{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-11-07T02:53:28.898Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"voice-cloning","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"core","evidence":"","year":"2024","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":2,"languages":4,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":2,"minors":0,"coreRelations":4,"contextualRelations":0,"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":"2024-beijing-internet-court-ai-synthesised-voice-of-older-parenting-educator-in-book-sales-videos-company-liable","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'2024年，某文化公司为销售家庭育儿类图书，委托带货主播制作短视频开展商业推广。'; '主播发布的多条宣传视频中'; '公开演讲、授课的画面片段'; '同时配置AI合成音频'; '用户点击视频跳转链接，可直接进入该文化公司店铺购买图书。'; '在教育、育儿领域具有一定知名度'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'在“带货主播利用AI技术实施侵权案”中，商家未经许可合成老年人声音用于商业宣传，该声音结合音色、语调、发音节奏及社会知名度，能够识别特定老年人的'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In 2024 a culture company selling family parenting books commissioned a livestream sales host to make promotional short videos; several videos used clips of the plaintiff's public lectures with AI-synthesised audio closely resembling the plaintiff's voice, linked viewers to the company's shop, and were not authorised by the plaintiff.","causal_attribution":"The facts are the court's account in its 16 October 2026 release, relayed by The Paper (detail) and China News Service (the vice-president's summary). Both depend on the same release, so the claim is reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'法院审理认为，判断AI合成声音是否构成对自然人声音权益的侵害，核心在于能否识别特定自然人。'; '本案中文化公司未对素材授权情况进行审查，存在过失，与带货主播构成共同侵权，据此判决该文化公司赔礼道歉，并赔偿经济损失及维权合理支出。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'该声音结合音色、语调、发音节奏及社会知名度，能够识别特定老年人的，构成对其人格权益的侵害；委托方未尽审查注意义务的，承担连带责任。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Beijing Internet Court held that the AI-synthesised voice, used with the plaintiff's image and public profile, was identifiable as the plaintiff's and infringed the plaintiff's portrait and voice rights; it found the company, which had not checked the material's authorisation, jointly liable with the host and ordered it to apologise and compensate economic losses and reasonable costs.","causal_attribution":"The ruling is attributed to the court as relayed from its release; the judgment text was not read, so the claim is reported rather than documented. The court's finding establishes the infringement for the purposes of the case."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'在北京互联网法院10月16日发布的涉老年人网络侵权典型案例中'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'这是记者16日从北京互联网法院涉老年人网络侵权案件审理情况新闻发布会上获悉的。'; '已出现非法使用AI技术深度合成老年人肖像或声音用于不当目的的情形'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court released the case on 16 October 2026 at a press conference on online infringement cases involving older people, and said that AI deep synthesis of older people's portraits or voices for improper purposes has appeared in such cases.","causal_attribution":"Both outlets report the same press conference."}],"effects":[{"label":"voice imitated by AI-synthesised audio and image used without consent in sales videos; court found portrait and voice rights infringed and ordered compensation (court account)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_34262393","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese and translated by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-17; no human reviewer inspected the text. The Paper's report of a case from the Beijing Internet Court's 16 October 2026 release of typical cases on online infringement involving older people ('据通报').","independence_group":"beijing-internet-court-older-people-cases-release-2026-10-16"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.chinanews.com.cn/fz/2026/10-16/10715820.shtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese and translated by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-17; no human reviewer inspected the text. China News Service report of the same Beijing Internet Court press conference, quoting the court's vice-president.","independence_group":"beijing-internet-court-older-people-cases-release-2026-10-16"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["The judgment date, the amounts awarded and whether the host was a party to the suit.","The tool used to synthesise the voice, the platform, and the number of videos and viewers.","The text of the judgment; both reports rest on the court's release.","How the court established that the audio was AI-synthesised; the reports do not give the technical basis."],"geography":{"basis":"The Beijing Internet Court decided the case. The reports anonymise the parties and do not say where the company or host was based, where the videos were published or where the plaintiff 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): according to the Beijing Internet Court's account, a sales host's promotional videos used AI-synthesised audio identifiable as an older educator's voice without consent, and the court found the commissioning company jointly liable and ordered an apology and compensation. One reporting chain (the court's release, read in two outlets); the parties are anonymised by the court.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-17"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's account, relayed by The Paper, says the host's videos set clips of the plaintiff's lectures to AI-synthesised audio whose timbre, intonation and rhythm closely resembled the plaintiff's voice, and the court decided the case as an AI-synthesised voice infringement; China News Service quotes the court's vice-president describing the merchant's unauthorised synthesis of the older person's voice. The AI output is the synthesised voice imitating the plaintiff (depicted_or_impersonated), which the court found identifiable and infringing. The tool is not named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Beijing Internet Court says a sales host's videos for a book company used an older parenting educator's AI-synthesised voice without consent; company liable","summary":"According to the Beijing Internet Court's account, released on 16 October 2026 among typical cases on online infringement involving older people, a culture company selling family parenting books commissioned a livestream sales host in 2024 to make promotional short videos. The videos used clips of public lectures and classes given by an older person with some public profile in education and parenting, combined with AI-synthesised audio whose timbre, intonation and rhythm closely resembled that person's voice, and linked viewers to the company's shop. Neither the images nor the audio had been authorised. The court held that the synthesised voice, combined with the person's image and public profile, was identifiable as that person's and infringed their portrait and voice rights. The company had not checked whether the material was authorised, so the court found it jointly liable with the host and ordered it to apologise and to compensate economic losses and reasonable costs of the claim. The amounts, the judgment date and the tool are not reported.","incidentDate":"2024-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-16","aiSystem":"AI-synthesised audio, made with a tool the court account does not name, whose timbre, intonation and speech rhythm closely resembled the plaintiff's voice, set over clips of the plaintiff's public lectures in a livestream sales host's promotional short videos (court account)","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Beijing Internet Court's account, AI-synthesised audio identifiable as an older educator's voice was used without consent, with clips of the educator's lectures, to sell books; the court found the person's portrait and voice rights infringed and ordered the commissioning company to apologise and compensate economic losses and costs.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the plaintiff whose voice and image the court found were used without authorisation (court account relayed by The Paper). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"elderly","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_34262393","primarySourceLabel":"The Paper, 16 October 2026: court case on AI-cloned voice of an older person used in livestream book sales","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-17T03:03:46.98321+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-17T03:03:46.98321+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["voice-cloning","voice-rights","portrait-rights","livestream-selling","court-ruling","older-people","beijing","china","depicted-or-impersonated"]},{"id":"2024-florida-judicial-candidate-shared-likely-ai-fake-call-of-justices-suspended","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'She referenced a former court employee’s book — which she hadn’t read — and sent the paper a link to the author’s website with a deepfake recording of a conversation between Florida Supreme Court justices and the Ninth Judicial Circuit chief judge.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'referenced the book when trying to obtain an endorsement from the South Florida Sun Sentinel during her 2024 judicial election campaign, according to a May 9 notice of ethics charges' and 'She supplied the fake recording, purportedly of a conversation involving two Florida Supreme Court justices, when the newspaper’s editorial board questioned the book’s claims.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"During her 2024 judicial campaign, while seeking the South Florida Sun Sentinel editorial board's endorsement, the candidate supplied a recording purportedly of a conversation between Florida Supreme Court justices and the Ninth Judicial Circuit's chief judge when the board questioned her claims.","causal_attribution":"Bloomberg Law's account of the case and the ABA Journal's report of the commission's notice both derive from the record of the same disciplinary proceeding, so the claim is recorded as reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'“The recording is fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative-AI,” the notice of charges says. “While the voices resemble those of the purported participants, the manner of speech, tone, and much of the content are objectively unrealistic.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'“The recording is fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative-AI. While the voices resemble those of the purported participants, the manner of speech, tone, and much of the content are objectively unrealistic,” the notice said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Judicial Qualifications Commission's notice of charges said the recording was fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative AI, and that while the voices resemble those of the purported participants, the manner of speech, tone and much of the content are objectively unrealistic.","causal_attribution":"Both outlets quote the same notice, so this is one origin. The commission states AI generation as likely, alongside computer manipulation; no forensic analysis or creator is reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'she provided a link to a “fabricated phone call” between two justices — Chief Justice Carlos Muniz and Justice Renatha Francis — and the 9th Circuit’s chief judge, Lisa Munyon, Friday’s notice said' and 'your actions eroded public confidence by perpetuating a false perception of illegal, unethical, or immoral conduct by justices of the Florida Supreme Court, a chief judge, and others working within the judicial branch,” the notice said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The notice named Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, Justice Renatha Francis and Chief Judge Lisa Munyon as the purported participants and said the candidate's actions perpetuated a false perception of illegal, unethical or immoral conduct by justices of the Florida Supreme Court, a chief judge and others in the judicial branch.","causal_attribution":"The notice's own characterisation of the harm to the depicted judges, reported by one outlet."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Peffer admitted to listening to a portion of the recording and sharing it publicly “despite clear evidence of its inauthenticity,” according to the notice.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'testifies during her ethics violation hearing at the Broward County Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale on Dec. 16, 2025' and '\"I cannot justify or explain why now listening to it I thought it was a valid piece of content at the time, but I did,\" she said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'Peffer gave this statement to Law.com:' and 'my reference to content created by a third party—to whom I have absolutely no ties—was a violation of the Judicial Canons' and 'I take responsibility for my actions and apologize for the unfortunate effects the reference may have caused my fellow judiciary members.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the notice, the candidate listened to only a portion of the recording and shared it publicly despite clear evidence of its inauthenticity. In a statement reported in May 2025 she apologised and said the content was created by a third party with whom she had no ties, and at the December 2025 hearing she testified that she could not explain why she had thought it was valid content.","causal_attribution":"The notice's findings and the candidate's own statements; each part rests on a single report of its origin."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A Florida trial judge has been suspended for 30 days and fined $10,000' and 'her conduct undermined public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary by promoting false accusations against the judiciary of the Ninth Judicial Circuit and by implicating sitting Florida Supreme Court justices,” the opinion said.' and 'Justices Carlos G. Muñiz and Renatha S. Francis, who had their voices spoofed in the call, recused from the decision.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Florida Supreme Court, in an unauthored opinion issued on 9 October 2026, suspended the judge for 30 days and fined her $10,000, saying her conduct undermined public confidence in the judiciary by implicating sitting Florida Supreme Court justices; Justices Muñiz and Francis, whose voices were spoofed in the call, recused.","causal_attribution":"Reported by Bloomberg Law from the opinion, which was not inspected; the sanction concerns the candidate's own conduct in sharing the recording."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Florida's courts watchdog agency has recommended a 30-day suspension, a public reprimand and a $10,000 fine' and 'perpetuated a false and undignified perception of the judiciary that ensnared not only those justices and judges who were specifically named in the Book and the Recording'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The commission's hearing panel recommended a 30-day suspension, a public reprimand and a $10,000 fine, writing that the judge had perpetuated a false and undignified perception of the judiciary that ensnared the justices and judges named in the book and the recording.","causal_attribution":"The hearing panel's filing as reported in one outlet."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Francis, Muñiz, and Munyon all said the recording was fake.' and 'The Sentinel reported last year that it and several other alleged fakes were referred to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office for a criminal investigation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Florida Politics reported that Chief Justice Muñiz, Justice Francis and Chief Judge Munyon all said the recording was fake, and that the Sun Sentinel had reported the previous year that it and several other alleged fakes were referred to the Orange County Sheriff's Office for a criminal investigation.","causal_attribution":"The depicted judges' statements as reported by one outlet; who made the criminal referral and its outcome are not reported."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Disposition (SC) - Suspended/Public Reprimand (JQC - Before FSC)' and '2026-10-09T14:35:48.780Z' and 'the Court hereby approves the hearing panel's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations to this Court.' and 'Respondent, Lauren Nichole Peffer, is hereby fined $10,000.00 and is suspended for 30 days from her duties as a judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit.' and 'We order Respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings' and 'Respondent shall also receive a public reprimand, which will be accomplished by publication of this order.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 9 October 2026 the Florida Supreme Court approved the hearing panel's findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations, fined the judge $10,000, suspended her for 30 days, ordered her to pay the costs of the proceedings and imposed a public reprimand to be accomplished by publication of the order.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's docket entry for the disposition; the sanction concerns the judge's own conduct in sharing the recording."}],"effects":[{"label":"a fabricated recording imitating the voices of two Supreme Court justices and a chief judge was presented to a newspaper editorial board in a judicial campaign","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the judicial watchdog said it perpetuated a false perception of misconduct by the judges it depicted","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the candidate who shared it was later suspended for 30 days and fined","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/florida-judge-suspended-over-deepfake-call-mimicking-justices","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 on news.bloomberglaw.com (HTTP 200). The page shows the article text through the case citation and then a login prompt; any later text was not inspected. No translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"bloomberg-law-peffer"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/florida-judge-is-accused-of-sharing-objectively-unrealistic-fake-recording-with-editorial-board","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 on abajournal.com (HTTP 200). No translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"aba-journal-peffer"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://flaglerlive.com/lauren-peffer-fake/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 on flaglerlive.com, which carries the News Service of Florida report (HTTP 200). No translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"news-service-of-florida-peffer"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/florida-judge-cited-deepfake-call-180000031.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 on the Yahoo News syndicated copy (provider Tampa Bay Times), HTTP 200. Yahoo and the Tampa Bay Times canonical URL date the copy 10 October 2026, while its text describes the hearing panel recommendation filed \"Friday\" (the Florida Supreme Court docket lists the findings and recommendations on 27 February 2026), so the text appears to republish earlier reporting. No translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"tampa-bay-times-peffer"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://floridapolitics.com/archives/737787-broward-judge-faces-charges-for-sharing-deepfake-recording-unread-e-book-during-campaign/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the verification agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 from an Internet Archive capture of 12 May 2025 (the live page returned HTTP 403). It reports the commission's notice of charges and earlier Sun Sentinel reporting. No translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"florida-politics-peffer"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://acis.flcourts.gov/portal/court/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/case/ac1415dc-cff8-4197-9e1f-db5cd39262a3","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket entry texts read in English by the verification agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 through the public data interface behind this docket page. The documents attached to the entries (the notices of charges, the hearing panel findings and the disposition order) sit behind an automated challenge and were not opened. No human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"florida-supreme-court-docket-sc2025-0647"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","elections","public_life"],"unknowns":["Who created the recording and with what tool or method; the commission says computer manipulation or generative AI.","The date in 2024 when the recording was supplied to the editorial board; Florida Politics says the Sun Sentinel reported on the recording in July 2024.","Whether the hearing panel's findings, which the Florida Supreme Court approved, or the court's order attribute the recording to AI; neither document was opened.","How widely the recording circulated, who referred it for criminal investigation and with what result, and whether the depicted judges reported any consequence beyond saying it was fake."],"geography":{"basis":"The recording was supplied to the South Florida Sun Sentinel editorial board during a campaign for a Broward County court seat in Florida, and the depicted judges sit on the Florida Supreme Court and Florida's Ninth Judicial Circuit, per all inspected reports. The disciplinary proceeding was decided by the Florida Supreme Court.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"News reports of the disciplinary proceeding (Bloomberg Law on the Supreme Court decision; the ABA Journal, the News Service of Florida and Florida Politics on the commission's notice of charges) describe a recording imitating the voices of two justices and a chief judge, presented to an editorial board in a judicial campaign. The commission, which examined the recording, said it was fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative AI, and said it created a false perception of misconduct by the depicted judges. AI involvement is recorded as suspected.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, which examined the recording in bringing charges, stated in its notice that the recording \"is fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative-AI\", and that the voices resemble those of the purported participants while the manner of speech, tone and content are objectively unrealistic. Bloomberg Law reports that the two justices \"had their voices spoofed in the call\". The recording's imitation of the judges' voices is what presented them as discussing the book and is the basis of the commission's finding of a false perception of misconduct. The commission's attribution is hedged between computer manipulation and generative AI, its technical basis beyond listening to the recording is not disclosed, and no creator or tool is identified.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Florida: judge suspended for sharing, as a 2024 candidate, a fabricated call of justices the judicial watchdog says was likely computer-manipulated or AI-made","summary":"While campaigning in 2024 for a Broward County court seat, Lauren Peffer, now a county judge, sought the endorsement of the South Florida Sun Sentinel editorial board. Asked to back her claim of an image crisis in Florida's judiciary, she cited a self-published book by a fired employee of the Ninth Judicial Circuit and supplied a recording purportedly of a phone call about the book between Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, Justice Renatha Francis and the circuit's chief judge, Lisa Munyon. The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission's notice of formal charges, filed in May 2025, said the recording was fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative AI, and that while the voices resembled those of the participants, the manner of speech, tone and much of the content were objectively unrealistic. The notice said she had shared it despite clear evidence of its inauthenticity and had perpetuated a false perception of illegal, unethical or immoral conduct by the justices, a chief judge and others in the judicial branch. Peffer apologised, said the content was created by a third party with whom she had no ties, and testified that she could not explain why she had thought it valid. According to Bloomberg Law, the Florida Supreme Court on 9 October 2026 suspended her for 30 days and fined her $10,000, saying her conduct undermined public confidence in the judiciary by implicating sitting justices; the two justices whose voices were faked recused. Who made the recording, and with what tool, is not reported.","incidentDate":"2024-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-05-11","aiSystem":"An audio recording, posted on a website associated with a former court employee, that faked the voices of two Florida Supreme Court justices and a circuit chief judge. The Judicial Qualifications Commission's notice of charges said it was fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative AI. No tool or creator is identified in the inspected reports.","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Judicial Qualifications Commission's notice of charges and the Florida Supreme Court opinion as reported, a fabricated recording that imitated the voices of two Supreme Court justices and a circuit chief judge was presented to a newspaper editorial board during a judicial campaign, and the notice said it perpetuated a false perception of illegal, unethical or immoral conduct by those judges. The candidate who shared it was later suspended and fined. All three judges said the recording was fake, according to Florida Politics; no further consequence for them is reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Three people: the two Florida Supreme Court justices and the circuit chief judge whom the recording purported to capture, named in the FlaglerLive report of the notice of charges; Florida Politics reports that all three said the recording was fake. The candidate who shared the recording is not counted as harmed by it; newspaper staff and the public are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-FL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/florida-judge-suspended-over-deepfake-call-mimicking-justices","primarySourceLabel":"Bloomberg Law, 9 October 2026: FL Judge Suspended Over Deepfake Call Mimicking Justices","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:18:31.150274+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:18:31.150274+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["deepfake","voice-impersonation","judiciary","election","florida","public-figure","judicial-discipline"]},{"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":"2024-kanpur-alleged-ai-voice-impersonation-fraud","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'27 मार्च को व्हाट्सएप पर'; 'बताया कि वह कानपुर आ रहा था, लेकिन रास्ते में पुलिस ने पकड़ लिया'; 'चूंकि आवाज भतीजे की आवाज से मिलती जुलती थी, इसलिए उन्हें यकीन हो गया। इस बीच दूसरे युवक ने फोन लेते हुए परिचय दरोगा'; 'चार लोग पकड़े गए हैं और आपके भतीजे का भी नाम है'; 'बचने के लिए दो लाख रुपये दे दो'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 27 March the seller received a WhatsApp call in which a person spoke in a voice resembling his nephew's, saying he had been picked up by police, and a second caller posing as a police sub-inspector said the nephew was named in a rape-and-murder case and demanded Rs 2 lakh; the seller believed it because the voice matched his nephew's.","causal_attribution":"The seller's account as reported by Amar Ujala; single source, attributed. The call content is his recollection."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'हड़बड़ाहट में 60 हजार रुपये बताए गए बैंक खाते में ट्रांसफर कर दिए। इसके बाद आसपास के दुकानदारों से उधार लेकर 40 हजार रुपये दूसरे बैंक खाते में ट्रांसफर किए। फिर एक वाइस नोट भेजकर साइबर ठगों ने एक लाख रुपये और मांगे गए'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The seller transferred Rs 60,000 to the bank account he was given and then Rs 40,000, borrowed from nearby shopkeepers, to a second account; when a voice note demanded a further Rs 1 lakh he told the shopkeepers, phoned his brother-in-law and learned it was a fraud.","causal_attribution":"The transfers are reported from the seller's account; no bank record was inspected. The loss is connected to the impersonating call by his own account."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'स्वरूपनगर पुलिस ने धोखाधड़ी व डीपफेक एआई के इस्तेमाल पर आईटी एक्ट की धारा में केस दर्ज कर मामले की जांच शुरू कर दी है'; 'प्रथम दृष्टया मामला डीपफेक एआई से जुड़ा हुआ प्रतीत हो रहा है। टीम जांच में लगी हुई है'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Police registered a case under the IT Act for fraud and the use of deepfake AI and began investigating with the cyber cell, and the Central zone DCP is quoted saying the case prima facie appears connected with deepfake AI.","causal_attribution":"The registration and the DCP's quoted assessment are reported by Amar Ujala; no FIR was inspected. The police assessment is expressly prima facie and does not establish that the voice was AI-generated."}],"effects":[{"label":"Rs 1 lakh transferred to fraudsters after a call in a voice resembling a relative’s","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.amarujala.com/uttar-pradesh/kanpur/cheated-for-the-first-time-by-deepfake-ai-in-kanpur-told-uncle-in-nephews-voice-save-me-by-any-means-2024-04-10","kind":"local_reporting","access":"read","language":"hi","translation_note":"Read in Hindi on 2026-10-07 (HTTP 200; dated 10 April 2024, Amar Ujala Kanpur news desk). English renderings in this record are the research agent’s (an AI’s) own translations; no human translator reviewed them.","independence_group":"amarujala-kanpur-2024-04-10"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["finance","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Whether the voice was generated with an AI tool or produced by a human impersonator; no recording, forensic analysis or tool is reported, and the police assessment is preliminary.","Whether any of the Rs 1 lakh was recovered and the final loss.","The outcome of the police investigation after April 2024; nothing later was researched.","The event year is taken from the article’s own date (10 April 2024); the text states only 27 March.","How the callers obtained a sample of the nephew’s voice, if one was used; the article does not say.","An ETV Bharat item of 10 April 2024 on the same case appears in Google News but could not be retrieved and was not read."],"geography":{"basis":"Amar Ujala places the seller’s stall and the police station that registered the case in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India, and the calls were received there. No court proceeding is reported.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":["IN"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case with AI involvement recorded as suspected: a Kanpur daily reports from the seller's account and the police response that a WhatsApp caller spoke in a voice resembling his nephew's, that this persuaded him to transfer Rs 1 lakh, that police registered the case citing deepfake AI and that the DCP calls the AI connection prima facie. The relations depicted_or_impersonated and communicated_with rest on the reported impersonating voice spoken to the seller. The seller, nephew and the scam's police persona are not named in this record. Single source; no recording or forensic finding.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-07"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Amar Ujala reports that the fraudsters made the seller speak on a WhatsApp call with a person in a voice that resembled his nephew's and that this is why he believed the story and transferred the money; the outlet describes the call as made with the help of deepfake AI, police registered the case citing the use of deepfake AI, and the Central zone DCP is quoted saying the case prima facie appears connected with deepfake AI. If the voice was AI-generated, the system impersonated the nephew toward the seller (depicted_or_impersonated) and was the voice that spoke to him (communicated_with), and it is what persuaded him to pay. No recording, forensic analysis or tool is identified, and the police assessment is expressly preliminary, so the status is suspected.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated","communicated_with"]},"name":"Kanpur vegetable seller reportedly transferred Rs 1 lakh after a WhatsApp call in a voice like his nephew's; police say it prima facie involves deepfake AI","summary":"Amar Ujala (Kanpur, 10 April 2024) reports that a vegetable seller received a WhatsApp call on 27 March in which a person spoke in a voice resembling his nephew's, saying he had been picked up by police on his way to Kanpur; a second caller posing as a police sub-inspector said the nephew was named in a rape-and-murder case and demanded Rs 2 lakh. The seller transferred Rs 60,000 to one bank account and then, with Rs 40,000 borrowed from nearby shopkeepers, Rs 40,000 to a second account. When a voice note demanded another Rs 1 lakh he told the shopkeepers, phoned his brother-in-law and learned the call was a fraud. Police registered a case under the IT Act citing fraud and the use of deepfake AI, and the Central zone DCP is quoted saying the case prima facie appears connected with deepfake AI and the cyber cell is investigating. No recording or forensic finding is reported, so whether the voice was AI-generated or a human impersonation is not established.","incidentDate":"2024-03-27","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-04-10","aiSystem":"Voice on a WhatsApp call that resembled the seller's nephew's, which Amar Ujala and a quoted police officer describe as deepfake AI (prima facie); no tool or recording identified","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool (suspected)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The seller reportedly transferred Rs 1 lakh (Rs 60,000 and then Rs 40,000 borrowed from nearby shopkeepers) to two bank accounts, per Amar Ujala; recovery is not reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the seller who transferred the money (Amar Ujala). The nephew whose voice was imitated and the shopkeepers who lent money are not reported as harmed and are not counted. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.amarujala.com/uttar-pradesh/kanpur/cheated-for-the-first-time-by-deepfake-ai-in-kanpur-told-uncle-in-nephews-voice-save-me-by-any-means-2024-04-10","primarySourceLabel":"Amar Ujala, 10 April 2024: deepfake AI used for the first time to cheat in Kanpur, uncle told in nephew’s voice to save him (Hindi)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T03:07:27.856477+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-07T03:25:05.648058+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["finance","impersonation","voice-cloning"]}]}