Lawsuit tracker
Lehrman v. Lovo
Lehrman et al. v. Lovo, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03770 (S.D.N.Y.)
| Plaintiffs | Voice actors Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage, on behalf of a putative class |
|---|---|
| Defendants | Lovo, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge J. Paul Oetken) |
| Filed | 2024-05-16 |
| Status | Active |
| Content type | voice |
| Last updated | 2026-07-21 |
The claims
Surviving claims: voice misappropriation under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51, New York consumer-protection law, and breach of contract. Dismissed: federal trademark claims and most copyright theories, with leave to replead copyright claims tied to the recordings themselves.
What has happened
Lehrman and Sage recorded voice-over sessions in 2019 and 2020 for anonymous Fiverr buyers later identified as Lovo employees, who said the audio was for internal or academic research only. The suit alleges Lovo instead used the recordings to train its Genny text-to-speech system and sold clones of their voices under the names “Kyle Snow” and “Sally Coleman”. On July 10, 2025 Judge Oetken trimmed the case: the sound of a voice is not copyrightable subject matter and vocal attributes are not trademarks, but the New York right-of-publicity claims, consumer-protection claims and contract claims stated viable theories, and the plaintiffs received leave to replead copyright claims tied to use of the recordings. A second amended complaint followed on July 31, 2025. The docket shows fact and expert discovery running into spring 2026 under an extended schedule, with expert discovery set to close in late April 2026.
Key developments
- 2024-05-16 — Putative class action filed over unauthorized cloning of the plaintiffs’ voices.
- 2025-07-10 — Court grants in part and denies in part Lovo’s motion to dismiss: federal trademark and most copyright claims out; NY publicity, consumer-protection and contract claims proceed, with leave to replead recording-based copyright claims.
- 2025-07-31 — Plaintiffs file a second amended complaint.
- 2026-01 — Court grants a discovery extension; expert disclosures due March 3, 2026 and expert discovery to close April 27, 2026.
Why it matters for training data
This is the working template for US voice-cloning liability: copyright and trademark mostly fall away, and the case proceeds on state publicity rights, consumer-protection law and the contract under which the recordings were obtained. The lesson for data suppliers is that the acquisition promise is the exposure — “internal research only” recordings that end up in a commercial model create claims no fair-use argument reaches. Buyers of voice datasets and TTS products should treat per-speaker consent and use-scope documentation as the core diligence artifact, because every surviving claim turns on it.
Sources
- CourtListener docket, Lehrman v. Lovo
- Opinion of July 10, 2025 (PDF)
- Skadden analysis of the ruling
- Loeb & Loeb case summary
- Second amended complaint coverage
Deeper analysis
Want data that clears this in diligence?
Whether you're building a model or sitting on an archive, the first conversation is short and specific.
Send a brief