Asahi Shimbun (30 September 2026) report that the poster deleted the account in May 2026. In its 30 September 2026 judgment the Tokyo District Court (presiding judge Aya Takahashi) said that, as a general matter, a person's voice is a symbol of individual personality in the same way as a likeness, and that using a performer's voice without permission infringes the right of publicity where the purpose is solely to exploit the customer-attraction power of that voice. Because the videos had already been deleted, including from the operator's servers, the court found the operator owed no further deletion and dismissed the claim. Nikkei reports that the court gave no view on whether the videos infringed his publicity right and did not address the Unfair Competition Prevention Act argument; the Asahi Shimbun also reports no ruling on infringement. TV Asahi reports the general holding and the dismissal. The Asahi Shimbun reports that his lawyer said they would not appeal. Whether the voice imitates Tsuda's therefore remains undecided; the monetisation figures are the plaintiff's claims.

Mr Tsuda alleges that an anonymous poster used a generative-AI imitation of his voice, without permission, to narrate at least 188 monetised TikTok videos that viewers took to be his, infringing his rights over his voice; TikTok disputes that the voice is his, and the court dismissed his deletion claim without deciding infringement because the videos had been deleted (Nikkei, Asahi and Jiji Press).

Suit filed in the Tokyo District Court in November 2025 against TikTok's operating company, seeking deletion of the videos on right-of-publicity and Unfair Competition Prevention Act grounds (Jiji Press; Nikkei; Asahi). Made public on 23 May 2026 by his lawyer. According to the Asahi Shimbun, in August 2025 the court ordered TikTok's side to disclose the poster's information, but the disclosed data was too old to identify the poster. The poster deleted the account in May 2026, after the filing (Nikkei; Asahi). Judgment on 30 September 2026 (presiding judge Aya Takahashi): the court held in general terms that a person's voice, like a likeness, is a symbol of individual personality and that unauthorised use of a performer's voice for the sole purpose of exploiting its customer-attraction power infringes the right of publicity. It dismissed the deletion claim because the videos had already been deleted, including from the operator's servers, so the operator had no further duty to delete them. It did not decide whether the videos infringed his publicity right, and, according to Nikkei, the judgment did not address the Unfair Competition Prevention Act claim (Nikkei; Asahi; TV Asahi). After the judgment his lawyer said they did not plan to appeal, and TikTok's operator said it would keep working on a balance between technological development and rights protection (Asahi). No damages were at issue in the reporting read; the suit sought deletion. Some English headlines said the court found his rights violated; the Japanese reports read state that the court made no finding on infringement. In August 2026 a Ministry of Justice expert panel published guidance that voices, like likenesses, can be protected by publicity rights (Jiji Press; TV Asahi; Nikkei). On 5 October 2026 the Japan Actors Union (Nihon Haiyu Rengo) published a statement on its website and on X calling the court's recognition that a voice falls within publicity-right protection a major achievement, and said the deletion of the videos had been achieved before judgment. The union reported that it ran the videos' AI narration and Mr Tsuda's voice through the similarity tool of JVOXPRO, its own performer voice database: across 30 test pairs the maximum score was 0.881 and the mean 0.814, with more than 15 pairs scoring 0.80 or higher, which on its four-level scale it reads as a high probability that the AI voice used his voice. This is the union's own test, not a court finding; the court made no finding on imitation. The union also called for legislation on performers' publicity rights (union statement; Oricon).