{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-30T07:22:25.629Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"notebooklm","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"core","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2024-former-npr-host-alleges-google-notebooklm-ai-podcast-voice-imitates-his-court-lets-claims-proceed","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The complaint cites listeners who wrote that the male voice'; 'and a forensic voice-recognition firm that found'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'A company spokesperson told TheWrap the claims were'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Shella Deen overruled Google LLC'; 'She sustained Alphabet Inc.'; 'The ruling does not decide whether Greene'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'attempt to dismiss all four causes of action in Greene'; 'complaint on October 23'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c9","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Google moved the case to federal court, and a US District Court judge in the Northern District of California sent it back July 23.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."}],"effects":[{"label":"broadcaster alleges an AI product voice imitates his own voice and was used commercially without his consent","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://rbr.com/judge-wont-toss-former-npr-hosts-ai-challenge-against-google/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"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.","independence_group":"greene-v-google-court-reporting"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.wfae.org/2026-02-17/former-morning-edition-host-accuses-google-of-stealing-his-voice-for-ai-product","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"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.","independence_group":"npr-greene-interview"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/10/judge-rules-google-must-face-ex-npr-host-s-ai-voice-lawsuit-in-california/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"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.","independence_group":"greene-v-google-court-reporting"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.voiceoverherald.com/david-greene-google-notebooklm-voice-lawsuit-ruling/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"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.","independence_group":"greene-v-google-court-reporting"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["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."],"geography":{"basis":"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.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"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.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-30"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"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.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Former NPR host alleges Google's NotebookLM AI podcast voice imitates his own; California judge lets his publicity claims proceed","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2024-01-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-02-17","aiSystem":"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","aiProduct":"NotebookLM","aiCompany":"Google LLC","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","exploitation_or_abuse"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"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.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the named plaintiff whose voice he says the AI host imitates. Listeners and users of NotebookLM are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://rbr.com/judge-wont-toss-former-npr-hosts-ai-challenge-against-google/","primarySourceLabel":"Radio and Television Business Report, 29 Oct 2026: judge will not toss former NPR host's AI challenge against Google","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-30T03:09:47.225621+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-30T03:09:47.225621+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["voice-imitation","right-of-publicity","lawsuit","notebooklm","broadcaster","depicted-or-impersonated"]},{"id":"2026-new-york-federal-court-defaults-client-and-orders-lawyer-to-pay-fees-over-ai-generated-false-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'motion to dismiss that was peppered with false citations'; 'Top alerted the Court to a series of faulty citations'; 'Defendants Top Experience Company LLC (“Top”) and'; 'cited that did not exist, and eight cases that did exist but did not contain the quotes'; 'Once again, his brief contained false citations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In June 2025 the defendant's lawyer filed a brief supporting its motion to dismiss that, a co-defendant's lawyer showed, cited at least thirteen cases that did not exist and eight real cases that did not contain the quoted words; a later response to the court and a proposed reply brief also contained false citations.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings in its sanctions opinion."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'unreported cases located via Google Scholar, Google search, or the AI-assisted platform vLex, and then cite-checking those cases by running the brief through a different AI program'; 'introduced citation errors that he mistook as corrections and thus neither reviewed nor fixed'; 'I used generative AI to confirm that the information that I wrote was correctly referencing the information that I had'; 'The tool he claimed to use was NotebookLM'; 'The Court does not find the second explanation credible'; 'Court finds that explanation extremely difficult to believe'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyer said he located unreported cases through Google Scholar, Google search and the AI-assisted platform vLex, cite-checked the brief by running it through AI programs (vLex or Paxton AI) that he said introduced the errors, and used NotebookLM to review the content of his response; the court did not find his account of how the errors arose credible and found his NotebookLM account extremely difficult to believe.","causal_attribution":"Documented as the lawyer's statements recorded by the court; his account of how the errors arose is his own and the court rejected it in part."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'by submitting false citations to the Court produced by generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) and then lying about their genesis'; 'had acted in bad faith'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court later described the sanctioned conduct as submitting false citations produced by generative AI and then lying about their origin, and recalled its finding that the lawyer acted in bad faith.","causal_attribution":"The court's own characterisation in the 9 October 2026 order."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'by striking Affable’s submissions and entering default judgment against it'; 'nor a client from its attorney’s misdeeds'; 'to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Affable Avenue LLC'; 'Dated: February 5, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Court imposed terminal sanctions on Affable'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 5 February 2026 the court sanctioned the lawyer by striking his client's motion papers and entering default judgment against the client, holding that a client is not excused from its lawyer's misdeeds.","causal_attribution":"The court's order; the court ties the sanction to the false citations."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'then-counsel to Defendant Top Experience Company LLC (“Top”), who had provided substantial assistance to the Court by investigating and reporting'; 'awards his firm $38,877.59'; 'for a total award of $38,877.59'; 'must be made by'; 'within 30 days of this Opinion, unless'; 'Dated: October 9, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 9 October 2026 the court awarded the firm of a co-defendant's former lawyer, who had investigated and reported the false citations, $38,877.59 in fees and costs, payable by the sanctioned lawyer within 30 days.","causal_attribution":"The court's order."}],"effects":[{"label":"client's motion papers struck and default judgment entered against it as a sanction on its lawyer","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"lawyer ordered to pay $38,877.59 in fees and costs","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195.364.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed. ECF 364, 18 pp.","independence_group":"sdny-24-civ-9429-court-orders"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195.227.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed. ECF 227, 33 pp.","independence_group":"sdny-24-civ-9429-court-orders"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which tool generated each false citation; the lawyer's account names several tools and the court rejected parts of it.","Whether the lawyer has paid the award, appealed, or been referred to a disciplinary body; neither order mentions a referral.","The amount of damages to be assessed against the defaulted client."],"geography":{"basis":"The filings were made in, and the sanctions imposed by, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Where the lawyer and the client are based is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's two orders, read in full, record the lawyer's own account of using AI tools to find and check citations, describe the false citations as produced by generative AI, and impose default judgment on his client and a $38,877.59 fee award on him because of them.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The lawyer told the court he found cases through the AI-assisted platform vLex and cite-checked his brief by running it through AI programs (vLex or Paxton AI), which he said introduced the errors, and that he used NotebookLM to review a later submission (communicated_with). The court's 9 October 2026 order describes the sanctioned filings as false citations produced by generative AI. The court read those citations and, because of them, struck the client's papers, entered default judgment against the client and ordered the lawyer to pay fees (informed_decision_about). Which tool generated each false citation is not established.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"New York federal court enters default judgment against a defendant and orders its lawyer to pay $38,877 after false citations it found AI produced","summary":"In a federal trademark suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the court on 5 February 2026 struck a company defendant's motion papers and entered default judgment against it as a sanction on its lawyer, after his filings repeatedly cited nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations. The lawyer said he had found and cite-checked cases with AI tools (vLex and Paxton AI) and used NotebookLM to review a later submission; the court rejected his explanations and found he acted in bad faith. On 9 October 2026 the court described the citations as produced by generative AI and ordered the lawyer to pay $38,877.59 in fees and costs to the firm of a co-defendant's former lawyer, who had reported the false citations to the court.","incidentDate":"2026-02-05","incidentEndDate":"2026-10-09","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-02-05","aiSystem":"AI legal research and cite-checking tools the lawyer said he used (vLex with AI functionality, Paxton AI) and NotebookLM, which he said he used to review his response to the court; the court found the citations were produced by generative AI","aiProduct":"vLex, Paxton AI and NotebookLM (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's orders, the defendant's motion papers were struck and default judgment entered against it as a sanction for its lawyer's filings with false citations, which the court describes as produced by generative AI, and the lawyer was ordered to pay $38,877.59 in fees and costs.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the lawyer, who described his own use of AI tools and was ordered to pay $38,877.59. The client against which default judgment was entered is a company; the people behind it are not described and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-NY","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195.364.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Opinion and Order on fees, ECF 364, 24 Civ. 9429 (9 October 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:05:26.378079+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:05:26.378079+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","new-york","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","default-judgment","attorney-fees"]}]}