First judgment that imitation of voice by generative AI is subject to publicity rights Tokyo District Court

On September 30th, the Tokyo District Court (presiding judge Aya Takahashi) handed down a ruling in a lawsuit filed by voice actor Kenjiro Tsuda, who asked the company operating the video posting app ``TikTok'' to delete the video, alleging that a video in which his voice was imitated using generative AI (artificial intelligence) was published without permission. The judgment stated that the ``right of publicity,'' which protects the economic value of celebrities' names and appearances that attract customers, generally includes ``the voice.''

This is the first judicial decision to recognize that human voices are subject to legal protection. Japanese law does not explicitly state the ``right to voice,'' and there have been very few cases of this going to court. With the development and spread of generative AI, it is becoming easier to create content that imitates the voices of celebrities, and this ruling is likely to help protect the rights of voice actors.

On the other hand, the ruling found that the video that Tsuda raised in question in this trial had already been deleted. The court did not rule on whether Tsuda's right to voice was violated.

Between July 2024 and September 2025, the video account in question posted 188 videos introducing urban legends and psychic phenomena using narration similar to Tsuda's voice. As of November 2025, when the lawsuit was filed, he had more than 210,000 followers.

Tsuda's side argued in court that the poster was making money by luring many people to view the video with a narration imitating Tsuda's voice. The lawsuit alleges that Tsuda's publicity rights were violated.

In May of this year, after the lawsuit was filed, the poster deleted his account and the video in question was no longer displayed.

The video has been deleted, and Tsuda's claim has been dismissed.

The ruling pointed out that a person's voice, like their appearance, ``can be said to be a symbol of an individual's personality.'' Regarding the use of voice actors' voices without permission, he stated that their voices have the power to attract customers to promote the sale of products, etc., and that if they are used solely for the purpose of exploiting the power of customer attraction, ``it would be reasonable to interpret this as a violation of publicity rights.''

However, in this case, the video had already disappeared, and we determined that the TikTok operating company had no obligation to delete it. Tsuda's claim was rejected.

After the verdict, Tsuda's lawyer indicated that he would not appeal.

TikTok's operating company commented, ``We will continue to work sincerely on finding a balance between the development of technology and the protection of rights.''