Class Action
Lehrman v. Lovo
Lehrman, et al. v. Lovo, Inc.
Where it stands
Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on the motion to dismiss July 17, 2025. Surviving claims: breach of contract, New York right of publicity (N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§ 50–51), and New York consumer protection (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349–350). Dismissed: Lanham Act false association and false advertising, copyright infringement as to voice clones as derivative works, and contributory infringement; the training-data copyright claim was dismissed with leave to amend.
Key ruling
July 17, 2025 opinion — the leading U.S. decision on AI voice cloning. The court held that copyright protects the fixed sound recording, not the abstract qualities of a voice, so an AI voice clone is not a derivative work; but New York's statutory right of publicity does reach AI-generated voice clones of living persons. It also rejected the theory that a cloned voice functions as a source-identifying trademark under the Lanham Act.
Note on this record
Filing date and plaintiffs' counsel not verified. Whether an amended copyright claim was refiled after the leave to amend was not confirmed.The record
- Court
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
- Case number
- 1:24-cv-03770
- Filed
- Filing date not established
- Defendants
- Lovo, Inc.
- Plaintiffs
- Putative class of voice-over artists whose voice recordings were used to train and generate Lovo's synthetic voices without authorization
- Technology at issue
- Lovo 'Genny' AI text-to-speech platform; cloned voices marketed under the names 'Kyle Snow' and 'Sally Coleman'
- Relief sought
- Damages and injunctive relief for unauthorized commercial use of the plaintiffs' voices and identities, breach of the Fiverr engagement terms limiting use to academic/internal purposes, and deceptive representations about licensing rights.
Claims pleaded
Sources (3)
- New York Court Tackles the Legality of AI Voice CloningSkadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP · 2025-07
- Lehrman v. Lovo Inc.FindLaw · 2025-07-17
- Federal Court Dismisses Trademark and Copyright Claims Over AI Voice Clones, but Leaves Door Open Under State Publicity LawFredrikson & Byron, P.A. · 2025
This page describes a publicly filed case. This site is not counsel on this matter, nothing here is legal advice, and the allegations described are allegations unless a court has said otherwise.