Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing

Tokyo: voice actor Kenjiro Tsuda sues TikTok's operator, alleging an anonymous account posted at least 188 monetised videos narrated by a generative-AI imitation of his voice between July 2024 and September 2025; TikTok says it is a generic male voice, and the Tokyo District Court is due to rule on 30 September 2026

Kenjiro Tsuda, a Japanese voice actor known for roles in Jujutsu Kaisen, sued the operator of TikTok in the Tokyo District Court in November 2025, seeking removal of videos he says use a generative-AI imitation of his voice without permission. According to his complaint, as reported by Jiji Press, Nikkei and the Asahi Shimbun, an account run by an unidentified person posted at least 188 short videos on urban legends, the occult and trivia between July 2024 and September 2025, narrated in a voice modelled on his; the account had about 210,000 followers, videos averaged 1.47 million views, and his side says the poster earned 500,000 to 750,000 yen a month from TikTok's view-based payments. Viewers commented that the voice sounded like him. He argues this infringes his right of publicity and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act by passing the videos off as his narration. TikTok's operator denies that the voice is shown to be his, calls it a generic male voice, says the account and videos were deleted after the suit was filed and asks for dismissal; the poster reportedly said online that the voice was made by training AI on a friend's voice. It is described as Japan's first lawsuit over AI imitation of a voice, with judgment due on 30 September 2026.

AI system
Unidentified voice-cloning tool
Occurred
1 Jul 2024 to 30 Sept 2025
Reported
23 May 2026
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Depicted or impersonated the person
Reported harm
Exploitation or Abuse
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Work · Justice
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution disputed · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts
4 claims: 4 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: An unidentified generative-AI voice tool used by an anonymous TikTok account to produce narration (the plaintiff alleges the voice imitates his; the poster reportedly said the model was trained on a friend's voice); videos distributed on TikTok

What Happened

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 he 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 he made the voice by training AI on a friend's voice. Tokyo Shimbun reports that one video exceeded 10 million views. 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. Whether the voice is an imitation of Tsuda's is disputed and not yet decided; the monetisation figures are the plaintiff's claims.

Reported harm

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 (complaint as reported by Nikkei, Asahi and Jiji Press).

Outcome

Pending

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 Tokyo District Court ordered TikTok's side to disclose the poster's information, but the disclosed data was too old to identify the poster. TikTok's side argues the voice is generic, that the account and video data were deleted after the filing, and that the claim should be dismissed for lack of interest. Judgment is scheduled for 30 September 2026 (Jiji Press, 27 September 2026). In August 2026 a Ministry of Justice expert panel issued guidance that voices, like likenesses, can be protected by publicity rights (Jiji Press).

What remains unknown

  • Who ran the account and which AI tool produced the voice (a court-ordered disclosure in August 2025 did not identify the poster, according to the Asahi Shimbun).
  • Whether the voice was modelled on Mr Tsuda's voice; the court has not ruled.
  • Mr Tsuda's own account of personal or financial effects; no statement from him was read.
  • The judgment due on 30 September 2026.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The complaint alleges generative-AI imitation of his voice (Nikkei; Asahi; Jiji). TikTok's side and the poster reportedly say the voice was generated by AI trained on a friend's voice, so AI generation is asserted by both sides; whether it imitates Tsuda is disputed and undecided.

4 claims: 4 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported According to Mr Tsuda's complaint, an account run by an unidentified person posted at least 188 videos between July 2024 and September 2025 narrated by a generative-AI imitation of his voice, without his permission, and viewers commented that the voice sounded like him.

Causal attribution. Plaintiff's allegations as reported from the complaint and his lawyer (one chain); the court has not ruled.

  • nikkei.com(opens in new tab) supports · Japanese
    '生成AI（人工知能）によって自身の声を無断で模倣した動画が公開されているとして、人気声優の津田健次郎さんが、TikTok（ティックトック）の運営会社に動画の削除を求めて東京地裁に提訴していたことが23日分かった。'; '2024年7月〜25年9月、津田さんの声質を模したナレーションを付け、都市伝説やオカルト、雑学をテーマとした動画を188本投稿したとされる。'
  • jiji.com(opens in new tab) supports · Japanese
    '訴状などによると、２０２４年７月～２５年９月、都市伝説や陰謀論を扱う画像に津田さんの声質を模したナレーションを付けた動画１８８件が投稿された。'; '動画には「ツダケンの声がする」「声が似ている」などのコメントが相次いだ。'
  • asahi.com(opens in new tab) supports · Japanese
    '訴状によると、問題の動画アカウントは2024年7月以降、津田さんの声を模したナレーションで都市伝説や心霊現象を語る内容で、少なくとも188件投稿した。'
Reported His side says the account had about 210,000 followers when he sued in November 2025, videos averaged 1.47 million views, and the poster earned 500,000 to 750,000 yen a month from TikTok's view-based payments.

Causal attribution. Plaintiff's figures; not independently verified.

  • nikkei.com(opens in new tab) supports · Japanese
    'ティックトックには再生回数に応じて金銭が支払われる仕組みがあり、月50万〜75万円の収益を上げたとしている。'; '提訴は25年11月。この時点で投稿者は21万人以上のフォロワーを有し、動画の平均再生回数は147万回に上るという。'
  • asahi.com(opens in new tab) supports · Japanese
    '動画の再生数に応じて投稿者は月50万～75万円の収益を上げていた、と津田さん側は主張している。'
Reported TikTok's operator disputes the claim, saying it is not objectively clear the voice is the same as his and that it is a generic male voice, that the poster said he trained AI on a friend's voice, and that the account and videos were deleted after the suit was filed; it asks for the claim to be dismissed.

Causal attribution. Defendant's position as reported.

  • jiji.com(opens in new tab) supports · Japanese
    'これに対して運営会社側は「投稿者は『友人の声を生成ＡＩに学習させた』と述べており、普遍的な男性の声にすぎない」などと反論。提訴後に動画データがアカウントごと削除されたとし、「訴えの利益はない」として請求却下も求めている。'
  • asahi.com(opens in new tab) supports · Japanese
    '一方、ティックトック側は答弁書で、問題の音声が「津田さんと『同一の声』かどうかは客観的に明らかではない」などと反論。'
  • asahi.com(opens in new tab) context · Japanese
    '25年8月、東京地裁がティックトック側に投稿者の情報の開示を命じたが、開示された情報が古く、投稿者の特定に至らなかったという。'
Reported The Tokyo District Court is due to give judgment on 30 September 2026 in what is described as the first lawsuit over infringement of voice rights by generative AI.

Causal attribution. Court schedule as reported by Jiji Press.

  • jiji.com(opens in new tab) supports · Japanese
    '模倣された声が入った動画の削除を求めた訴訟の判決が３０日、東京地裁で言い渡される。生成ＡＩによる声の権利侵害を巡る初の訴訟で'
  • jiji.com(opens in new tab) context · Japanese
    'ベテラン声優らは「声の権利を認めてほしい」と訴え、津田健次郎さんが起こした訴訟の判決を見守っている。'

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 live in Japanese on 2026-09-28; summarised in English by the researcher (no human translation). Reports the complaint and TikTok's filings. Applies to s1.

Read live in Japanese on 2026-09-28 (23 May 2026); sourced to the plaintiff's lawyer and the complaint. Researcher translation. Applies to s2.

Read live in Japanese on 2026-09-28 (May 2026); the visible article text was read and quotes the complaint and TikTok's answer. Researcher translation. Applies to s3.

Read live in Japanese on 2026-09-28 (26 September 2026). Industry context; does not add facts about the Tsuda videos. Researcher translation. Applies to s4.

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

Mr Tsuda is a Japanese voice actor working in Japan and the suit is in the Tokyo District Court (Nikkei; Jiji). The poster is unidentified and the place where the videos were made is not reported, so no event country is recorded.

Reviewed for publication 2026-09-28: Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a core case (a generative-AI voice alleged to impersonate a real, named performer in monetised videos). The facts come from his complaint as reported by Nikkei, the Asahi Shimbun and Jiji Press, with TikTok's rebuttal; imitation is disputed and undecided. Mr Tsuda is a public figure suing in his own name; the poster is unidentified.

People described

Kenjiro Tsuda, a Japanese voice actor and actor, suing in his own name

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One person, the plaintiff Kenjiro Tsuda, whose voice is alleged to have been imitated (Nikkei; Asahi; Jiji Press). Followers and viewers are not counted. Other voice actors described in the Jiji industry feature are separate accounts and are not counted. Exact 1.

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

Tags

#voice-cloning#voice-actor#publicity-rights#tiktok#japan#tokyo-district-court#lawsuit

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). Tokyo: voice actor Kenjiro Tsuda sues TikTok's operator, alleging an anonymous account posted at least 188 monetised videos narrated by a generative-AI imitation of his voice between July 2024 and September 2025; TikTok says it is a generic male voice, and the Tokyo District Court is due to rule on 30 September 2026. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-tsuda-v-tiktok-ai-voice-imitation-tokyo

BibTeX

@misc{2025_tsuda_v_tiktok_ai_voice_imitation_tokyo,
  title = {Tokyo: voice actor Kenjiro Tsuda sues TikTok's operator, alleging an anonymous account posted at least 188 monetised videos narrated by a generative-AI imitation of his voice between July 2024 and September 2025; TikTok says it is a generic male voice, and the Tokyo District Court is due to rule on 30 September 2026},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-tsuda-v-tiktok-ai-voice-imitation-tokyo}
}

Related cases

Critical Unidentified image and video tool

Etawah, Uttar Pradesh: a beautician and event organiser died by suicide on the night of 20-21 July 2026 after recording a video naming four acquaintances she said had ruined her home; her husband says they had been blackmailing her with AI-made videos and photographs (India Today: 'AI-generated videos and morphed photographs'); police registered an abetment case and arrested the main accused (July 2026)

A beautician, make-up artist and event organiser in Etawah district, Uttar Pradesh (aged 20 or 26 depending on the report), recorded a video on her phone and sent it to her husband before hanging herself at their rented home in Vrindavan Colony, Civil Lines, on the night of 20 July 2026 (ANI's circle officer; the Times of India says 21 July). In the video she named two women and two men, former work acquaintances, as 'the reason I am hanging myself', said they had ruined her home and should be jailed for life, said they had threatened to reveal details of her pre-marriage life to her husband and in-laws, and cleared her husband. Her husband, a block-office clerk, told India Today (whose Etawah reporter also wrote the AajTak report) and, separately, India TV that after she returned from a Jaipur assignment the four had been harassing and blackmailing her with AI-made videos and photographs. Civil Lines police seized her phone, held the inquest and post-mortem and said they were verifying the videos; the Times of India reported on 27 July that a case of abetment to suicide had been registered on the husband's complaint and that the alleged main accused, a 30-year-old man, had been arrested on Saturday 25 July and sent to jail while the other three, including the two women, were absconding. The AI attribution rests on the husband's account as reported; her video, as quoted, names four people and describes threats to expose her pre-marriage life; the police statements read do not describe an examination of the material.

High Unidentified image tool

Jeju: a middle-school student who secretly filmed teachers at his school and turned some of the footage into sexual deepfake composites was referred to prosecutors without detention on 17 September 2026; police say the victims are teachers (more than one, number withheld) and no students at the school, the teachers' union questions whether the full scope of harm was confirmed, and the union says the victim teachers have been in treatment for two months while teaching daily, were questioned without a lawyer and wrote the criminal complaint themselves

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 police found 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 that there are more victim teachers than the one first reported but declined to give a number because the teachers are still teaching at the school and disclosure could cause secondary harm; that some suggestive composites were found and material causing shame was included in the charges; and that, contrary to earlier suggestions, no student at the school was a victim. The Jeju teachers' union questioned whether the full extent of the harm had been established, saying the victim teachers had themselves seen footage involving several students yet no compulsory seizure was made; police say the voluntary submission and forensic examination secured the necessary evidence. According to the union, two months after the case came to light the victim teachers are receiving hospital treatment and counselling while going to school every day; on 14 September they gave police victim statements without a lawyer and on 17 September attended the regional teachers' rights protection committee without support from the education office or the school safety mutual-aid association; they wrote and filed the criminal complaint themselves; substitute teachers are hard to find so they have used only three or four of 16 days of special leave; and the mutual-aid association proposes 3.3 million won in legal fees for all victim teachers together, payable after the case ends. The victim teachers requested meetings with the superintendent on 1 and 3 September without success, and a third written request was sent to the superintendent's office on 21 September; the union is running a petition until 2 October for severe punishment and support. Police said they had told the education office that the teachers need support such as treatment costs, rest and sick leave.

High Unidentified image tool

Jiangsu, China (Zhangjiagang court): a man used AI face-swap deep-synthesis to splice the faces of a person referred to as Yu and several others onto pornographic images, fabricated 'sexual' stories about them and posted the material repeatedly on overseas websites between April 2024 and January 2025; after two face-swapped nude images of Yu and Yu's ID were forwarded to Yu's work WeChat group with a fabricated claim of sex-for-money transactions, he was convicted of criminal defamation and sentenced to one year and three months (1 December 2025), upheld on appeal and listed by the Jiangsu High People's Court among its 2025 typical cases

According to the Jiangsu High People's Court's 2025 top-ten typical cases, published on 27 January 2026 and reported by The Paper, a man surnamed Wang used the deep-synthesis technology of AI software between April 2024 and January 2025 to splice the facial information of a person (pseudonym Yu) and several other people onto pornographic images, fabricated a large number of indecent images and 'sexual' topics about them, and repeatedly spread them in public posts on overseas websites. On 5 January 2025 he sent two AI face-swapped nude images bearing Yu's face and images of Yu's identity documents to a second man (dealt with separately) and fabricated the claim that he had had a sex-for-money transaction with Yu; although the second man said he would forward the material to Yu's work WeChat group, Wang did not clarify that it was false or effectively stop him, only deleting the contact. The second man forwarded the images to the WeChat group and claimed there that Yu sold sex, prompting extensive discussion inside and outside the group and, the court found, adverse effects on Yu's personal image, work and life, a serious lowering of Yu's social evaluation and a violation of Yu's dignity. The Zhangjiagang People's Court held that using deep-synthesis technology that ordinary people cannot easily identify to generate indecent images and fabricate sexual topics, spread repeatedly through information networks, was defamation of serious circumstances that seriously harmed social order; taking into account his voluntary surrender, it sentenced him on 1 December 2025 to one year and three months' imprisonment for defamation. The Suzhou Intermediate People's Court rejected his appeal. The High Court described the case as a typical example of punishing online defamation committed with AI.

Medium Unidentified image tool

Henderson, Kentucky: police identified AI-generated nude images of two middle-school children on a device after a report that such images were being created and shown to other students at South Middle School; a juvenile was lodged at the juvenile detention centre on charges of distributing sexually explicit images without consent and possessing and distributing matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor

Henderson Police said that on 'last Thursday' (17 September 2026) they received a report that AI-generated nude images of children were being created and shown to other students at South Middle School in Henderson, Kentucky. During the investigation officers found and identified AI-generated photographs of two minor victims on a digital device. A juvenile accused of sharing the images was lodged at the Juvenile Detention Center on three charge types: distribution of sexually explicit images without consent; two counts of possession or viewing of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor over 12 and under 18; and distribution of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor over 12 and under 18. The school said on Monday 21 September that it was aware of a situation involving a student allegedly misusing artificial intelligence and inappropriate images, that the police investigation was active and that it had remained in communication with the families involved. 14 News (WFIE) reported the case on 21 September; WKYT carried the same report. The tool is not named. The depicted children's exact ages are not reported, though the charge descriptors put them between 12 and 18. The accused is described as a South Middle School student; the accused's age and any relationship to the depicted children beyond attending the same school are 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