[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$f5PghLbNZjhkz_wFnDkQfAzM-ABAHBhuf8lwiwnDzR-U":3},{"article":4,"iocs":44,"watch_terms":45},{"id":5,"title":6,"slug":7,"summary":8,"ai_summary":9,"brief":10,"full_text":11,"url":12,"image_url":13,"published_at":14,"ingested_at":15,"relevance_score":16,"entities":17,"category_id":23,"category":24,"article_tags":28},"f71f261e-feb3-410f-bc06-ff96f1ce3518","LG Berlin - 2 O 202\u002F24","lg-berlin-2-o-202-24-326439","Created page with \"{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Germany |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=LG Berlin |Court_Original_Name=Landgericht Berlin |Court_English_Name=Regional Court Berlin |Court_With_Country=LG Berlin (Germany) |Case_Number_Name=2 O 202\u002F24 |ECLI= |Original_Source_Name_1=openJur |Original_Source_Link_1=https:\u002F\u002Fopenjur.de\u002Fu\u002F2532836.html |Original_Source_Language_1=German |Original_Source_Language__Code_1=DE |Original_Source_Name_2= |Original_So...\" New page {{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Germany |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=LG Berlin |Court_Original_Name=Landgericht Berlin |Court_English_Name=Regional Court Berlin |Court_With_Country=LG Berlin (Germany) |Case_Number_Name=2 O 202\u002F24 |ECLI= |Original_Source_Name_1=openJur |Original_Source_Link_1=https:\u002F\u002Fopenjur.de\u002Fu\u002F2532836.html |Original_Source_Language_1=German |Original_Source_Language__Code_1=DE |Original_Source_Name_2= |Original_Source_Link_2= |Original_Source_Language_2= |Original_Source_Language__Code_2= |Date_Decided=20.08.2025 |Date_Published=28.08.2025 |Year=2025 |GDPR_Article_1=Article 6(1) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 6 GDPR#1 |GDPR_Article_2= |GDPR_Article_Link_2= |GDPR_Article_3= |GDPR_Article_Link_3= |EU_Law_Name_1= |EU_Law_Link_1= |EU_Law_Name_2= |EU_Law_Link_2= |National_Law_Name_1=§ 22 KUG |National_Law_Link_1=https:\u002F\u002Fwww.gesetze-im-internet.de\u002Fkunsturhg\u002F__22.html |National_Law_Name_2=§ 23 KUG |National_Law_Link_2=https:\u002F\u002Fwww.gesetze-im-internet.de\u002Fkunsturhg\u002F__23.html |National_Law_Name_3= |National_Law_Link_3= |National_Law_Name_4= |National_Law_Link_4= |Party_Name_1=Actor (data subject) |Party_Link_1= |Party_Name_2=YouTuber (controller) |Party_Link_2= |Party_Name_3= |Party_Link_3= |Party_Name_4= |Party_Link_4= |Appeal_From_Body= |Appeal_From_Case_Number_Name= |Appeal_From_Status= |Appeal_From_Link= |Appeal_To_Body= |Appeal_To_Case_Number_Name= |Appeal_To_Status=Unknown |Appeal_To_Link= |Initial_Contributor=Ava Lang | }} A court ordered a controller to pay €4,000 for using a data subject’s AI-generated voice without consent, holding that the processing lacked a legal basis under [[Article 6 GDPR#1|Article 6(1) GDPR]] and could not rely on legitimate interest or artistic freedom under [[Article 85 GDPR|Article 85 GDPR]]. == English Summary == === Facts === The data subject is a widely known actor and professional voice actor. The controller operated a YouTube channel with an associated online shop. The controller published two political satire videos on YouTube. The videos used an AI-generated voice that closely imitated the data subject’s voice. Viewers in the comments identified the voice as that of the data subject. The videos ended with references to the controller’s online shop, which sold merchandise linked to the channel’s political positioning. On 28 September 2023, the data subject contacted the controller and objected to the use of his voice. He requested cessation of use and reimbursement of legal costs. The controller submitted a cease-and-desist declaration but refused to pay damages, arguing that the voice was synthetic, lawfully acquired from an AI provider, and used for satire rather than advertising. The data subject claimed that the AI-generated voice constituted use of his personal voice, that the processing occurred without consent, and that it created the impression that he endorsed the videos and products. He sought compensation equivalent to his usual licensing fees and reimbursement of legal costs. === Holding === First, the court held that the controller unlawfully interfered with the data subject’s right to his own voice. Although the voice was AI-generated, it closely imitated a distinctive personal characteristic attributable to the data subject. The court considered that a significant part of the audience would associate the voice with the data subject, which was sufficient to establish personal attribution. Second, the court addressed the issue under data protection law and noted that the use of an AI-generated voice imitating a real person can qualify as processing of personal data. The court examined [[Article 6 GDPR#1|Article 6(1) GDPR]] and found no valid legal basis. The data subject had not given consent under [[Article 6 GDPR#1a|Article 6(1)(a) GDPR]]. Contractual necessity under [[Article 6 GDPR#1b|Article 6(1)(b) GDPR]] was irrelevant. The controller relied on [[Article 6 GDPR#1f|Article 6(1)(f) GDPR]], arguing legitimate interests linked to satire and freedom of expression. The court rejected this argument after balancing interests. It found that the processing primarily served the controller’s commercial interests, as the videos increased reach and indirectly promoted the online shop. The court stressed that the controller could express political opinions and satire without using an identifiable imitation of the data subject’s voice. The data subject’s rights therefore outweighed the controller’s interests. Third, the court held that no exemption applied under [[Article 85 GDPR|Article 85 GDPR]]. The processing was neither journalistic nor genuinely artistic in a way that would justify overriding the data subject’s rights, particularly given the commercial context and the lack of transparency about the AI-generated nature of the voice. As a consequence, the court ordered the controller to pay €4,000 as a fictitious license fee for the unauthorised use of the voice and €1,155.80 for reimbursable legal costs, plus interest. == Comment == ''Share your comments here!'' == Further Resources == ''Share blogs or news articles here!'' == English Machine Translation of the Decision == The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details. Judgment 1. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff €4,000.00 plus interest at a rate of 5 percentage points above the base interest rate from October 16, 2023; 2. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff a further €1,155.80 plus interest at a rate of 5 percentage points above the base interest rate on €1,088.60 from October 16, 2023, and on a further €67.20 from November 16, 2023. 3. The remainder of the claim is dismissed. 4. The defendant shall bear the costs of the proceedings. 5. This judgment is provisionally enforceable upon the plaintiff providing security in the amount of 110% of the amount to be enforced. Facts of the Case The parties are in dispute over claims arising from the defendant's use of an AI-generated voice. The plaintiff is a German actor, voice actor, and narrator of audiobooks and radio plays. He dubs, among others, the actor ... in his films. The defendant operates a YouTube channel under the name ..., which currently has 190,000 subscribers. The defendant also operates an online shop. For the goods sold therein, reference is made to the images on pages 3 and 4 of the reply. The defendant distributed two videos on his YouTube channel, titled \"...\" and \"...\", which featured AI-generated voiceovers and dealt with the government at the time. For further details of the videos and the voice used, reference is made to Exhibits K 1 and K 2 and the attached USB drive. By letter dated September 28, 2023 (Exhibit K6), the defendant was sued for an injunction against the plaintiff for using the plaintiff's voice and was requested to reimburse the plaintiff's extrajudicial legal fees of €1,088.60 (net), based on a value in dispute of €20,000.00, by October 15, 2023. By letter dated October 31, 2023 (Exhibit K8), the plaintiff's current legal representative, acting on behalf of the plaintiff, accepted the defendant's declaration of discontinuance and unsuccessfully demanded that the defendant pay damages of €2,000.00 per clip, as well as reimburse the extrajudicial legal fees, now calculated based on a value in dispute of €24,000.00, by November 14, 2023. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant used the plaintiff's voice, which was created by the plaintiff. His voice was also identified by the video commentators as the dubbing voice of ... or his own voice. By using his voice, the defendant infringes upon his general right of personality, specifically the right to his own voice. It makes no difference whether the voice is generated by a real voice impersonator or a recording. The licensing damages of €2,000 in each case correspond to his usual fee practice. The defendant must also reimburse him for his out-of-court legal fees. The plaintiff requests: 1. that the plaintiff be paid €4,000.00 plus interest at a rate of 9% above the base interest rate from September 28, 2023; 2. that the plaintiff be paid €1,088.60 plus interest at a rate of 9% above the base interest rate from September 28, 2023; 3. to pay the plaintiff €67.20 plus interest at a rate of 5% above the base interest rate from the date the lawsuit was filed. The defendant requests that the lawsuit be dismissed. He argues that when creating his satirical videos, he simply chose an authentic voice with a heroic tone and used the synthetic imitation of a voice suggested to him by the plaintiff's software—not an original spoken voice. Rather, it is an AI-generated voice similar to the vocal range of [name omitted], but it is not the same voice—that is, not the plaintiff's voice. This was also demonstrated in the oral hearing on March 25, 2025. He is, of course, entitled to use a voice that he has \"purchased\" and for which he thus effectively holds the \"rights of use.\" The voice is, in this respect, perceived by an objective recipient of the statement in public, and not by the plaintiff. A claim for payment is also unfounded because there was no commercial exploitation, but rather use in a satirical format. Since the cease-and-desist letter was unjustified, there is also no claim for reimbursement of extrajudicial legal fees. For the parties' further submissions, reference is made to their written pleadings and accompanying documents. The court heard evidence by taking the unsworn testimony of ... . For the results of the taking of evidence, reference is made to the minutes of the oral hearing of July 9, 2025. Reasons The action is largely well-founded. 1. The plaintiff has a claim against the defendant pursuant to Section 812 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Case 2, Section 818 Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) for payment of a notional license fee of €4,000 for the use of his voice. a) The defendant has interfered with the proprietary rights of the plaintiff to his own voice. (aa) It is recognized in case law and legal literature that the general right of personality also includes the right to one's own voice, even though—unlike the protection of images under Sections 22 et seq. of the German Copyright Act (KUG)—it is not specifically regulated by statute. The intensity of the infringement of personality rights is in no way inferior to that caused by the use of a well-known voice for advertising purposes (as already established by the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg, decision of May 8, 1989 – 3 W 45\u002F89 –, juris para. 9, concerning the imitation of the voice of a deceased comedian by a voice impersonator). The dogmatic derivation usually remains open in case law. Some legal scholars refer to an analogous application of Sections 22 et seq. The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has ruled that the right to privacy is based on the German Copyright Act (KUG), in some cases recognizing a special right of personality or affirming protection through the general right of personality (see Götting\u002FSchertz\u002FSeitz, Handbuch Persönlichkeitsrecht [Handbook of Personality Rights], 2nd edition 2019, § 16 para. 20 et seq. with further references). However, this question can remain open here as well, because the BGH also assumes that the general right of personality and its specific manifestations protect the financial interests of the individual and that the image, the name, but also other characteristics of personality such as the voice can have considerable economic value. Accordingly, personality rights are intended to protect the individual's free decision as to whether and under what conditions their image or name – the same applies to other distinctive personality characteristics – is used to serve the business interests of third parties (BGH, judgment of December 1, 1999, 1 ZR 49\u002F97, juris para. 50, 51). ] ... ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] (bb) The defendant infringed upon this right by using an AI-generated voice of the plaintiff to add narration to videos he had produced and subsequently distribute them. Of course, this was not \"the\" plaintiff's voice, but rather an imitation of that voice created by another AI-generated voice. In this respect, however, the question of infringement is to be assessed no differently than if the imitation had been performed by a voice impersonator (see already OLG Hamburg, loc. cit., Ellenberger, Persönlichkeits- und Urheberrechte beim Voice Cloning [Personal and Copyright Rights in Voice Cloning], Rdi 2024, 599, 605). In any case, a not insignificant portion of the target audience, given the similarity of the voice used in the videos to the voice the plaintiff used as the dubbing voice for the actor ..., will assume that the plaintiff, as the dubbing voice of ..., provided the commentary for the videos. This is also evident from the comments he submitted for the videos, in some of which his name is even mentioned (Exhibit K 3). It is irrelevant that, according to the defendant's representative, the voice heard by the plaintiff during his personal hearing differs from the one described in the video. The plaintiff does not speak in court as the dubbed voice of [name omitted], but rather his own \"normal\" voice, even if, in the court's assessment, there is a clear similarity to the dubbed voice of [name omitted], which is known to the court. The notion that an average viewer of the video would assume the voice heard is that of [name omitted] seems far-fetched, since it is common knowledge that [name omitted] is not German and that his films are dubbed. Whether all viewers are aware that the plaintiff is the German dubbing voice of [name omitted] is also irrelevant. The decisive factor is the confusion caused by the deliberately created similarity of the voices, which could lead viewers to believe that the German dubbing actor of [name omitted] had consented to the use of his voice for the dubbing of the videos. b) The infringement was unlawful. It was not justified, not even by analogy to Sections 22 and 23 of the German Copyright Act (KUG). aa) It must be taken into account that the infringement here serves the defendant's business interests. While the videos may not lack satirical content—the creator is mocking what he sees as the incompetence of the government at the time—this is not, unlike cases involving the satirical use of images or names of celebrities for advertising purposes (see Federal Court of Justice, judgment of October 26, 2006, 1 ZR 182\u002F04, juris), a satirical commentary on the plaintiff's or other people's behavior (or voice). Rather, the plaintiff's voice is intended to make the videos more appealing and thus attract as many internet users as possible. The defendant's online shop, which is linked at the end of each video, is meant to benefit from this. The use of the plaintiff's voice ultimately serves to increase the defendant's click-through rates and sales, so commercial use is the primary objective. bb) It has not been alleged that the plaintiff consented to the use of his voice. Whether the defendant paid the AI provider for its use and acquired a corresponding right of use is irrelevant, since it has not been alleged that the plaintiff gave his consent to the AI provider to create a corresponding AI voice and to pass it on to third parties for advertising purposes. cc) The infringement is also serious because, in addition to the unauthorized use of the voice for advertising purposes, viewers of the videos may get the impression that the plaintiff identifies with the defendant's videos and products and has therefore provided his voice. This could negatively affect the plaintiff's reputation among people who are not politically close to the defendant, who, given the products offered, such as \"woke zero\" T-shirts, appears to be on the right. Furthermore, there is no indication that the voice is AI-generated. dd) The defendant cannot claim that the use of the voice is protected by the freedom of expression or artistic freedom under Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the German Basic Law and that this outweighs the plaintiff's interest in the right to his voice. While it is true that, due to the nature of personality rights as a framework right, their scope is not absolutely fixed but must be determined by weighing the conflicting fundamental rights, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case as well as the fundamental rights and guarantees of the European Convention on Human Rights. An infringement of personality rights is only unlawful if the affected party's interest in protection outweighs the legitimate interests of the other party. In this case, however, the balance falls in favor of the plaintiff. As explained above under aa), the use of the plaintiff's voice serves commercial purposes. The defendant's right to engage satirically and critically with the policies of the Federal Government in videos is not restricted by prohibiting the use of the plaintiff's voice without consent. Even if Section 23 Paragraph 1 No. 1, No. 4 of the German Copyright Act (KUG) were applied analogously, the use of the voice remains unlawful, as neither a contemporary historical event nor satire or art is involved. It is unnecessary to decide whether, even within the scope of artistic freedom, the dissemination of a cloned voice without consent is always impermissible if the publication creates the impression that it represents actual statements by the cloned individual (see Ellenberger, op. cit., p. 605). Even if one were to take a different view, the plaintiff's legitimate interest in not relinquishing their voice for the commercial interests of third parties without financial compensation would prevail, analogous to Section 23 Paragraph 2 of the German Copyright Act (KUG). ee) The same conclusion is reached if one considers the dissemination of AI-generated voices to fall within the scope of processing personal data as defined in Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the GDPR (Engel-Bunsas, Right to One's Own Voice in Times of Deepfakes, Rdi 2025, 292, 293). This processing is only lawful if consent has been given (which is not the case here) or a legal basis for processing applies (Art. 6 para. 1 b) - f) GDPR). However, Art. 6 para. 1 f) GDPR also stipulates that processing must be necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, and that, after a balancing of interests, the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject must override those interests. As explained above, this is not the case. The exemption for artistic or journalistic purposes pursuant to Art. 85 GDPR is also not applicable. c) Based on the evidence presented, the notional license fee payable by the defendant as compensation for the enrichment incurred is to be assessed at €2,000 per video clip. Art. 6 para. 1 f) GDPR (aa) According to the German Federal Court of Justice's (BGH) case law on the unauthorized use of images for advertising purposes, anyone who uses a third party's image for commercial purposes without authorization demonstrates that they attribute economic value to the act. The infringer must be held to this resulting proprietary allocation and provide compensation commensurate with the value of the use. This applies regardless of whether the depicted person would have been willing and able to permit the use of their image in exchange for a reasonable license fee; because the claim for payment does not constitute consent from the affected party, but rather represents compensation for an unlawful interference with a right of disposition exclusively vested in the affected party. Just as in the case of a notional license fee payable as damages, the amount of the compensation in the context of an unjust enrichment claim must also be estimated by the court of first instance pursuant to Section 287 Paragraph 2 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). The question to be asked is what reasonable contracting parties would have agreed upon as remuneration for the infringer's acts of use. In determining the objective value of the right of use, which is decisive for calculating the license fee, all relevant circumstances of the individual case must be considered and comprehensively assessed (see Federal Court of Justice, Judgment of January 21, 2021 - 1 ZR 120\u002F19 -, juris para. 58 et seq. with further references). bb) This case law is also applicable to the use of a third party's voice for advertising purposes. As explained above under 1. a), the general right of personality also protects the right to one's own voice. A voice, too, can have an economic value—as in this case—which only the holder of the right can dispose of. Anyone who gains a commercial advantage by using the well-known voice of a celebrity or the voice actor of a celebrity, whether through AI or a voice impersonator, must also be held accountable for the resulting proprietary rights (cf. regarding the comparability of the infringement of the right to one's own image and the right to one's own voice, Higher Regional Court of Hamburg, loc. cit., juris para. 9). c) Based on the evidence presented, a reasonable license fee of at least €2,000 per video must be assumed. According to the credible testimony of the witness ..., who has been brokering contracts for the plaintiff for years, the plaintiff is the most sought-after advertising voice in Germany. According to him, minimum fees for advertising with images (i.e., as in this case, a video) start at approximately €1,800 for limited use. It should be taken into account that the defendant's YouTube channel, with 190,000 subscribers, is not a small channel. Furthermore, there was no agreed-upon time limit for the use of the voice. The witness's statements appear plausible given that the plaintiff's voice is very distinctive and films featuring him are very well-known. Therefore, there are no objections to the claimed license fee of €2,000 in each case; the plaintiff did not request a higher license fee (§ 308 of the German Code of Civil Procedure). 2. Regarding the extrajudicial legal fees, the following applies: a) According to the established case law of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), when assessing whether and to what extent the injured party's claim for damages also includes the reimbursement of legal fees, a distinction must be made between the internal relationship between the injured party and their legal counsel and the external relationship between the injured party and the liable party. A prerequisite for a claim for reimbursement is, in principle, that the injured party is internally obligated to pay the invoiced costs and that, from the injured party's perspective, the specific legal services rendered were necessary and appropriate for the protection of their rights, considering their particular situation (see, for example, Federal Court of Justice (BGH), Judgment of May 8, 2012 - VI ZR 196\u002F11 -, juris para. 8 with further references). b) Here, from the plaintiff's perspective, it was necessary and appropriate to retain a lawyer to enforce their rights regarding the defendant's use of their voice. Since the use of their voice was unlawful (see above under 1.) and the defendant could have recognized this, and thus acted negligently, the defendant is obligated to compensate for the resulting damages pursuant to Section 823 Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) in conjunction with Article 2 Paragraph 1 and Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the German Basic Law (GG). The specific legal work undertaken here was appropriate given the validity of the warning and the claim for payment; the billing based on a total value in dispute of €24,000 for the warning and the claim for payment is also unobjectionable. This results in a net fee of €1,156.20 at a 1.3 fee according to No. 2300 W RVG (old version) plus a flat-rate expense allowance. The plaintiff has stated, without contradiction, that the costs have already been paid. ... 3. Pursuant to Sections 286 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 and 288 Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), the plaintiff can only claim interest at a rate of 5 percentage points above the base interest rate, as this is not a claim for payment within the meaning of Section 288 Paragraph 2 of the BGB (see Grüneberg-Grüneberg, 84th edition, Section 288 BGB, marginal note 8, Section 286 BGB, marginal note 27 with further references). Furthermore, the claim for interest only arises from the specified dates due to the payment deadlines set by the plaintiff's attorney. 4. The decision regarding costs is based on Section 92 Paragraph 2 No. 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). 5. The ruling on provisional enforceability is based on Section 709 Sentences 1 and 2 of the ZPO.","Berlin Regional Court (LG Berlin) ruled that a YouTuber unlawfully used an AI-generated voice imitating a professional German actor's distinctive voice in two political satire videos without consent. The court found no valid legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR, rejected the controller's arguments about legitimate interest and artistic freedom, and ordered payment of €4,000 as a fictitious license fee plus €1,155.80 in legal costs. The decision establishes that AI-cloned voices of identifiable individuals constitute personal data processing and require explicit consent, even when synthetically generated.","German court orders YouTuber to pay €4,000 for unauthorized use of actor's AI-cloned voice without consent.","Help LG Berlin - 2 O 202\u002F24: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search VisualWikitext Latest revision as of 15:11, 28 April 2026 view source Avalang (talk | contribs)51 edits Tag: submission [1.0] (No difference) Latest revision as of 15:11, 28 April 2026 LG Berlin - 2 O 202\u002F24 Court: LG Berlin (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 6(1) GDPR § 22 KUG§ 23 KUG Decided: 20.08.2025 Published: 28.08.2025 Parties: Actor (data subject) YouTuber (controller) National Case Number\u002FName: 2 O 202\u002F24 European Case Law Identifier: Appeal from: Appeal to: Unknown Original Language(s): German Original Source: openJur (in German) Initial Contributor: Ava Lang A court ordered a controller to pay €4,000 for using a data subject’s AI-generated voice without consent, holding that the processing lacked a legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR and could not rely on legitimate interest or artistic freedom under Article 85 GDPR. Contents 1 English Summary 1.1 Facts 1.2 Holding 2 Comment 3 Further Resources 4 English Machine Translation of the Decision English Summary Facts The data subject is a widely known actor and professional voice actor. The controller operated a YouTube channel with an associated online shop. The controller published two political satire videos on YouTube. The videos used an AI-generated voice that closely imitated the data subject’s voice. Viewers in the comments identified the voice as that of the data subject. The videos ended with references to the controller’s online shop, which sold merchandise linked to the channel’s political positioning. On 28 September 2023, the data subject contacted the controller and objected to the use of his voice. He requested cessation of use and reimbursement of legal costs. The controller submitted a cease-and-desist declaration but refused to pay damages, arguing that the voice was synthetic, lawfully acquired from an AI provider, and used for satire rather than advertising. The data subject claimed that the AI-generated voice constituted use of his personal voice, that the processing occurred without consent, and that it created the impression that he endorsed the videos and products. He sought compensation equivalent to his usual licensing fees and reimbursement of legal costs. Holding First, the court held that the controller unlawfully interfered with the data subject’s right to his own voice. Although the voice was AI-generated, it closely imitated a distinctive personal characteristic attributable to the data subject. The court considered that a significant part of the audience would associate the voice with the data subject, which was sufficient to establish personal attribution. Second, the court addressed the issue under data protection law and noted that the use of an AI-generated voice imitating a real person can qualify as processing of personal data. The court examined Article 6(1) GDPR and found no valid legal basis. The data subject had not given consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Contractual necessity under Article 6(1)(b) GDPR was irrelevant. The controller relied on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, arguing legitimate interests linked to satire and freedom of expression. The court rejected this argument after balancing interests. It found that the processing primarily served the controller’s commercial interests, as the videos increased reach and indirectly promoted the online shop. The court stressed that the controller could express political opinions and satire without using an identifiable imitation of the data subject’s voice. The data subject’s rights therefore outweighed the controller’s interests. Third, the court held that no exemption applied under Article 85 GDPR. The processing was neither journalistic nor genuinely artistic in a way that would justify overriding the data subject’s rights, particularly given the commercial context and the lack of transparency about the AI-generated nature of the voice. As a consequence, the court ordered the controller to pay €4,000 as a fictitious license fee for the unauthorised use of the voice and €1,155.80 for reimbursable legal costs, plus interest. Comment Share your comments here! Further Resources Share blogs or news articles here! English Machine Translation of the Decision The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details. Judgment 1. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff €4,000.00 plus interest at a rate of 5 percentage points above the base interest rate from October 16, 2023; 2. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff a further €1,155.80 plus interest at a rate of 5 percentage points above the base interest rate on €1,088.60 from October 16, 2023, and on a further €67.20 from November 16, 2023. 3. The remainder of the claim is dismissed. 4. The defendant shall bear the costs of the proceedings. 5. This judgment is provisionally enforceable upon the plaintiff providing security in the amount of 110% of the amount to be enforced. Facts of the Case The parties are in dispute over claims arising from the defendant's use of an AI-generated voice. The plaintiff is a German actor, voice actor, and narrator of audiobooks and radio plays. He dubs, among others, the actor ... in his films. The defendant operates a YouTube channel under the name ..., which currently has 190,000 subscribers. The defendant also operates an online shop. For the goods sold therein, reference is made to the images on pages 3 and 4 of the reply. The defendant distributed two videos on his YouTube channel, titled \"...\" and \"...\", which featured AI-generated voiceovers and dealt with the government at the time. For further details of the videos and the voice used, reference is made to Exhibits K 1 and K 2 and the attached USB drive. By letter dated September 28, 2023 (Exhibit K6), the defendant was sued for an injunction against the plaintiff for using the plaintiff's voice and was requested to reimburse the plaintiff's extrajudicial legal fees of €1,088.60 (net), based on a value in dispute of €20,000.00, by October 15, 2023. By letter dated October 31, 2023 (Exhibit K8), the plaintiff's current legal representative, acting on behalf of the plaintiff, accepted the defendant's declaration of discontinuance and unsuccessfully demanded that the defendant pay damages of €2,000.00 per clip, as well as reimburse the extrajudicial legal fees, now calculated based on a value in dispute of €24,000.00, by November 14, 2023. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant used the plaintiff's voice, which was created by the plaintiff. His voice was also identified by the video commentators as the dubbing voice of ... or his own voice. By using his voice, the defendant infringes upon his general right of personality, specifically the right to his own voice. It makes no difference whether the voice is generated by a real voice impersonator or a recording. The licensing damages of €2,000 in each case correspond to his usual fee practice. The defendant must also reimburse him for his out-of-court legal fees. The plaintiff requests: 1. that the plaintiff be paid €4,000.00 plus interest at a rate of 9% above the base interest rate from September 28, 2023; 2. that the plaintiff be paid €1,088.60 plus interest at a rate of 9% above the base interest rate from September 28, 2023; 3. to pay the plaintiff €67.20 plus interest at a rate of 5% above the base interest rate from the date the lawsuit was filed. The defendant requests that the lawsuit be dismissed. He argues that when creating his satirical videos, he simply chose an authentic voice with a heroic tone and used the synthetic imitation of a voice suggested to him by the plaintiff's software—not an original spoken voice. Rather, it is an AI-generated voice similar to the vocal range of [name omitted], but it is not the same voice—that is, not the plaintiff's voice. This was also demonstrated in the oral hearing on March 25, 2025. ","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Findex.php?title=LG_Berlin_-_2_O_202\u002F24&diff=51517&oldid=0","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Fimages\u002F4\u002F4c\u002FCourts_logo1.png","2026-04-28T15:11:55+00:00","2026-04-28T16:00:10.98092+00:00",7,[18,21],{"name":19,"type":20},"AI voice cloning","technology",{"name":22,"type":20},"GDPR Article 6(1)","3f0f8451-91df-4b6c-9a73-ef3b2509b7f1",{"id":23,"icon":25,"name":26,"slug":27},null,"GDPR","gdpr",[29,34,39],{"category":30},{"id":31,"icon":25,"name":32,"slug":33},"614132b8-5837-4952-b8b5-c6c9a32a1d85","Privacy","privacy",{"category":35},{"id":36,"icon":25,"name":37,"slug":38},"839da5c1-3c34-47e2-9499-f7201640e3ac","AI Security","ai-security",{"category":40},{"id":41,"icon":25,"name":42,"slug":43},"c5c77cdb-f7d7-4990-9436-c81dcbff1163","Policy","policy",[],[]]