Lawyers square off in fight over voice data used to train AI

Class-action lawsuits filed May 12-14 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois accuse Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, Nvidia, Samsung, Adobe, and ElevenLabs of using voice recordings from journalists, podcasters, and voice actors to train AI without consent, violating Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Plaintiffs, including journalist Carol Marin and Pulitzer Prize winners Yohance Lacour and Alison Flowers, are represented by Loevy & Loevy, with attorney Ross Kimbarovsky arguing the companies failed to implement compliant consent systems. A related New York case, Lehrman & Sage v. Lovo, Inc., saw a July 2025 ruling allowing breach of contract and rights of publicity claims but dismissing copyright claims.

Via musicfy.lol Lawyers square off in fight over voice data used to train AI Class-action lawsuits accuse Google, Amazon, Apple, and other tech giants of scraping voice recordings to build AI models without consent, invoking Illinois' biometric privacy law. A wave of class-action lawsuits filed in federal court targets some of the biggest names in tech, alleging they vacuumed up voice recordings from journalists, podcasters, and voice actors to train AI systems without ever asking permission. The companies named read like a who’s who of Silicon Valley: Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, Nvidia, Samsung, Adobe, and AI voice startup ElevenLabs. The suits, filed between May 12 and May 14 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, invoke Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, better known as BIPA. That law requires companies to get written consent before collecting biometric identifiers. The plaintiffs argue that voiceprints qualify as biometric data, no different from fingerprints or facial scans. The plaintiffs and the legal theory Among those bringing the claims is Carol Marin, a well-known Chicago journalist, alongside Pulitzer Prize winners Yohance Lacour and Alison Flowers. The legal theory is straightforward. BIPA was designed to ensure people control their own biometric data. Voiceprints, which the filings describe as immutable “digital fingerprints,” fall squarely under that umbrella. If a company wants to capture them, it needs to tell you and get your written OK first. The plaintiffs say that never happened. Their legal team at the firm Loevy & Loevy has described the alleged conduct as potentially one of the largest violations of biometric privacy ever committed, contending that a billion-dollar industry has been constructed on what they call “stolen voices.” Attorney Ross Kimbarovsky pointed to the defendants’ failure to implement any compliant consent systems under BIPA. In other words, the argument isn’t that consent was obtained improperly. It’s that the companies allegedly didn’t even try. A legal roadmap from New York A related case in New York, titled Lehrman & Sage v. Lovo, Inc. , originated earlier in 2024, and in July 2025 a court issued a ruling that offers a partial blueprint for how voice-data disputes could play out. The court allowed certain claims, specifically breach of contract and rights of publicity, to move forward. But it dismissed broader copyright claims related to using voices for AI training. BIPA adds a third dimension that the New York case didn’t address. It’s one of the few state statutes that allows private citizens to sue for violations, complete with statutory damages. Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy https://cryptobriefing.com/editorial-policy/ .