{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-11T08:02:48.989Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"voice","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":1,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":4,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":3,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"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":"2025-shanghai-voice-actor-ai-synthesised-voice-company-promotion-appeal-ruling","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'2026年9月29日，上海市第一中级人民法院依法审结上海首例人工智能合成语音引发的自然人声音权益保护纠纷案件，判决平台运营方构成声音侵权，赔偿权利人经济损失5万元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'上海市第一中级人民法院依法判决：驳回上诉，维持原判'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'驳回上诉，维持原判'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'经上海市第一中级人民法院二审，于2026年9月29日驳回上诉，维持原判'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 29 September 2026 the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court concluded a voice-rights case arising from AI-synthesised speech, described as the first in Shanghai, holding that the platform operator infringed and must pay 50,000 yuan for economic loss; the appeals were dismissed and the first-instance judgment upheld.","causal_attribution":"Court outcome as relayed by outlets citing the court; the judgment was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'2025年1月'; '从好友处了解到'; 'A公司在其互联网推广拉新活动中疑似使用了'; '该活动使用的自己声音疑似AI合成，于是对相关音频进行了公证以固定证据'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In January 2025 the voice actor learned from a friend that Company A appeared to be using the voice actor's voice in an online user-acquisition promotion, judged the audio to be AI-synthesised and had it notarised before suing.","causal_attribution":"The claimant's case as summarised in the court account."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'其从未与A公司进行过合作和任何授权，A公司擅自使用其声音构成侵权，遂要求A公司停止侵权并赔偿经济损失30万元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The voice actor said there had been no cooperation with or authorisation of Company A and asked the court to stop the use and award 300,000 yuan.","causal_attribution":"The claimant's position as summarised in the court account."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A公司辩称，案涉音频确为该公司开发的AI生成，但具体的来源和投喂的素材因前员工离职无法确认'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Company A said the audio was generated by AI the company had developed, but that its source and the material fed to the system could not be confirmed because a former employee had left.","causal_attribution":"The company's defence as summarised in the court account; the company denied using the voice actor's voice."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'在28个共振峰声学指标中'; '有24个偏离度小于10%，其中16个小于5.36%，两者较为相似及高度相似的部分达到90%'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A forensic comparison found that 24 of 28 formant indicators deviated by less than 10 percent and that the parts rated fairly or highly similar reached 90 percent.","causal_attribution":"Forensic opinion as summarised in the court account."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A公司的行为构成人工智能生成声音侵权'; '赔偿5万元'; '双方均不服一审判决，提起上诉'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'并向长宁区人民法院提出起诉'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The first-instance court awarded 50,000 yuan and both sides appealed; the Legal Daily report carried on Sina Finance says the claim was filed in the Changning District People's Court.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history as relayed from the court account."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'未经自然人同意，使用自然人的声音作为训练语料，模仿该自然人的音色、语调和发音风格等生成能够识别该自然人的合成人声，应当认定侵害自然人声音权益'; '应承担举证不能的不利后果'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appeal court held that using a person's voice as training material without consent to generate an identifiable synthetic voice infringes that person's voice rights, and that Company A bore the consequence of failing to prove the lawful source of its material.","causal_attribution":"The appeal court's reasoning as relayed; it rests on a presumption from similarity and access, because the company did not produce its training records."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'涉案语音上架持续时间较短，属流程播报提示音效'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appeal court noted that the audio was online for a short time and was a process prompt sound in the promotion.","causal_attribution":"The appeal court's reasoning on the amount, as relayed."}],"effects":[{"label":"courts reported to have found a voice actor's voice identifiable in AI-synthesised audio used without consent in a company promotion","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://news.ifeng.com/c/8woTv1MjTRx","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"The Paper's article as carried on ifeng, read in the original Chinese on 2026-10-05 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. Relays the Shanghai High People's Court WeChat account; the judgment itself was not inspected.","independence_group":"shanghai-no1-intermediate-court-release"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20260929A0C6NK00","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Southern Metropolis Daily N Video on Tencent News, read in Chinese on 2026-10-05 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. The reporter cites the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court; same court account as s1.","independence_group":"shanghai-no1-intermediate-court-release"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://finance.sina.com.cn/jjxw/2026-09-29/doc-initpatz6144930.shtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Legal Daily article carried on Sina Finance, read in the original Chinese on 2026-10-05 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. Same court account with the first-instance court named and a judge's commentary.","independence_group":"shanghai-no1-intermediate-court-release"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["Which company and which speech-synthesis product were involved; the court account anonymises both.","When the promotion began and how long the audio was in use.","Whether the company used the voice actor's recordings as training material; the court presumed it because the company did not prove otherwise.","The dates of the filing and of the first-instance judgment.","Where the voice actor lives."],"geography":{"basis":"The case was decided by the Changning District People's Court and the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court in China. The reports anonymise the company and the app and do not say where the company is based, where its online promotion ran or where the voice actor lives, so no event or affected-person country is recorded.","court_countries":["CN"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): the Shanghai courts found that a company imitated a voice actor's voice with AI-synthesised audio in a promotion without consent and awarded 50,000 yuan. One reporting chain (the court's release, read in three Chinese outlets); the parties are anonymised by the court.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"In the court account, the company said the audio was generated by AI it had developed, and both courts found AI-generated voice infringement. The audio imitated the voice actor's voice (depicted_or_impersonated). The company denied using the voice actor's recordings; the appeal court relied on a forensic similarity report and on the company's failure to prove the source of its training material.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"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","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-29","aiSystem":"AI speech synthesis developed by the defendant company (anonymised as Company A in the court account), which the courts found had generated audio imitating the voice actor's voice for an online promotion","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's account as relayed by Chinese outlets, the Shanghai courts found that AI-synthesised audio used in a company's online promotion was identifiable as a voice actor's voice and had been used without consent, causing economic loss, and awarded 50,000 yuan.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the voice actor who brought the claim (court account relayed by The Paper, Southern Metropolis Daily and Legal Daily). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://news.ifeng.com/c/8woTv1MjTRx","primarySourceLabel":"The Paper via ifeng, 29 September 2026: AI took a voice actor's voice, company ordered to pay 50,000 yuan","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:16:35.611187+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:16:35.611187+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["voice-cloning","voice-rights","voice-actor","court-ruling","shanghai","china","depicted-or-impersonated"]},{"id":"2024-us-otter-notetaker-recorded-non-users-meetings-privacy-suit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'participated in a Zoom meeting in California on February'; '24, 2025, where the Otter Notetaker was used by a meeting participant to transcribe the'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in California in March 2025'; 'used Zoom to communicate with a medical professional, and'; 'Illinois on January 10, 2025 and May 19, 2025 where the Otter Notetaker was used to'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in Washington state in March'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state who'; 'participated in virtual meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their'; 'consent to record, transcribe, and store the contents of their communications.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the'; 'allegations concerning the named Plaintiff’s personal knowledge, experiences, expectations, or'","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'who alleges his privacy was \"severely invaded\" upon realizing Otter was secretly recording a confidential conversation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Seven people who were not Otter account holders allege that, on Zoom or Microsoft Teams calls (six give dates between March 2024 and May 2025), another participant used Otter Notetaker and Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations without their consent; the calls include one with a medical professional and meetings with a financial professional.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs attribute the recording to Otter's product design, which they say lets the notetaker record without every participant's consent; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'other personal information for its own commercial use, including to train its automatic speech'; 'The Illinois Plaintiffs allege that, during their virtual meetings, Otter'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter claims that before the audio of meetings is fed into its machine learning systems to help improve an AI speech recognition feature, it is \"de-identified,\"'","relation":"context","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter keeps their conversational data on its servers and uses it to train its speech-recognition and machine-learning models, and that it captured the Illinois plaintiffs' voiceprints; Otter's policy, as reported by NPR, says it trains on transcripts with users' permission and de-identifies audio.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'felt frustrated, embarrassed, and stressed to learn that his'; 'conversation was recorded without his consent, and his information, voice, and'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One California plaintiff alleges that he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn that his conversation had been recorded without his consent.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs as a consequence of Otter's recording."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ ECPA claim is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ BIPA claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'The motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend as to Count 2'; 'The motion is DENIED in all other respects.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 13 August 2026 the court denied Otter's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, holding that the alleged interception and retention of private conversations was a concrete injury, let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, and dismissed some other claims.","causal_attribution":"Procedural ruling on the pleadings; no finding that Otter recorded anyone unlawfully."}],"effects":[{"label":"the plaintiffs say Otter's notetaker recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations on calls they joined, without their consent, including a medical call and calls with a financial professional","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the plaintiffs say their conversations stay on Otter's servers for training its models and that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"one plaintiff says he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn he had been recorded","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.35.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 35, filed 5 December 2025; RECAP PDF (68 pages) read on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200), plaintiffs' experience sections read in full. Plaintiffs' allegations, not findings.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part, ECF 68, 13 August 2026 (Judge Eumi K. Lee); RECAP PDF read in full on 2026-09-29. Rules on the pleadings and accepts the allegations as true for that purpose; it makes no finding of fact.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.80.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Otter.ai's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 80, 17 September 2026; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29, plaintiff-experience paragraphs and responses read.","independence_group":"otter-answer"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Brewer v. Otter.ai, Inc., original Class Action Complaint, ECF 1, filed 15 August 2025; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.npr.org/2025/08/15/g-s1-83087/otter-ai-transcription-class-action-lawsuit","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"NPR, 15 August 2025, read live on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200). Reports the original complaint and summarises Otter's privacy policy; says neither side responded to requests for comment.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.79.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order, ECF 79, 16 September 2026; read on 2026-09-29. Procedural facts only.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","work","health","finance"],"unknowns":["Whether Otter's product notified the plaintiffs on their calls that the notetaker was present, and what the other participants' Otter settings were.","Whether the plaintiffs' conversations were in fact used to train Otter's models, and in what form.","The exact date of one Illinois plaintiff's meetings, which the complaint places only within the limitations period."],"geography":{"basis":"The consolidated complaint places the plaintiffs' calls in California, in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois, and in Washington state; the order describes the plaintiffs as individuals from California, Illinois and Washington state. The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a bounded series of concrete privacy harms reported by identified people in a pending federal suit: each named plaintiff describes a call on which another participant's AI notetaker recorded and transcribed them without consent. The account rests on the plaintiffs' pleadings and the court's ruling on them; Otter denies the allegations. Plaintiff names are omitted.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Each plaintiff alleges that the Otter Notetaker, an AI transcription assistant, was used on their call and recorded and transcribed it; the relation recorded is that the AI produced speaker-attributed transcripts and, the complaint alleges, voiceprints identifying each speaker, a record of who said what (ECF 35 paras 10-11). Otter admits it offers an AI meeting assistant called Otter Notetaker but says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' calls and denies the allegations.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"United States: seven people who say they did not hold Otter accounts say Otter's AI Notetaker recorded and transcribed their Zoom and Teams meetings without their consent, including a medical call and calls with a financial professional, and kept the data to train its models; a federal court let their core privacy claims proceed","summary":"Seven people in California, Illinois and Washington state are suing Otter.ai in a consolidated class action in the Northern District of California. Each says another meeting participant used Otter's AI Notetaker on a Zoom or Microsoft Teams call they joined, and that Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversation without their consent; six of them date their calls between March 2024 and May 2025. They say they were not Otter account holders. The calls they describe include a medical consultation, meetings with a financial professional and work discussions. They allege that Otter keeps the recordings and uses them to train its speech-recognition models, that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs, and one of them says learning of the recording left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed. On 13 August 2026 the court found that the alleged interception of private conversations was a concrete injury and let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, while dismissing some claims. Otter's answer to the consolidated complaint, filed on 17 September 2026, says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' experiences and denies the allegations.","incidentDate":"2024-03-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-19","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-08-15","aiSystem":"Otter Notetaker, Otter.ai's AI meeting assistant, joined to Zoom and Microsoft Teams calls by another participant's Otter account","aiProduct":"Otter Notetaker","aiCompany":"Otter.ai, Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter recorded, transcribed and kept their private conversations on calls they joined without their consent, including medical and financial discussions, used them to train its models and took voiceprints, and one plaintiff says learning this left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed (plaintiffs' allegations in a pending suit; Otter denies them).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":7,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The court order says 'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state' who participated in meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their consent; each describes their own call in the consolidated complaint. They were not Otter account holders (one says only that to her knowledge she did not create an account), so they are counted as other people. The proposed class members are not counted. Documented minimum 7.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Order granting motion to dismiss in part, In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, No. 5:25-cv-06911-EKL (N.D. Cal.), 13 August 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:04:08.493618+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:54.438217+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["otter-ai","ai-notetaker","meeting-transcription","privacy","wiretap","bipa","voiceprint","training-data","class-action","non-user"]},{"id":"2025-tsuda-v-tiktok-ai-voice-imitation-tokyo","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'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。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'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。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'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。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'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。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'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。'","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"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 they had 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."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'高橋裁判長は判決理由で、一般論として人の声は「肖像と同様に個人の人格の象徴と言える」と指摘。実演家の声を無断で使用する行為は、もっぱらその声がもつ顧客吸引力の利用が目的と認められる場合にはパブリシティー権の侵害に当たるとの考え方を示した。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'判決は、人の声は容姿と同じように「個人の人格の象徴といえる」と指摘。'; '人の声が法的な保護の対象になると認めた司法判断は初めて。'; '声優らの声を無断で使う行為について、その声に商品の販売などを促す顧客吸引力があり、もっぱらその声の顧客吸引力を利用する目的で使っている場合は「パブリシティー権の侵害にあたると解するのが相当だ」と述べた。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"'30日の判決で東京地裁は「人の声は肖像と同様に個人の人格の象徴」と指摘しました。'; 'そのうえで実演家の声を無断で使用することについて、顧客吸引力の利用する目的があれば「パブリシティー権」の侵害に当たるとする初めての判断を示しました。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"'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'","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'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。'","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"On 30 September 2026 the Tokyo District Court held, as a general principle, that a person's voice is a symbol of individual personality like a likeness, and that using a performer's voice without permission solely to exploit its power to attract customers infringes the right of publicity; it was described as the first such judicial finding in Japan.","causal_attribution":"Court's general holding as reported by three outlets that each reported the judgment; the judgment text itself was not read."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'ただ今回の動画はすでに運営会社のサーバーからも削除されているとし、これ以上削除する義務を負っておらず原告の請求は理由がないと結論付けた。問題の動画がパブリシティー権を侵害しているかは判断を示さなかった。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'一方で判決は、今回の裁判で津田さん側が問題とした動画は削除済みだと認定。津田さんの声の権利が侵害されたかについては判断しなかった。'; 'ただ、今回の事例では動画がすでに消えており、ティックトックの運営会社に削除義務はないと判断。津田さん側の請求は退けた。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"'一方で、動画の削除についてはアカウントがすでに削除されているため、削除義務がないとし、津田さん側の請求を退けました。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The court dismissed Mr Tsuda's claim because the videos had already been deleted, so TikTok's operator had no duty to delete them, and it did not decide whether the videos infringed his publicity right.","causal_attribution":"Court's disposition as reported; no finding that the videos imitate or infringe his voice."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'原告側は津田さんの声と混同させて月50万〜75万円の収益を得ていたなどとして、不正競争防止法違反にも当たると主張したが、この点については判決は言及しなかった。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"According to Nikkei, the judgment did not address his separate argument that the videos breached the Unfair Competition Prevention Act by passing them off as his voice.","causal_attribution":"Single report (Nikkei)."},{"id":"c7","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'今年5月には投稿者がアカウントを削除した。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'提訴後の今年5月、投稿者がアカウントを削除し、問題の動画は表示されなくなっていた。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The poster deleted the account in May 2026, after the suit was filed.","causal_attribution":"Reported by Nikkei and the Asahi Shimbun from the proceedings."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'判決後、津田さんの代理人弁護士は控訴しない方針を示した。'; 'ティックトックの運営会社は「今後も、テクノロジーの発展と権利保護のバランスのとれた在り方について、誠実に取り組んでいく」とコメントした。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"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.","causal_attribution":"Statements reported by the Asahi Shimbun."}],"effects":[{"label":"voice allegedly imitated by generative AI without permission in at least 188 monetised TikTok videos that viewers associated with him","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.jiji.com/jc/article?k=2026092600287&g=soc","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-09-28; summarised in English by the researcher (no human translation). Reports the complaint and TikTok's filings. Re-read on 2026-10-01.","independence_group":"tsuda-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUD231K30T20C26A5000000/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-09-28 (23 May 2026); sourced to the plaintiff's lawyer and the complaint. Researcher translation. Re-read on 2026-10-01.","independence_group":"tsuda-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASV5T2J1LV5TUTIL00FM.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"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. Re-read on 2026-10-01.","independence_group":"tsuda-complaint"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.jiji.com/jc/article?k=2026092600297&g=soc","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-09-28 (26 September 2026). Industry context; does not add facts about the Tsuda videos. Researcher translation. Re-read on 2026-10-01.","independence_group":"jiji-industry-feature"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUD262B00W6A920C2000000/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-10-01 (30 September 2026 judgment report by Nikkei; photo credited to Kyodo). Researcher translation.","independence_group":"nikkei-judgment-report"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASV9Z11V1V9ZUTIL02SM.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-10-01; the visible text before the paywall was read (about 1,000 characters remain unread). Bylined by the Asahi Tokyo city news court reporter. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"asahi-judgment-report"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://news.tv-asahi.co.jp/news_society/articles/900200797.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-10-01 (TV Asahi running summary of the 30 September 2026 judgment). Researcher translation.","independence_group":"tv-asahi-judgment-report"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["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 and whether the videos infringed his publicity right; the court dismissed the claim because the videos had already been deleted, without deciding either.","Mr Tsuda's own account of personal or financial effects; no statement from him was read.","The full judgment text; it was not read, and the court's reasoning is taken from news reports."],"geography":{"basis":"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.","court_countries":["JP"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["JP"]},"publication":{"basis":"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). Updated after the 30 September 2026 judgment: the facts of the videos come from his complaint as reported by Nikkei, the Asahi Shimbun and Jiji Press, with TikTok's rebuttal; the ruling is taken from Nikkei, Asahi and TV Asahi reports. Imitation and infringement remain undecided because the court dismissed the claim on the ground that the videos had already been deleted. Mr Tsuda is a public figure suing in his own name; the poster is unidentified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-01"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"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 was not decided by the court, which dismissed the claim because the videos had been deleted.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"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","summary":"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. TikTok's operator said the voice was a generic male voice that the poster said came from AI trained on a friend's voice. The poster deleted the account in May 2026. On 30 September 2026 the court held, as a general principle, that a person's voice is a symbol of personality like a likeness and that using a performer's voice without permission solely to exploit its power to attract customers infringes the right of publicity, the first such ruling in Japan. It dismissed the claim because the videos were already gone and TikTok's operator had no remaining duty to delete them, and it did not decide whether these videos infringed his rights (Nikkei; Asahi Shimbun; TV Asahi). His lawyer said they did not plan to appeal.","incidentDate":"2024-07-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-09-30","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-05-23","aiSystem":"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","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"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).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"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.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"JP","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUD262B00W6A920C2000000/","primarySourceLabel":"Nikkei, 30 September 2026: 声にもパブリシティー権、初の司法判断　津田健次郎さんの請求は棄却","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-28T03:31:37.82387+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T03:20:05.706932+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["voice-cloning","voice-actor","publicity-rights","tiktok","japan","tokyo-district-court","lawsuit","depicted-or-impersonated","court-ruling"]},{"id":"2025-gavalas-v-google-gemini","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"death","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Introduction, paragraph 6; paragraph 23; paragraphs 77–87.","relation":"supports","source_id":"complaint"}],"assertion":"The family complaint reports a Florida Gemini user’s death by suicide on 2 October 2025.","causal_attribution":"This evidence does not establish that AI caused the death."},{"id":"interaction","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Introduction, paragraphs 1–6; paragraphs 77–82.","relation":"supports","source_id":"complaint"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that Gemini sustained a romantic and conspiratorial narrative and encouraged the user toward death.","causal_attribution":"This evidence does not establish that AI caused the death."},{"id":"response","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Final two paragraphs of the 4 March response.","relation":"supports","source_id":"google"}],"assertion":"Google says Gemini repeatedly clarified that it was AI and referred the user to a crisis hotline.","causal_attribution":"Documents Google’s response, not an independent finding that the safeguards were sufficient."},{"id":"filing","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"File stamp and court caption on page 1.","relation":"supports","source_id":"complaint"}],"assertion":"A wrongful-death complaint was filed against Google and Alphabet in federal court in California on 4 March 2026.","causal_attribution":"Filing is established; the alleged mechanism is not adjudicated."}],"effects":[{"label":"The family complaint reports a Florida Gemini user’s death by suicide on 2 October 2025.","claim_id":"death","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"complaint","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/gavalas-google-chatbot-lawsuit.pdf","kind":"civil_complaint","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English; no translation. Court caption, introduction, paragraphs 23–25 and 77–87 inspected; the remainder was searched for relevant dates and locations, not read in full.","independence_group":"gavalas_family"},{"id":"google","url":"https://blog.google/company-news/outreach-and-initiatives/public-policy/gavalas-lawsuit-response/","kind":"company_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English; no translation. Full company response inspected.","independence_group":"google_response"},{"id":"report","url":"https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/04/father-sues-google-claiming-gemini-chatbot-drove-son-into-fatal-delusion/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English; no translation. Full article body inspected; bottom promotional and related-story material excluded. Allegations derive from the complaint.","independence_group":"gavalas_family"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["health","relationships"],"unknowns":["The complete conversation history and an independent clinical assessment were not inspected.","Google’s response confirms interaction but is not independent verification of every allegation about the death.","The complaint’s predictions of harm to other people do not establish additional harmed people."],"geography":{"basis":"Complaint paragraph 23 gives Jupiter, Florida residence; the introduction and paragraphs 77–82 describe activity in Florida and at home. The filed caption names the Northern District of California.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The inspected sources describe a concrete adverse event and the specific chatbot interaction at issue. The account preserves attribution and separates the reported AI connection from a finding of causation.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint quotes personalised Gemini exchanges and alleges escalation toward dangerous acts and suicide. Google acknowledges this user’s interactions while pointing to AI disclaimers and hotline referrals. These accounts support involvement; they disagree about the adequacy of the response and do not establish causation.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"metadataReview":{"version":1,"geography":{"basis":"Carried forward from the 2026-09-15 metadata review and now supported by inspected source bodies and the complaint. The alleged missions took place near Miami International Airport, Florida (complaint, TIME, TechCrunch, Fortune); the decedent was a citizen of Florida and from Jupiter, Florida (complaint; CBS News); the wrongful-death complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, case 5:26-cv-1849 (complaint caption; CBS News). Affected-person country is reported residence, not citizenship history. This is a metadata review and does not verify the allegations.","evidence":[{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"near Miami International Airport","location":"summary","supports":["event_countries","affected_person_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"U.S. District Court, Northern District of California","location":"outcome_details","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"'UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT'; 'NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA'; 'Case No.: 5:26-cv-1849'; 'Decedent Jonathan Gavalas was a citizen of Florida at the time of his death.'","location":"https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/gavalas-google-chatbot-lawsuit.pdf","supports":["court_countries","affected_person_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"'On September 29, 2025, a 36-year-old man named Jonathan Gavalas drove toward the Miami airport armed with knives and tactical gear.'","location":"https://time.com/7382406/gemini-suicide-lawsuit-death/","supports":["event_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"'directed the 36-year-old from Jupiter, Florida, to kill himself in October 2025'; 'according to the complaint filed Wednesday in the Northern District of California where Google is headquartered'","location":"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonathan-gavalas-google-ai-chatbot-gemini-suicide-lawsuit/","supports":["event_countries","affected_person_countries","court_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"'found Jonathan’s body on the floor of his living room, covered in blood.'","location":"https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/gavalas-google-chatbot-lawsuit.pdf","supports":["event_countries"],"countries":["US"]}],"court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"unresolved":["The complaint places the death at the decedent's home (it describes him barricading himself in his home on 2 October 2025 and his father finding his body on the floor of his living room) and states that he was a citizen of Florida; TIME and CBS place him in Jupiter, Florida; no inspected news body names the place of death.","Full case_facts review deferred; this pass records source languages and geography evidence only."],"reviewed_on":"2026-09-22","source_reviews":[{"url":"https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/04/google-gemini-ai-told-user-stage-mass-casualty-attack-suit-claims.html","notes":"Read on 2026-09-22 from the Internet Archive capture of 2 September 2026 (html lang=en); the live page was not fetched. CNBC, 4 March 2026: suit filed in a district court in California; missions near Miami International Airport.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://time.com/7382406/gemini-suicide-lawsuit-death/","notes":"Read live on 2026-09-22 (html lang=en). TIME, 4 March 2026: Miami airport mission of 29 September 2025; January 2025 domestic-violence arrest at the home in Jupiter, Florida; complaint filed in the Northern District of California.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonathan-gavalas-google-ai-chatbot-gemini-suicide-lawsuit/","notes":"Read on 2026-09-22 from the Internet Archive capture of 16 August 2026 (html lang=en-US). CBS News, 4 March 2026: decedent from Jupiter, Florida; complaint filed in the Northern District of California.","access":"read","language":"en-US"},{"url":"https://fortune.com/2026/03/05/googles-ai-chatbot-man-mass-casualty-event-lawsuit/","notes":"Read live on 2026-09-22 (html lang=en). Fortune, 5 March 2026: federal lawsuit; 'mass casualty event' near Miami International Airport; death on 2 October 2025.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/04/father-sues-google-claiming-gemini-chatbot-drove-son-into-fatal-delusion/","notes":"Read live on 2026-09-22 (html lang=en-US). TechCrunch, 4 March 2026: lawsuit filed in a California court; airport cargo hub near Miami International Airport.","access":"read","language":"en-US"},{"url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/gavalas-google-chatbot-lawsuit.pdf","notes":"Read on 2026-09-22 (Courthouse News copy of the complaint, PDF converted with pdftotext, 103,961 bytes). Caption: United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 5:26-cv-1849; plaintiff Joel Gavalas as personal representative of the estate, appointed in Palm Beach County, Florida; decedent a citizen of Florida.","access":"read","language":"en"}]},"name":"Family alleges Gemini reinforced delusions before a man’s suicide","summary":"A Florida man died by suicide on 2 October 2025. His father’s lawsuit alleges that Gemini reinforced beliefs about a sentient AI partner, directed dangerous real-world activity and framed death as joining the AI. Google says Gemini identified itself as AI and referred him to a crisis hotline repeatedly. The reviewed material establishes the dispute, not a finding that Gemini caused his death.","incidentDate":"2025-10-02","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"cumulative_relationship","reportedDate":"2026-03-04","aiSystem":"Gemini; the complaint identifies Gemini 2.5 Pro","aiProduct":"Gemini","aiCompany":"Google LLC / Alphabet Inc.","severity":"critical","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["death","psychiatric_deterioration"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A Florida man died by suicide on 2 October 2025. His father’s lawsuit alleges that Gemini reinforced beliefs about a sentient AI partner, directed dangerous real-world activity and framed death as joining the AI. Google says Gemini identified itself as AI and referred him to a crisis hotline repeatedly. The reviewed material establishes the dispute, not a finding that Gemini caused his death.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"both","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Counts the one deceased participant described in the cited sources. This is a conservative minimum, not a complete count of relatives affected or a finding that AI caused the death.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-FL","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/gavalas-google-chatbot-lawsuit.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Gavalas complaint — 4 March 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-03-09T05:43:01.21564+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T12:33:37.723318+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["lawsuit","adult","suicide","gemini","google","delusion","voice-mode","us"]}]}