Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, CONTRACT CLAIMS—S.D.N.Y.: Mixed ruling in voice actors’ IP infringement, identity misappropriation, and breach of contract lawsuit against AI platform, (Jul 14, 2025)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Court upheld contract, publicity, and consumer protection claims based on unauthorized use of plaintiffs’ voices but dismissed trademark and copyright claims for lack of statutory protection.

In a lawsuit alleging misappropriation of identity, breach of contract, and violations of federal and state intellectual property laws, the federal district court in Manhattan granted in part and denied in part Lovo, Inc.’s motion to dismiss a putative class action filed by professional voice actors Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage. The court held that the plaintiffs plausibly stated claims for breach of contract, voice misappropriation under Sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law, and state consumer protection violations. However, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the Lanham Act and the Copyright Act, ruling that the plaintiffs’ voices did not function as trademarks or copyrighted works in the relevant context, and that federal IP laws do not extend to identity-based harms (Lehrman v. Lovo, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03770-JPO (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2025)).

Background. The plaintiffs, Lehrman and Sage, are New York-based professional voice actors who provide voiceover services via the online platform Fiverr. Between 2019 and 2020, they were engaged by anonymous users who later turned out to be employees or contractors of the defendant Lovo Inc., a California-based company that develops and markets AI-powered voice cloning tools. Lehrman provided voice recordings under the assurance that they would be used only for internal research. Sage was similarly told her recordings were for testing radio advertisements. Both were paid modest fees for their services.

The plaintiffs later discovered that Lovo had used their voices to train and sell AI-generated voice models called “Kyle Snow” and “Sally Coleman.” These cloned voices were marketed and made commercially available on Lovo’s platform without the plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent. Upon discovery, Lehrman and Sage filed a putative class action suit in the Southern District of New York, asserting claims for breach of contract, violation of the Lanham Act, copyright infringement, common-law torts, and various state statutory claims. Lovo moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that none of the asserted causes of action were viable.

Contractual formation. The court first addressed whether the plaintiffs plausibly alleged enforceable contracts. It found that both Lehrman and Sage had sufficiently pleaded the existence of contracts containing usage limitations on their recordings. Despite the agreements being formed over Fiverr’s messaging system and signed with screen names, the court held that such communications could constitute signed writings sufficient to satisfy New York’s Statute of Frauds. The court cited Del Toro v. Novus Equities, LLC, No. 20-CV-1002 (JMF), 2024 WL 1533285 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2024), to support the conclusion that electronic agreements with screen names can be binding contracts if they show an intent to be bound.

The court rejected Lovo's contention that the contracts were unenforceable due to indefinite duration or lack of specificity, finding that the promises not to repurpose the recordings were clear and definite. It further held that Lovo could not selectively invoke Fiverr's Terms of Service to evade liability when the parties had expressly agreed to different terms regarding usage limitations.

Source identification. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim under Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits false association with a product or service. Plaintiffs alleged that the use of AI voices derived from their original performances falsely suggested their endorsement of Lovo’s offerings. The court rejected this argument, holding that plaintiffs did not use their voices as source-identifying trademarks and did not allege facts sufficient to support a finding of secondary meaning.

Distinguishing Electra v. 59 Murray Enters., Inc., 987 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2021), the court reasoned that while the Lanham Act may protect against false endorsements involving a celebrity’s image or persona, it does not extend to performers whose voices are not used to indicate the source of goods or services. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs were hired to supply content, not to license marks identifying a product’s origin.

False advertising. The court also rejected plaintiffs’ claims under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, which covers false advertising. It held that plaintiffs lacked statutory standing under the test articulated in Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014). The court found that the plaintiffs were not competitors of Lovo, nor had they shown that they were in the commercial zone of interest protected by the statute. Allegations that Lovo falsely advertised its voice models as proprietary were insufficient to show that the plaintiffs suffered a direct commercial injury from that advertising.

Copyright. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' copyright infringement claim. Although Lehrman and Sage had registered their audio recordings with the Copyright Office after filing the lawsuit, the court found that they failed to allege facts showing actionable copying of protected expression. The cloned voices allegedly resembled the plaintiffs' vocal qualities, but the complaint did not identify specific protectable elements that were copied. Additionally, the court held that voice, standing alone, is not subject to copyright protection, and the claims more closely resembled identity misappropriation than infringement of creative expression.

The court further found that plaintiffs’ state-law claims were not preempted by the Copyright Act, as the rights asserted under New York law—particularly under Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51—protect identity and persona rather than creative expression.

Right of publicity. The court held that plaintiffs plausibly alleged claims under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, which prohibit the unauthorized commercial use of a person's name, portrait, picture, or voice. The court noted that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that Lovo created, promoted, and sold AI-generated voice models derived from their original performances and marketed under different names, but without their consent. This unauthorized commercial exploitation of voice was sufficient to state a claim under New York's statutory right of publicity regime.

The court cited Messenger v. Gruner Jahr Printing & Pub., 208 F.3d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 2000), to support the proposition that use of a person’s likeness or voice for advertising or trade purposes without consent violates state law, even in the absence of a traditional endorsement.

Consumer protection. Further, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 could also proceed. It concluded that Lovo’s alleged representations—suggesting that it had the right to use the voices and that the cloned models were not based on real individuals—were deceptive within the meaning of New York’s consumer protection laws. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs had alleged sufficiently that such conduct was consumer-oriented and misleading in a material way.

Citing Oswego Laborers’ Loc. 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 85 N.Y.2d 20, 25 (1995), the court held that even sophisticated consumers could be misled by deceptive practices involving novel technologies like voice cloning.

Common-law tort claims. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ common-law claims for fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. It concluded that these claims were duplicative of the plaintiffs’ breach of contract and statutory claims and failed to allege separate wrongful conduct. The court emphasized that where a valid contract governs the subject matter, tort claims arising from the same conduct generally do not survive.

Unfair competition. However, the court allowed the plaintiffs’ unfair competition claim under New York common law to proceed. It found that plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Lovo misappropriated the fruits of their labor—specifically, their voice recordings—and used them in bad faith for commercial gain. The court noted that this “bad faith misappropriation” theory is recognized under New York law as a subset of unfair competition and need not rely on trademark infringement or confusion.

Conclusion. Thus, the court denied dismissal of the plaintiffs' contract, misappropriation, state consumer protection, and common law unfair competition claims, while granting dismissal of the Lanham Act, Copyright Act, and other common law tort claims.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-03770-JPO.

Judge: Oetken, J.

Attorneys: Steve Cohen (Pollock Cohen LLP) for Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage. David Evan Case (Rimon PC) for Lovo, Inc.

Companies: Lovo, Inc.

Cases: ContractClaims TortClaims ClassActions AINews NewYorkNews