Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PAUL LEHRMAN and LINNEA SAGE, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
No.
CLASS ACTION
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
v.
LOVO, INC.,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, for their Complaint against Defendant Lovo, Inc.
(“LOVO”), state as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.
This is a class action brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and similarly situated
persons whose voices and/or identities were stolen and used by LOVO – to create
millions of voice-over productions – without permission or proper compensation, in
violation of numerous state right of privacy laws, and the federal Lanham Act. LOVO is
a technology company with proprietary software driven by artificial intelligence (AI)
that allows LOVO’s clients to create and edit voice-over narrations adapted from real
actors. To be clear, the product that customers purchase from LOVO is stolen property.
They are voices stolen by LOVO and marketed by LOVO under false pretenses: LOVO
represents that it has the legal right to market these voices, but it does not.Page 2 THE PARTIES
2.
Plaintiff Paul Lehrman is a resident of New York and is a voice-over
3.
Plaintiff Linnea Sage is a resident of New York and is a voice-over actor.
4.
Defendant Lovo, Inc. is a Delaware-incorporated corporation with a
actor.
principal address of 2150 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, California 94704.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
because this action arises under the laws of the United States; and under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332 because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive
of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states.
6.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant
regularly conducts business in New York County.
7.
In addition, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court may exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because all claims are derived from
a common nucleus of operative facts and are such that Plaintiffs would ordinarily
expect to try them in one judicial proceeding.
8.
In addition, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), this Court shall have original
jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which any
member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant
(28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A)).
9.
Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
substantial part of the events and omissions that give rise to the claims alleged herein
-2-Page 3 occurred in New York County, the principal injuries stemming from the violations
alleged herein occurred in the State of New York, and this Court has personal
jurisdiction over Defendant.
BACKGROUND
10.
The voice-over industry is estimated to generate more than $2 billion
annually in the United States, and more than $4 billion annually worldwide.
11.
Voice-overs, commonly known as narrations, are integral to various
industries, spanning entertainment, advertising, marketing, education, and other
corporate sectors. They serve as indispensable tools across a wide array of mediums,
including film and television, commercials, animation, audiobooks, e-learning,
corporate presentations, marketing presentations, educational videos, interactive voice
response (IVR) systems, podcasting, video games, documentaries, virtual assistants,
public announcements, dubbing, radio imaging, audio dramas, museum exhibits, phone
systems, language learning, medical narration, corporate training modules, websites,
sales pitches, and digital content. They are even used in venture capital funding
pitches.
12.
Traditionally, actors are hired to read scripts, which may be recorded in
outside studios or with the actor’s own equipment. The recordings are then edited,
changes or re-recordings produced, and a final recording is laid into the show or
presentation.
13.
The actors are paid a negotiated amount for the use of their voices, and
typically for the time spent recording the audio requested. The negotiated amount is a
function of the actor’s name, brand value, where, and in what medium the voice-over
will be used, and for how long it will be used. Payments typically include upfront fees,
-3-Page 4 royalties, residuals, or some combination of these payments. And there are other
potential fees required under Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television
and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) contracts.
14.
Actors like Plaintiffs get paid anywhere from $150 for a short recording
for a local television tag, to $2,000 for a one-time sales presentation, to $6,minimum for a 13-week run of a TV commercial, or more depending on the project.Established actors can typically make much more via residuals, and through daily fees
which can exceed $1,000 per day and can involve several weeks of work.
15.
Failure to pay the actor a negotiated and agreed-upon price for their
professional services – and often recognizable voice – is a violation of multiple statutes
and common law.
16.
Defendant LOVO, by its own admission, is attempting to disrupt and
“revolutionize” this traditional model. LOVO sells a text-to-speech subscription service
that allows its clients – typically companies – to generate voice-over narrations at a
fraction of the cost of the traditional model. LOVO does this by allowing subscribing
customers to upload a script into its AI-driven software known as “Generator” or
“Genny,” and generate a professional-quality voice-over based on certain criteria. For
example, LOVO customers can choose between – and designate their preference for –
male or female voices, regional accents, and older or younger-sounding voices.
See, e.g., Global Voice Acting Academy, GVAA Rate Guide,
https://globalvoiceacademy.com/gvaa-rate-guide-2/.
-4-Page 5 17.
As of January 2023, LOVO had created over 7 million voice-overs.2 In a
podcast, LOVO’s chief executive officer and co-founder Tom Lee explained how LOVO’s
synthetic speech platform works:
[I]magine … you have a real human voice, and we take that, and
clone that, and make it available as an option for you to turn any
text that you have into that voice. So, you can make that voice say
anything that you want, even if that person has never actually said
that before in their life.
18.
In that same 2023 podcast, Mr. Lee then stated that LOVO “only need[s] a
person to read 50 sentences. … We can capture the tone, the character, the style, the
phonemes, and if you have an accent, we can even capture that as well.”
19.
LOVO also promotes its service using barely-disguised images and names
of celebrities and states on its website, “Clone any voice.” Only deep in its website does
LOVO tell customers, “Mind you, you cannot use this cloned voice for imitation of
celebrities, so only use this tool for personal entertainment purposes!”
20.
LOVO purports to compensate voice actors. That may be true in some
cases. But Plaintiffs and other members of the class have received no revenue from the
continued unauthorized use of their voices by LOVO and LOVO clients.
21.
The benefit to the business subscriber of using LOVO’s service is
financial: they do not have to pay the actor the studio session, any residuals, royalties,
or fees – beyond the monthly subscription cost paid to LOVO.
22.
Implicit in LOVO’s offerings to its customers is that each voice-over actor
has agreed to LOVO’s terms and conditions for customers to be able to access that
Category Visionaries, Podcast, “Tom Lee, Co-Founder of LOVO AI: $7 Million Raised
to Build the Future of AI Voiceovers” (Jan. 2023).
-5-Page 6 actor’s voice. But for Plaintiffs and other members of the class who have not agreed to
LOVO’s terms, the continued unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ voices is theft of service
and misappropriation.
23.
Plaintiffs and many members of the class are members of SAG-AFTRA.
24.
On its website, LOVO represents to potential clients that it has
agreements with actors allowing LOVO to utilize those actors’ voices and compensating
them appropriately for that use. That may be true with respect to some actors, but it is
emphatically not true with respect to Plaintiffs: LOVO had no permission to use
Plaintiffs’ voices for training its AI Generator, to promote the LOVO service, or to
market voices based on Plaintiffs’ voices. And LOVO never compensated Plaintiffs for
any of LOVO’s unauthorized uses of Plaintiffs’ voices.
25.
Upon information and belief, LOVO has not entered into any agreement
with SAG-AFTRA pertaining to the employment of its members for voice-over services.
Those agreements are designed to protect the rights of SAG-AFTRA members – like
Plaintiffs Sage and Lehrman –who are required by SAG-AFTRA’s Global Rule 1 to
eschew jobs that are not covered by the union’s contract. By bypassing or ignoring the
terms of agreements between SAG-AFTRA and producers and/or companies that are
signatories to SAG-AFTRA agreements, LOVO endangers Plaintiffs’ livelihood. Using
Plaintiffs’ voices without their consent may put Plaintiffs in involuntary breach of their
union obligations and contracts.
26.
LOVO represents to its customers that LOVO is granting to the customer
full commercial rights for all content generated using its platform to users who
subscribe to any of its paid plans (Basic, Pro, Pro+, and Enterprise). Yet LOVO does not
-6-Page 7 legally own or control the rights it is purporting to give these customers – rights which
remain with the actors whose voices have been illegally cloned or otherwise
misappropriated.
27.
Indeed, any cost-avoidance completely depends upon the actor agreeing to
participate in LOVO’s scheme. Plaintiffs did not agree to LOVO’s terms and did not
grant LOVO any right to market their voices. In fact, Plaintiffs specifically rejected all
entreaties to participate in any AI-driven voice-related software. Moreover, LOVO
affirmatively misrepresented how Plaintiffs’ voices would be used. And yet, LOVO used
its proprietary software to appropriate, adapt, generate, steal, and market Plaintiffs’
voices.
DEFENDANT’S MISAPPROPRIATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ VOICES
Plaintiff Lehrman
28.
In May 2020 Mr. Lehrman was contacted via the Fiverr website to provide
voice-over narrative services.
29.
Fiverr.com is an online marketplace that connects freelancers with clients
looking for digital and creative services.
30.
Using the Fiverr platform, Mr. Lehrman communicated about the inquiry
with someone who can now only be identified as “User25199087” (because the account
has since been deleted).
31.
As Mr. Lehrman was preparing to upload the voice files requested by the
hiring company, on May 12, 2020, he asked User25199087, “In addition can you please
explain how the voiceovers will be used?”
-7-Page 8 32.
At 9:24 PM on May 12, 2020, User25199087 sent Mr. Lehrman a message:
“We are researching speech synthesis with different accents and voices. Your voiceover
will be used for academic research purposes only.”
33.
Mr. Lehrman wrote back to User25199087, “Great. Still working through
the scripts. Please guarantee that these scripts will not be used for anything other than
your specific research project. My curiosity is getting the best of me. What is the goal of
the research project?”
34.
User25199087 wrote back to Mr. Lehrman, “The scripts will not be used
for anything else - and I can’t yet tell you the goal, as it’s a confidential work in process
sorry haha.”
35.
Mr. Lehrman responded to User25199087, “That’s okay. Will my voice be
repurposed and used in a different order?”
36.
To which User25199087 wrote to Mr. Lehrman, “The script and your
finished file will be used for research purposes only.”
37.
Mr. Lehrman delivered the requested voice files via Fiverr and was paid
$1,200.
38.
In 2020, at the time of the online communications between Mr. Lehrman
and User25199087, neither Mr. Lehrman, most other class plaintiffs, nor the general
public had any idea what “speech synthesis” was. That Mr. Lehrman’s voice was being
used “for academic research purposes only” was a reasonable explanation. At no time
did User25199087 ever accurately represent that Mr. Lehrman’s voice would be used
for anything other than “academic research purposes” – certainly not for commercial
purposes.
-8-Page 9 39.
Several years later, Mr. Lehrman learned that User25199087 was an
employee of Defendant LOVO, and the company that reached out to and hired Mr.
Lehrman was LOVO.
40.
On March 28, 2022, Mr. Lehrman was approached by Fiverr and asked if
he would like to add an AI software option to his Fiverr profile. Mr. Lehrman was told
by the Fiverr executive that the AI software option would integrate software to his
profile and allow customers to hear what Mr. Lehrman’s voice could sound like if he
were to read a script.
41.
Mr. Lehrman declined the invitation to add that AI/software to his Fiverr
profile.
42.
Mr. Lehrman demonstrated to Fiverr that a user could easily produce
commercial audio without consent or compensation as well as create violent,
pornographic, or any unauthorized audio material without consent from the voice
actor.
43.
On or about April 6, 2022, Plaintiffs learned that iNTECH, a YouTube
channel (now called Military News) with more than 336,000 subscribers, had created
and was promoting videos about Russian military equipment that used Plaintiff
Lehrman’s AI-generated voice. To be clear: Mr. Lehrman never recorded the YouTube
videos; they were generated by a then-unidentified AI software without Mr. Lehrman’s
participation or approval.
44.
Concerned about the unauthorized replication of his voice on the YouTube
channel, Mr. Lehrman contacted the Fiverr executive who had approached him on
March 28, 2022, seeking help to identify the AI software used. The Fiverr executive
-9-Page 10 committed to consulting with Fiverr’s legal team as well as the AI company he had
partnered with for the AI profile software that had been offered, which Mr. Lehrman
had previously declined. The Fiverr executive identified this company as LOVO, a name
Mr. Lehrman was unfamiliar with at the time.
45.
Upon information and belief, iNTECH used LOVO’s software to
misappropriate and utilize Mr. Lehrman’s voice – without his permission or
compensation.
46.
Then, on or about June 13, 2023, Mr. Lehrman heard his voice being used
on a podcast episode of “Deadline Strike Talk.” Ironically, the episode was about the
dangers of AI technologies.
47.
Upon information and belief, the Deadline Strike Talk podcast that used
Mr. Lehrman’s voice was created by LOVO software. Mr. Lehrman never gave
permission to LOVO or to the Deadline Strike Talk podcast to use his voice, nor was he
ever compensated for that unauthorized use.
48.
It was not until August 30, 2023 that Mr. Lehrman learned that the
Fiverr client that requested his voice-over recording for research purposes in 2020 was
a LOVO employee. And that admission was only made by LOVO’s counsel after
Plaintiff’s counsel sent a cease-and-desist letter to LOVO’s counsel.
Plaintiff Sage
49.
On October 29, 2019, Plaintiff Sage was offered a job on the Fiverr
website to produce test scripts for radio ads.
50.
Before accepting the job offer, Ms. Sage asked what the voice recording
would be used for.
- 10 -Page 11 51.
Ms. Sage received a message from “tomlsg” at an anonymous company
offering the job stating, “These are test scripts for radio ads. They will not be disclosed
externally, and will only be consumed internally, so will not require rights of any sort.”
52.
Ms. Sage accepted the job and was paid $400.
53.
Upon information and belief, “tomlsg” was LOVO co-founder Tom Lee.
54.
Some years later, in June of 2023, Ms. Sage discovered that LOVO had
been using, manipulating, and editing her voice in promotional materials for Defendant
LOVO for many years, including but not limited to, in a five-minute investor
presentation at the Berkeley SkyDeck Demo Day Spring 2020 event, which was also
posted to YouTube (despite previous assurance that the use of Ms. Sage’s voice would
not be public). This event was used to help raise money for LOVO.
The examples of Ms. Sage’s actual voice and the LOVO-generated voice used by LOVO
can be heard starting at approximately 2:13 of the presentation. It can be accessed at
https://www.pollockcohen.com/media/SoundFiles/Lovo2020PitchatSkyDeck.mp4.
- 11 -Page 12 55.
Upon information and belief, LOVO has raised millions of dollars in
venture capital using Ms. Sage’s voice in unauthorized and uncompensated
presentations that showcase the LOVO technology.
56.
Plaintiff Sage never authorized LOVO to use her voice for public use, nor
was she aware of or ever compensated for its use.
DEFENDANT’S ONGOING AND IMPROPER USE OF PLAINTIFF LEHRMAN’S
VOICE
57.
In June of 2023, Mr. Lehrman began investigating whether his voice had
been used by LOVO or anyone else.
58.
LOVO used Mr. Lehrman’s voice to promote its Genny service without Mr.
Lehrman’s permission and without compensating him.This use of Plaintiff Lehrman’s voice as Kyle Snow can be heard at
https://www.pollockcohen.com/media/SoundFiles/GennyAdvertismentUsingPaulsVoice.
mp4.
- 12 -Page 13 59.
Mr. Lehrman learned that LOVO had been marketing his
misappropriated voice as part of its subscription service under the stage name “Kyle
Snow.” The Kyle Snow voice was, unquestionably, Mr. Lehrman’s voice.
60.
To be clear, LOVO never said “Kyle Snow” was Mr. Lehrman. Instead,
LOVO did something even more insidious: it created a fake character (Kyle Snow) and
animated it with Mr. Lehrman’s voice. LOVO stole Mr. Lehrman’s voice – his protected
property – and marketed and sold it as if it were its own. Mr. Lehrman was never
compensated for that use.
61.
Mr. Lehrman also found that LOVO had published an article on its
website entitled “5 Best Practices For Perfect Audio Advertising” – promoting LOVO’s
services – that featured Mr. Lehrman voice, and attributing that voice to “Kyle”.
https://www.pollockcohen.com/docs/5-Best-Practices-For-Perfect-Audio-Advertising-_LOVO-AI.pdf
- 13 -Page 14 62.
LOVO also promoted Mr. Lehrman’s voice as Kyle Snow and said it was
one of “The 5 Best Male Voices For Text To Speech.” The LOVO promotional piece
continued:
With his upbeat tone and slightly faster talking speed, Kyle Snow
has the perfect voice for conveying enthusiasm and youthfulness.
This makes him an ideal male voice generator text-to-speech option
for all kinds of content, from audiobooks and narrations to
commercials and social media.
His upbeat tone becomes even more enthusiastic and compelling if
you speed up his voice while his tone remains cheerful and
enthusiastic but takes on a clearer and more pronounced quality
when slowed down. This makes Kyle’s decelerated voice an excellent
choice for explainers and e-learning.
- 14 -Page 15 63.
Mr. Lehrman later learned that from 2021 to September 2023, his voice
was the default voice for the software.
- 15 -Page 16 64.
Mr. Lehrman never authorized LOVO to use or manipulate his voice for
LOVO’s service or any other use, nor did he authorize LOVO to connect his voice to the
stage name “Kyle Snow.” Mr. Lehrman was never made aware of nor compensated for
Defendant’s unauthorized usage of his voice.
65.
LOVO’s scheme not only unlawfully appropriated, used, sold, and
marketed Mr. Lehrman’s voice, but it interfered with his ability to earn a living. LOVO
knew that its scheme was in violation of the agreement that the Screen Actors Guild
had with various producers and other signatories, and it threatened Mr. Lehrman’s
(and other Plaintiffs’) relationship with SAG-AFTRA and those producers/signatories.
- 16 -Page 17 DEFENDANT’S ONGOING AND IMPROPER USE OF PLAINTIFF SAGE’S
VOICE
66.
Plaintiff Sage subsequently learned that her voice was marketed by
LOVO as part of its subscription business. LOVO promoted the availability of Ms.
Sage’s voice under the name “Sally Coleman.”
67.
To be clear, LOVO never explicitly stated that “Sally Coleman” was Ms.
Sage. Instead, LOVO did something even more insidious: it created a fake character,
“Sally Coleman,” and unlawfully animated it with Ms. Sage’s voice. LOVO stole Ms.
Sage’s voice – her protected property – and marketed it as if it were its own property
without her consent, infringing on Ms. Sage’s rights.
68.
Upon information and belief, LOVO also used Ms. Sage’s voice on its
website to demonstrate what the software was capable of and to promote its business.
69.
Ms. Sage never permitted LOVO to use her voice as part of its
subscription business.
70.
Ms. Sage was never compensated for LOVO’s improper use of her voice.
DEFENDANT’S UNAUTHORIZED USE OF PLAINTIFFS’ VOICES CONTINUES
71.
LOVO claims that its Genny voices were created using thousands of other
voices. The voice of “Kyle Snow” was undoubtedly the voice of Plaintiff Lehrman. The
voice of “Sally Coleman” was undoubtedly the voice of Plaintiff Sage. Upon information
and belief, the voices of other LOVO voice options are undoubtedly the voices of other
class Plaintiffs who neither gave their authorization to use their voice – for either
teaching Genny, use by LOVO, or sale by LOVO as part of its service – nor were
properly compensated.
- 17 -Page 18 72.
On August 18, 2023 and September 27, 2023, attorneys for Mr. Lehrman
and Ms. Sage contacted counsel for LOVO. Plaintiffs’ counsel demanded that LOVO
cease and desist from marketing, promoting, and offering Mr. Lehrman and Ms. Sage’s
voices.
73.
Counsel for LOVO responded, “Kyle Snow or Sally Coleman are not
popular and sales are negligible.”
74.
Defendant’s statements are untrue and belied by its own advertising:
Defendant listed Kyle Snow as one of its “The 5 Best Male Voices For Text to Speech.”
75.
Defendant wrote a glowing review of Ms. Sage’s voice on Fiverr, and
stated regarding Ms. Sage’s voice that, “Stellar is an understatement. We would
recommend her to anyone.”
- 18 -Page 19 76.
Defendant’s counsel informed Plaintiffs that their voices would be
removed from the LOVO service.
77.
Upon information and belief, that is not true. On August 30, 2023 LOVO’s
attorneys stated that Ms. Sage’s and Mr. Lehrman’s voices were removed. However,
Ms. Sage’s and Mr. Lehrman’s voice were still available to new customers through the
end of September 2023. And upon information and belief, Mr. Lehrman’s and Ms.
Sage’s voices are still available to any LOVO customer who previously downloaded the
voices for use in a project prior to the removal request.
- 19 -Page 20 78.
Moreover, even though Plaintiffs’ counsel directed Defendant to preserve
all documents related to this matter in the cease-and-desist letter, LOVO deleted
messages that were part of the Fiverr correspondence between Ms. Sage and the LOVO
representative.
DEFENDANT RECOGNIZES THE IMPROPER USAGE OF PLAINTIFFS’
VOICES
79.
Ironically, LOVO itself recognizes the threat of improper usage of
AI-generated voices. In 2019, co-founder Lee wrote in an article for Medium:
Some people are alarmed by the possibility of their voices being used
unbeknownst to them, or in malicious, illegal ways. Others are
concerned they are going to take away the jobs. While they are right
to be concerned, it shouldn’t be a divisive confrontation. Just like
how we must be wary of our images, names, affiliations, and
identities are used by ourselves or others, we must ensure that our
laws and ethics develop in step with the technology to create a safe
environment.80.
The founders of LOVO even created another company, VoiceVerse, which
sold voice NFTs (non-fungible tokens). The founders stated on a pitch website about
their “[v]ision”:
A person’s voice is uniquely linked to their identity. Once you hear
that person’s voice, it immediately reminds you of them, and
memories you had with them. Voice is personal. Voice brings out
emotion. Voice is unique. Voice is a powerful aspect of one’s identity.
Medium, “Voice Conversion: Definition, Technology, Usage & Concerns,” Orbis AI Inc.
(Sept. 13, 2019), https://medium.com/@tom_44446/voice-conversion-definitiontechnology-usage-concerns-8b8f103a343b
VoiceVerse Docs, “Vision,” docs.voiceverse.com/whitepaper/english/vision. Separately,
VoiceVerse has already been found to have stolen technology from another company.
See Ule Lopez, WCCF Tech, “Voiceverse NFT Service Reportedly Uses Stolen
Technology from 15ai,” (Jan. 16, 2022), https://wccftech.com/voiceverse-nft-service-usesstolen-technology-from-15ai/.
- 20 -Page 21 DEFENDANT’S IMPROPER USE OF CELEBRITY NAMES AND LIKENESSES
AND OTHER VOICES
81.
Defendant not only improperly appropriates the voices of the named
Plaintiffs who are “working actors” but not “celebrities”; Defendant also borrows the
name and likeness of some of the nation’s most well-known celebrities, including
Barack Obama (crudely represented as “Barack Yo Mama”), Conan O’Brien (“Cocoon
O’Brien”), and Elton John (“Elton John Cena”), to promote its services and show the
capabilities of the LOVO product.
82.
Defendant boasts that its Genny tool allows users to “[c]lone any voice and
create high-quality custom voice content,” and illustrates that capability with the
barely disguised names and images above.
- 21 -Page 22 83.
LOVO even used celebrity-cloned voices in its pitch to potential investors:
84.
LOVO boasts that it offers 600 voice options.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
85.
This action is brought by the Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of a
class (the “Class”) pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
86.
Plaintiffs seek certification of the following Class and Subclasses:
All persons whose voices were used by LOVO without permission or
proper compensation for the purpose of creating or refining its AI
text-to-speech generator; or whose AI-replicated voice was used,
licensed, or sold without authorization or appropriate compensation;
or whose name or stage name was used by LOVO to market its
services without authorization or proper compensation.
The Elton John clone begins at approximately 2:27,
https://www.pollockcohen.com/media/SoundFiles/Lovo2020PitchatSkyDeck.mp4.
- 22 -Page 23 87.
Excluded from the proposed Class are Defendant and its employees,
officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates,
and the judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff
assigned to this case, as well as all persons who make a timely election to be excluded
from the proposed class.
88.
Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or modify the class definition,
including as to subclasses and particular issue classes.
89.
Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The Class consists of many
hundreds and perhaps thousands of actors whose voices were used by LOVO without
authorization or proper compensation. LOVO has bragged that its proprietary
algorithm and machine-learning software, which it refers to as “Generator” or “Genny,”
was trained using data from thousands of voices and thousands of hours of recordings.
Those actors were not appropriately compensated for the use of their voices for training
an AI program. Some of those voices, such as those of Ms. Sage and Mr. Lehrman, were
not augmented by any other voices.
90.
Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The claims asserted by the Plaintiffs
are typical of the claims of the Class. At all relevant times, Defendant acquired voices
for Genny either by appropriating actors’ voices without their knowledge, or by
deceiving actors as to the true nature of the “academic research” project they were
signing up for when they agreed to provide voice recordings. Class members’ voices
were used either to train the AI program, or as unaltered options for LOVO customers
to use.
- 23 -Page 24 91.
Adequacy of representation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiffs will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and do not have any interests
antagonistic to those of other Class members. Plaintiffs have retained counsel
competent and experienced in class actions and consumer protection litigation, who are
competent to serve as Class Counsel. Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and
adequately protect the interest of the class members.
92.
Ascertainability. The identities and of Class members can be readily
ascertained from business records maintained by Defendant and/or self-authentication.
The precise number of class members can be ascertained from Defendant’s records.
Plaintiffs anticipate providing appropriate notice to the Class to be approved by the
Court after class certification, or pursuant to court order.
93.
Commonality and predominance. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2); 23(b)(3).
This action is appropriate as a class action because common questions of law and fact
affecting the class predominate over those questions affecting only individual members.
Those common questions include but are not limited to, the following:
a) Whether Defendant appropriated Plaintiffs’ voices for use in its
AI Generator without the express permission of the Plaintiffs in
violation of New York Civil Rights Law § 51, which states:
Any person whose name, portrait, picture or voice is used
within this state for advertising purposes or for the
purposes of trade without the consent first obtained[.]”
(emphasis added).
b) Whether Defendant appropriated Plaintiffs’ professional
identities to promote its Genny subscription service without the
express permission of Plaintiffs in violation of New York Civil
Rights Law § 51.
c) Whether Defendant violated New York General Business Law
(“GBL”) §§ 349 and/or 350 by promoting Plaintiffs’ voices and/or
likenesses which they did not have the lawful right to promote.
- 24 -Page 25 d) Whether Defendant violated Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C.
§ 1125(a), by engaging in conduct that falsely represents
Plaintiffs as consenting to the use of the LOVO Genny tool and
allowing their voices to be included in the LOVO voice library.
94.
Superiority. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). A class action is superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy for at least
the following reasons:
a) given the complexity of issues involved in this action, the expense
of litigating the claims, and the money at stake for any individual
Class member, few, if any, Class members could afford to seek
legal redress individually for the wrongs that Defendant has
committed against them;
b) the prosecution of thousands of separate actions by individual
members would risk inconsistency in adjudication and outcomes
that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for
Defendant and burden the courts;
c) when Defendant’s liability has been adjudicated, the Court can
determine claims of all Class members;
d) this action will cause an orderly and expeditious administration
of the Class claims and foster economies of time, effort, and
expense;
e) without a class action, many Class members would continue to
suffer injury while Defendant retains the substantial proceeds of
its wrongful conduct; and
f) this action does not present any undue difficulties that would
impede its management by the Court as a class action.
95.
Plaintiffs request that the Court afford Class members with notice and
the right to opt out of any Class certified in this action.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of New York Civil Rights Law Sections 50, 96.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in this Complaint and
restate them as if fully set forth herein.
- 25 -Page 26 97.
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
the proposed Class against Defendant for violations of the New York Civil Rights Law
Sections 50, 51.
98.
New York Civil Rights Law Section 51 imposes liability on a party for
misappropriating an actor’s voice “for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade
without ... written consent[.]”
99.
Plaintiffs are persons under the law.
100.
Defendant’s actions as set forth herein used Plaintiffs’ voices without
Plaintiffs’ consent in violation of New York Civil Rights Law Sections 50, 51.
101.
Plaintiffs have been injured by Defendant’s misappropriation in that they
did not receive appropriate compensation for the use of their voices; and their voices
and brands were harmed by the inferior voice quality generated by Defendant’s Genny
text-to-speech tool.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Deceptive Acts and Practices in Violation of the
New York Deceptive Practices Act, N.Y. GBL § 102.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in this Complaint and
restate them as if fully set forth herein.
103.
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
the proposed Class against Defendant for violations of the New York Deceptive
Practices Act. N.Y. GBL § 349.
104.
N.Y. GBL § 349 imposes liability on anyone who engages in “[d]eceptive
acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce or in the furnishing
of any service” in New York.
- 26 -Page 27 105.
Plaintiffs are “persons” under N.Y. GBL § 349(h).
106.
Defendant’s actions as set forth herein occurred in the conduct of
business, trade, or commerce under N.Y. GBL § 349(a).
107.
Defendant has engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that has misled and
harmed Plaintiffs. Defendant misrepresented to Plaintiffs what their voices would be
used for. LOVO told Plaintiffs that their voices would be used only for academic
research purposes.
108.
Defendant engaged in practices that were directed at consumers who
wanted to utilize the services of established voice-over actors or authorized AI-created
voices, and they thought they could do so affordably and legally. That was deceptive:
LOVO did not have the right to use Plaintiffs’ voices and it significantly harmed
Plaintiffs – not only by misappropriating their voices and their right to publicity and
failing to properly compensate Plaintiffs, but by depriving them of control of their own
brand. Defendant led consumers to believe that LOVO either had the rights to use and
offer actors’ voices; or that the voices offered were completely AI-generated and not
merely clones of real actors’ – Plaintiffs’ – voices. The consumers included individuals,
sole practitioners, and small businesses. They thought they were getting a more
affordable but legal deal – and thought they were getting authorized, affordable access
to established actors.
109.
In the course of business, Defendant made deceptive affirmative
misrepresentations and omissions to consumers by publishing and disseminating
misleading information that the Plaintiffs – or their recognizable voices – were
- 27 -Page 28 affiliated with LOVO and had given their consent to be included in LOVO’s product
offerings.
110.
These misrepresentations and omissions alleged herein were materially
misleading.
111.
The acts and practices alleged herein are deceptive acts and practices
covered under N.Y. GBL § 349 and have caused Plaintiffs and class members
significant ascertainable monetary and non-monetary injuries. Among other injuries,
Defendant’s deceptive acts and practices have caused significant monetary damages,
along with damages to Plaintiffs’ individual brands.
112.
Defendant willfully and knowingly violated N.Y. GBL § 349. It knew that
Plaintiffs had not given their consent for the use of their voices.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
False advertising in violation of the
New York False Advertising Act, N.Y. GBL § 113.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in this Complaint and
restate them as if fully set forth herein.
114.
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
the proposed Class against Defendant for violations of the New York False Advertising
Act, N.Y. GBL § 350.
115.
N.Y. GBL § 350 imposes liability on anyone who uses false advertising in
the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in
New York. “False” includes “advertising, including labeling of a commodity … if such
advertising is misleading in a material respect,” taking into account “the extent to
- 28 -Page 29 which the advertising fails to reveal facts material in light of … representations [made]
with respect to the commodity[.]” N.Y. GBL § 350(a).
116.
Defendant’s actions as set forth herein occurred in the conduct of
business, trade, or commerce under N.Y. GBL § 350.
117.
Defendant has engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that has misled and
harmed Plaintiffs. The actions and practices alleged herein were directed at consumers
who wished to utilize the services of established voice-over actors – or purely
AI-generated voices – and thought they were getting those services in an authorized
and affordable way.
118.
This false and deceptive advertising harmed Plaintiffs by diverting
legitimate away from them, and significantly harmed Plaintiffs – not only by
misappropriating their voices and their right to publicity and failing to appropriately
compensate Plaintiffs – but by depriving them of control of their own brand.
119.
A cause of action based upon false advertising is appropriate because the
Defendant utilized false advertising to mislead consumers into believing that Plaintiffs’
voices were available at a bargain price and without oversight of their brand.
120.
The false advertising alleged herein was materially misleading.
121.
The acts and practices alleged herein constitute false advertising covered
under N.Y. GBL § 350 and have caused millions of dollars in significant monetary
damages to Plaintiffs by diverting legitimate work from them and depreciating their
brands.
122.
Defendant willfully and knowingly violated N.Y. GBL § 350.
- 29 -Page 30 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Unfair Competition and False Affiliation in
Violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
123.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in this Complaint and
restate them as if fully set forth herein.
124.
Defendant’s conduct as set forth herein significantly impacts interstate
commerce and commerce within this district.
125.
Section 43 of the Lanham Act provides liability as to
Any person ... who uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol,
or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of
origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading
representation of fact, which—
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as
to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with
another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or
her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her
or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities … .
126.
As described more fully herein, Defendant has engaged in such conduct in
the promotion of its Genny voice-over product.
127.
This conduct has caused, and is likely to cause, mistake and deception as
to the affiliation, connection, or association of Plaintiffs and the other Class members,
with LOVO.
128.
Through this conduct, Defendant also misrepresents the nature and
characteristics of its catalog of available voices.
129.
This course of conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following:
a) confusing, or likely confusing, potential customers about the
existence of any business affiliation between Plaintiffs and Class
- 30 -Page 31 members with LOVO, and the ability to directly purchase
Plaintiffs’ services with the LOVO Genny subscription;
b) misrepresenting that Plaintiffs and the Class members have a
consensual business partnership with LOVO and are part of its
catalog of available voices;
c) misrepresenting that customers may use LOVO to directly
purchase Plaintiffs’ services;
d) failing to inform LOVO customers that Plaintiffs and the Class
members have not consented to offer their professional services
through LOVO;
e) failing to inform LOVO customers that the LOVO subscription
service cannot be used in place of other payment methods to pay
for services provided by Plaintiffs and the Class members;
f) harming the reputations of Plaintiffs and the Class members by
falsely affiliating them with LOVO;
g) harming the reputations of Plaintiffs and the Class members by
refusing to completely remove them from the LOVO website after
they have requested disaffiliation; and
h) stealing potential customers from Plaintiffs and the Class
members by diverting them to purchase services from the LOVO
subscription service, rather than directly transact with Plaintiffs
and the Class members.
130.
The false and misleading statements and omissions described herein are
material because they are intended to have an impact on whether consumers or
businesses become LOVO customers and on whether those consumers or businesses
choose to join the LOVO subscription service.
131.
The false and misleading statements and omissions described herein
actually deceive or have the tendency to deceive potential customers of Plaintiffs and
class members.
132.
Defendant’s conduct, as described herein, constitutes a violation of the
Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
- 31 -Page 32 133.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violations and false and
misleading statements and omissions described herein, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117,
Plaintiffs and the class members have been, or are likely to be, damaged. Plaintiffs and
the Class are therefore entitled to recover from Defendant all profits, gains, and
advantages obtained stemming from this improper conduct.
134.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Plaintiffs are further entitled to recover the
costs of this action. Defendant’s conduct was knowing, characterized by malicious
intent, and explicitly designed to deceive the general public to reap profits unjustly at
the expense of Plaintiffs and the Class, entitling Plaintiffs to a statutory multiplier of
actual damages, additional damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
False Advertising in Violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
135.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in this Complaint and
restate them as if fully set forth herein.
136.
Defendant’s conduct as set forth herein significantly impacts interstate
commerce and commerce within this District.
137.
As described more fully herein, Defendant has engaged in a course of
conduct with respect to the advertising of its LOVO directory of available actors that
contains false and/or misleading statements of fact, or omissions of essential facts,
including those about Plaintiffs and class members, who did not consent to partner with
LOVO.
138.
These false and/or misleading statements, or omissions of material facts,
include, but are not limited to, the following:
- 32 -Page 33 a) confusing, or likely confusing, potential customers of Plaintiffs
and the Class members as to Plaintiffs’ and the Class members’
affiliation with LOVO and the ability to use the LOVO service in
place of traditional access to these actors;
b) misrepresenting that Plaintiffs and the Class members have
partnered with LOVO and that their voices are available through
the LOVO subscription service;
c) misrepresenting that the goods and services offered by Plaintiffs
and the Class members may be paid for directly through the
LOVO subscription service;
d) failing to inform LOVO customers that Plaintiffs and the Class
members are in no way affiliated with the LOVO subscription
service;
e) failing to inform LOVO customers that the LOVO subscription
service cannot be used to pay for the professional services of the
Plaintiffs and the Class members;
f) misrepresenting the number of actors accessible through the
LOVO subscription service to convince customers and other
actors to participate in the LOVO subscription service;
g) harming the reputations of Plaintiffs and the Class members by
falsely affiliating them with LOVO;
h) harming the reputations of Plaintiffs and the Class members by
refusing to remove actors’ voices from the LOVO website who
have requested disaffiliation; and
i) stealing potential customers from Plaintiffs and the Class
members by diverting them to purchase a misleading LOVO
subscription rather than directly transact with Plaintiffs and the
Class members.
139.
The false and misleading statements and omissions described herein are
material and are intended to have an impact on whether consumers purchase the
LOVO subscription service.
140.
The false and misleading statements and omissions described herein
actually deceive or have the tendency to deceive potential customers of Plaintiffs and
the Class members.
- 33 -Page 34 141.
Defendant’s conduct as described herein constitutes a violation of Lanham
Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
142.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation and false and
misleading statements and omissions described herein, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117,
Plaintiffs and the Class have been or are likely to be damaged. Plaintiffs and the Class
are likewise entitled to recover from Defendant all profits, gains, and advantages
obtained during the execution of this improper conduct.
143.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Plaintiffs are further entitled to recover the
costs of this action. Defendant’s conduct was knowing, characterized by malicious
intent, and explicitly designed to deceive the general public to unjustly reap profits at
the expense of Plaintiffs and the Class, entitling Plaintiffs to a statutory multiplier of
actual damages, additional damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Unjust Enrichment
144.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in this Complaint and
restate them as if fully set forth herein.
145.
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
the proposed Class against Defendant for unjust enrichment.
146.
Defendant appropriated Plaintiff’s voices without Plaintiffs’ permission
and then marketed AI-generated versions of Plaintiffs’ voices as part of Defendant’s
business, receiving millions of dollars in revenue – without ever properly compensating
Plaintiffs.
147.
Defendant also used Plaintiffs’ voices – without permission or
compensation – to raise millions of dollars in venture capital.
- 34 -Page 35 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Tortious Interference with Advantageous Business Relationship
148.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in this Complaint and
restate them as if fully set forth herein.
149.
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
the proposed Class against Defendant for tortious interference.
150.
Defendant interfered in the business relationships Plaintiffs had with
SAG-AFTRA – specifically the requirement to abide by union rules – and with those
producers (including but not limited to studios, networks, corporations, and others
engaged in voice-over production) who were signatories to SAG-AFTRA agreements and
contracts.
151.
LOVO was aware of these SAG-AFTRA agreements and contracts with
Plaintiffs and other voice-over actors.
152.
LOVO acted with malice and utilized improper and illegal means to
utilize Plaintiffs’ voices without their permission, consent, or actual compensation to
build its Generator and market its service.
153.
This improper and illegal allocation of Plaintiffs’ voices caused Plaintiffs
harm with both SAG-AFTRA and the producers/signatories, threatening Plaintiffs’
relationship with SAG-AFTRA and the producers/signatories, threatening their
membership in SAG-AFTRA, depriving them of work and income, and devaluing their
personal brands and reputations.
- 35 -Page 36 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Fraud
154.
LOVO committed fraud by materially misrepresenting to Plaintiffs
Lehrman and Sage, and other members of the Class, what would be the ultimate uses
for their voice-over recordings.
155.
Moreover, LOVO omitted to tell Plaintiffs that their voice recordings
would be used for promotion of LOVO’s services and as available voice options on the
LOVO website.
156.
Defendant knew what the use would be of the voice recordings, including
that it would be used for promotion of LOVO and as options for the LOVO website.
157.
Defendant intended to defraud Plaintiffs and the Class.
158.
Plaintiffs reasonably relied on these material misrepresentations; indeed,
Plaintiffs confirmed that the voice recordings would only be used for academic, and not
public, purposes.
159.
Plaintiffs were damaged by these misrepresentations. Plaintiffs and the
Class have not been fully compensated for the use of their voices by LOVO and have
suffered from the degradation of their services. They would not have given permission
for their voices to be used had they known the truth.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed Class,
request relief and judgment against Defendant as follows:
A.
certifying the Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class,
and designating Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class Counsel;
- 36 -Page 37 B.
awarding Plaintiffs and the Class compensatory damages and
actual damages, trebled, in an amount exceeding $5,000,000, to be
determined by proof;
C.
awarding Plaintiffs and the Class appropriate relief, including
actual and statutory damages;
D.
awarding Plaintiffs and the Class punitive damages;
E.
awarding Plaintiffs and the Class civil penalties;
F.
granting Plaintiffs and the Class declaratory and equitable relief,
including restitution and disgorgement;
G.
enjoining Defendant from continuing to engage in the wrongful
acts and practices alleged herein;
H.
awarding Plaintiffs and the Class the costs of prosecuting this
action, including expert witness fees;
I.
awarding Plaintiffs and the Class reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs as allowable by law;
J.
awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and
K.
granting any other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: New York, New York
May 16, Respectfully submitted,
By:
/s/ Steve Cohen
Steve Cohen
Anna Menkova
POLLOCK COHEN LLP
111 Broadway, Suite New York, NY Tel: (212) 337-SCohen@pollockcohen.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and
the Proposed Class
- 37 -
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 1 of 37
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PAUL LEHRMAN and LINNEA SAGE, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
No.
CLASS ACTION
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
v.
LOVO, INC.,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, for their Complaint against Defendant Lovo, Inc.
(“LOVO”), state as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.
This is a class action brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and similarly situated
persons whose voices and/or identities were stolen and used by LOVO – to create
millions of voice-over productions – without permission or proper compensation, in
violation of numerous state right of privacy laws, and the federal Lanham Act. LOVO is
a technology company with proprietary software driven by artificial intelligence (AI)
that allows LOVO’s clients to create and edit voice-over narrations adapted from real
actors. To be clear, the product that customers purchase from LOVO is stolen property.
They are voices stolen by LOVO and marketed by LOVO under false pretenses: LOVO
represents that it has the legal right to market these voices, but it does not.
PDF Page 3
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 2 of 37
THE PARTIES
2.
Plaintiff Paul Lehrman is a resident of New York and is a voice-over
3.
Plaintiff Linnea Sage is a resident of New York and is a voice-over actor.
4.
Defendant Lovo, Inc. is a Delaware-incorporated corporation with a
actor.
principal address of 2150 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, California 94704.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
because this action arises under the laws of the United States; and under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332 because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive
of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states.
6.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant
regularly conducts business in New York County.
7.
In addition, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court may exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because all claims are derived from
a common nucleus of operative facts and are such that Plaintiffs would ordinarily
expect to try them in one judicial proceeding.
8.
In addition, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), this Court shall have original
jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which any
member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant
(28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A)).
9.
Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
substantial part of the events and omissions that give rise to the claims alleged herein
-2-
PDF Page 4
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 3 of 37
occurred in New York County, the principal injuries stemming from the violations
alleged herein occurred in the State of New York, and this Court has personal
jurisdiction over Defendant.
BACKGROUND
10.
The voice-over industry is estimated to generate more than $2 billion
annually in the United States, and more than $4 billion annually worldwide.
11.
Voice-overs, commonly known as narrations, are integral to various
industries, spanning entertainment, advertising, marketing, education, and other
corporate sectors. They serve as indispensable tools across a wide array of mediums,
including film and television, commercials, animation, audiobooks, e-learning,
corporate presentations, marketing presentations, educational videos, interactive voice
response (IVR) systems, podcasting, video games, documentaries, virtual assistants,
public announcements, dubbing, radio imaging, audio dramas, museum exhibits, phone
systems, language learning, medical narration, corporate training modules, websites,
sales pitches, and digital content. They are even used in venture capital funding
pitches.
12.
Traditionally, actors are hired to read scripts, which may be recorded in
outside studios or with the actor’s own equipment. The recordings are then edited,
changes or re-recordings produced, and a final recording is laid into the show or
presentation.
13.
The actors are paid a negotiated amount for the use of their voices, and
typically for the time spent recording the audio requested. The negotiated amount is a
function of the actor’s name, brand value, where, and in what medium the voice-over
will be used, and for how long it will be used. Payments typically include upfront fees,
-3-
PDF Page 5
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 4 of 37
royalties, residuals, or some combination of these payments. And there are other
potential fees required under Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television
and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) contracts.
14.
Actors like Plaintiffs get paid anywhere from $150 for a short recording
for a local television tag, to $2,000 for a one-time sales presentation, to $6,000
minimum for a 13-week run of a TV commercial, or more depending on the project.1
Established actors can typically make much more via residuals, and through daily fees
which can exceed $1,000 per day and can involve several weeks of work.
15.
Failure to pay the actor a negotiated and agreed-upon price for their
professional services – and often recognizable voice – is a violation of multiple statutes
and common law.
16.
Defendant LOVO, by its own admission, is attempting to disrupt and
“revolutionize” this traditional model. LOVO sells a text-to-speech subscription service
that allows its clients – typically companies – to generate voice-over narrations at a
fraction of the cost of the traditional model. LOVO does this by allowing subscribing
customers to upload a script into its AI-driven software known as “Generator” or
“Genny,” and generate a professional-quality voice-over based on certain criteria. For
example, LOVO customers can choose between – and designate their preference for –
male or female voices, regional accents, and older or younger-sounding voices.
See, e.g., Global Voice Acting Academy, GVAA Rate Guide,
https://globalvoiceacademy.com/gvaa-rate-guide-2/.
1
-4-
PDF Page 6
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 5 of 37
17.
As of January 2023, LOVO had created over 7 million voice-overs.2 In a
podcast, LOVO’s chief executive officer and co-founder Tom Lee explained how LOVO’s
synthetic speech platform works:
[I]magine … you have a real human voice, and we take that, and
clone that, and make it available as an option for you to turn any
text that you have into that voice. So, you can make that voice say
anything that you want, even if that person has never actually said
that before in their life.
18.
In that same 2023 podcast, Mr. Lee then stated that LOVO “only need[s] a
person to read 50 sentences. … We can capture the tone, the character, the style, the
phonemes, and if you have an accent, we can even capture that as well.”
19.
LOVO also promotes its service using barely-disguised images and names
of celebrities and states on its website, “Clone any voice.” Only deep in its website does
LOVO tell customers, “Mind you, you cannot use this cloned voice for imitation of
celebrities, so only use this tool for personal entertainment purposes!”
20.
LOVO purports to compensate voice actors. That may be true in some
cases. But Plaintiffs and other members of the class have received no revenue from the
continued unauthorized use of their voices by LOVO and LOVO clients.
21.
The benefit to the business subscriber of using LOVO’s service is
financial: they do not have to pay the actor the studio session, any residuals, royalties,
or fees – beyond the monthly subscription cost paid to LOVO.
22.
Implicit in LOVO’s offerings to its customers is that each voice-over actor
has agreed to LOVO’s terms and conditions for customers to be able to access that
Category Visionaries, Podcast, “Tom Lee, Co-Founder of LOVO AI: $7 Million Raised
to Build the Future of AI Voiceovers” (Jan. 2023).
2
-5-
PDF Page 7
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 6 of 37
actor’s voice. But for Plaintiffs and other members of the class who have not agreed to
LOVO’s terms, the continued unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ voices is theft of service
and misappropriation.
23.
Plaintiffs and many members of the class are members of SAG-AFTRA.
24.
On its website, LOVO represents to potential clients that it has
agreements with actors allowing LOVO to utilize those actors’ voices and compensating
them appropriately for that use. That may be true with respect to some actors, but it is
emphatically not true with respect to Plaintiffs: LOVO had no permission to use
Plaintiffs’ voices for training its AI Generator, to promote the LOVO service, or to
market voices based on Plaintiffs’ voices. And LOVO never compensated Plaintiffs for
any of LOVO’s unauthorized uses of Plaintiffs’ voices.
25.
Upon information and belief, LOVO has not entered into any agreement
with SAG-AFTRA pertaining to the employment of its members for voice-over services.
Those agreements are designed to protect the rights of SAG-AFTRA members – like
Plaintiffs Sage and Lehrman –who are required by SAG-AFTRA’s Global Rule 1 to
eschew jobs that are not covered by the union’s contract. By bypassing or ignoring the
terms of agreements between SAG-AFTRA and producers and/or companies that are
signatories to SAG-AFTRA agreements, LOVO endangers Plaintiffs’ livelihood. Using
Plaintiffs’ voices without their consent may put Plaintiffs in involuntary breach of their
union obligations and contracts.
26.
LOVO represents to its customers that LOVO is granting to the customer
full commercial rights for all content generated using its platform to users who
subscribe to any of its paid plans (Basic, Pro, Pro+, and Enterprise). Yet LOVO does not
-6-
PDF Page 8
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 7 of 37
legally own or control the rights it is purporting to give these customers – rights which
remain with the actors whose voices have been illegally cloned or otherwise
misappropriated.
27.
Indeed, any cost-avoidance completely depends upon the actor agreeing to
participate in LOVO’s scheme. Plaintiffs did not agree to LOVO’s terms and did not
grant LOVO any right to market their voices. In fact, Plaintiffs specifically rejected all
entreaties to participate in any AI-driven voice-related software. Moreover, LOVO
affirmatively misrepresented how Plaintiffs’ voices would be used. And yet, LOVO used
its proprietary software to appropriate, adapt, generate, steal, and market Plaintiffs’
voices.
DEFENDANT’S MISAPPROPRIATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ VOICES
Plaintiff Lehrman
28.
In May 2020 Mr. Lehrman was contacted via the Fiverr website to provide
voice-over narrative services.
29.
Fiverr.com is an online marketplace that connects freelancers with clients
looking for digital and creative services.
30.
Using the Fiverr platform, Mr. Lehrman communicated about the inquiry
with someone who can now only be identified as “User25199087” (because the account
has since been deleted).
31.
As Mr. Lehrman was preparing to upload the voice files requested by the
hiring company, on May 12, 2020, he asked User25199087, “In addition can you please
explain how the voiceovers will be used?”
-7-
PDF Page 9
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 8 of 37
32.
At 9:24 PM on May 12, 2020, User25199087 sent Mr. Lehrman a message:
“We are researching speech synthesis with different accents and voices. Your voiceover
will be used for academic research purposes only.”
33.
Mr. Lehrman wrote back to User25199087, “Great. Still working through
the scripts. Please guarantee that these scripts will not be used for anything other than
your specific research project. My curiosity is getting the best of me. What is the goal of
the research project?”
34.
User25199087 wrote back to Mr. Lehrman, “The scripts will not be used
for anything else - and I can’t yet tell you the goal, as it’s a confidential work in process
sorry haha.”
35.
Mr. Lehrman responded to User25199087, “That’s okay. Will my voice be
repurposed and used in a different order?”
36.
To which User25199087 wrote to Mr. Lehrman, “The script and your
finished file will be used for research purposes only.”
37.
Mr. Lehrman delivered the requested voice files via Fiverr and was paid
$1,200.
38.
In 2020, at the time of the online communications between Mr. Lehrman
and User25199087, neither Mr. Lehrman, most other class plaintiffs, nor the general
public had any idea what “speech synthesis” was. That Mr. Lehrman’s voice was being
used “for academic research purposes only” was a reasonable explanation. At no time
did User25199087 ever accurately represent that Mr. Lehrman’s voice would be used
for anything other than “academic research purposes” – certainly not for commercial
purposes.
-8-
PDF Page 10
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 9 of 37
39.
Several years later, Mr. Lehrman learned that User25199087 was an
employee of Defendant LOVO, and the company that reached out to and hired Mr.
Lehrman was LOVO.
40.
On March 28, 2022, Mr. Lehrman was approached by Fiverr and asked if
he would like to add an AI software option to his Fiverr profile. Mr. Lehrman was told
by the Fiverr executive that the AI software option would integrate software to his
profile and allow customers to hear what Mr. Lehrman’s voice could sound like if he
were to read a script.
41.
Mr. Lehrman declined the invitation to add that AI/software to his Fiverr
profile.
42.
Mr. Lehrman demonstrated to Fiverr that a user could easily produce
commercial audio without consent or compensation as well as create violent,
pornographic, or any unauthorized audio material without consent from the voice
actor.
43.
On or about April 6, 2022, Plaintiffs learned that iNTECH, a YouTube
channel (now called Military News) with more than 336,000 subscribers, had created
and was promoting videos about Russian military equipment that used Plaintiff
Lehrman’s AI-generated voice. To be clear: Mr. Lehrman never recorded the YouTube
videos; they were generated by a then-unidentified AI software without Mr. Lehrman’s
participation or approval.
44.
Concerned about the unauthorized replication of his voice on the YouTube
channel, Mr. Lehrman contacted the Fiverr executive who had approached him on
March 28, 2022, seeking help to identify the AI software used. The Fiverr executive
-9-
PDF Page 11
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 10 of 37
committed to consulting with Fiverr’s legal team as well as the AI company he had
partnered with for the AI profile software that had been offered, which Mr. Lehrman
had previously declined. The Fiverr executive identified this company as LOVO, a name
Mr. Lehrman was unfamiliar with at the time.
45.
Upon information and belief, iNTECH used LOVO’s software to
misappropriate and utilize Mr. Lehrman’s voice – without his permission or
compensation.
46.
Then, on or about June 13, 2023, Mr. Lehrman heard his voice being used
on a podcast episode of “Deadline Strike Talk.” Ironically, the episode was about the
dangers of AI technologies.
47.
Upon information and belief, the Deadline Strike Talk podcast that used
Mr. Lehrman’s voice was created by LOVO software. Mr. Lehrman never gave
permission to LOVO or to the Deadline Strike Talk podcast to use his voice, nor was he
ever compensated for that unauthorized use.
48.
It was not until August 30, 2023 that Mr. Lehrman learned that the
Fiverr client that requested his voice-over recording for research purposes in 2020 was
a LOVO employee. And that admission was only made by LOVO’s counsel after
Plaintiff’s counsel sent a cease-and-desist letter to LOVO’s counsel.
Plaintiff Sage
49.
On October 29, 2019, Plaintiff Sage was offered a job on the Fiverr
website to produce test scripts for radio ads.
50.
Before accepting the job offer, Ms. Sage asked what the voice recording
would be used for.
- 10 -
PDF Page 12
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 11 of 37
51.
Ms. Sage received a message from “tomlsg” at an anonymous company
offering the job stating, “These are test scripts for radio ads. They will not be disclosed
externally, and will only be consumed internally, so will not require rights of any sort.”
52.
Ms. Sage accepted the job and was paid $400.
53.
Upon information and belief, “tomlsg” was LOVO co-founder Tom Lee.
54.
Some years later, in June of 2023, Ms. Sage discovered that LOVO had
been using, manipulating, and editing her voice in promotional materials for Defendant
LOVO for many years, including but not limited to, in a five-minute investor
presentation at the Berkeley SkyDeck Demo Day Spring 2020 event, which was also
posted to YouTube (despite previous assurance that the use of Ms. Sage’s voice would
not be public). This event was used to help raise money for LOVO.3
The examples of Ms. Sage’s actual voice and the LOVO-generated voice used by LOVO
can be heard starting at approximately 2:13 of the presentation. It can be accessed at
https://www.pollockcohen.com/media/SoundFiles/Lovo2020PitchatSkyDeck.mp4.
3
- 11 -
PDF Page 13
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 12 of 37
55.
Upon information and belief, LOVO has raised millions of dollars in
venture capital using Ms. Sage’s voice in unauthorized and uncompensated
presentations that showcase the LOVO technology.
56.
Plaintiff Sage never authorized LOVO to use her voice for public use, nor
was she aware of or ever compensated for its use.
DEFENDANT’S ONGOING AND IMPROPER USE OF PLAINTIFF LEHRMAN’S
VOICE
57.
In June of 2023, Mr. Lehrman began investigating whether his voice had
been used by LOVO or anyone else.
58.
LOVO used Mr. Lehrman’s voice to promote its Genny service without Mr.
Lehrman’s permission and without compensating him.4
This use of Plaintiff Lehrman’s voice as Kyle Snow can be heard at
https://www.pollockcohen.com/media/SoundFiles/GennyAdvertismentUsingPaulsVoice.
mp4.
4
- 12 -
PDF Page 14
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 13 of 37
59.
Mr. Lehrman learned that LOVO had been marketing his
misappropriated voice as part of its subscription service under the stage name “Kyle
Snow.” The Kyle Snow voice was, unquestionably, Mr. Lehrman’s voice.
60.
To be clear, LOVO never said “Kyle Snow” was Mr. Lehrman. Instead,
LOVO did something even more insidious: it created a fake character (Kyle Snow) and
animated it with Mr. Lehrman’s voice. LOVO stole Mr. Lehrman’s voice – his protected
property – and marketed and sold it as if it were its own. Mr. Lehrman was never
compensated for that use.
61.
Mr. Lehrman also found that LOVO had published an article on its
website entitled “5 Best Practices For Perfect Audio Advertising” – promoting LOVO’s
services – that featured Mr. Lehrman voice, and attributing that voice to “Kyle”.5
https://www.pollockcohen.com/docs/5-Best-Practices-For-Perfect-Audio-Advertising-_LOVO-AI.pdf
5
- 13 -
PDF Page 15
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 14 of 37
62.
LOVO also promoted Mr. Lehrman’s voice as Kyle Snow and said it was
one of “The 5 Best Male Voices For Text To Speech.” The LOVO promotional piece
continued:
With his upbeat tone and slightly faster talking speed, Kyle Snow
has the perfect voice for conveying enthusiasm and youthfulness.
This makes him an ideal male voice generator text-to-speech option
for all kinds of content, from audiobooks and narrations to
commercials and social media.
His upbeat tone becomes even more enthusiastic and compelling if
you speed up his voice while his tone remains cheerful and
enthusiastic but takes on a clearer and more pronounced quality
when slowed down. This makes Kyle’s decelerated voice an excellent
choice for explainers and e-learning.
- 14 -
PDF Page 16
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 15 of 37
63.
Mr. Lehrman later learned that from 2021 to September 2023, his voice
was the default voice for the software.
- 15 -
PDF Page 17
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 16 of 37
64.
Mr. Lehrman never authorized LOVO to use or manipulate his voice for
LOVO’s service or any other use, nor did he authorize LOVO to connect his voice to the
stage name “Kyle Snow.” Mr. Lehrman was never made aware of nor compensated for
Defendant’s unauthorized usage of his voice.
65.
LOVO’s scheme not only unlawfully appropriated, used, sold, and
marketed Mr. Lehrman’s voice, but it interfered with his ability to earn a living. LOVO
knew that its scheme was in violation of the agreement that the Screen Actors Guild
had with various producers and other signatories, and it threatened Mr. Lehrman’s
(and other Plaintiffs’) relationship with SAG-AFTRA and those producers/signatories.
- 16 -
PDF Page 18
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 17 of 37
DEFENDANT’S ONGOING AND IMPROPER USE OF PLAINTIFF SAGE’S
VOICE
66.
Plaintiff Sage subsequently learned that her voice was marketed by
LOVO as part of its subscription business. LOVO promoted the availability of Ms.
Sage’s voice under the name “Sally Coleman.”
67.
To be clear, LOVO never explicitly stated that “Sally Coleman” was Ms.
Sage. Instead, LOVO did something even more insidious: it created a fake character,
“Sally Coleman,” and unlawfully animated it with Ms. Sage’s voice. LOVO stole Ms.
Sage’s voice – her protected property – and marketed it as if it were its own property
without her consent, infringing on Ms. Sage’s rights.
68.
Upon information and belief, LOVO also used Ms. Sage’s voice on its
website to demonstrate what the software was capable of and to promote its business.
69.
Ms. Sage never permitted LOVO to use her voice as part of its
subscription business.
70.
Ms. Sage was never compensated for LOVO’s improper use of her voice.
DEFENDANT’S UNAUTHORIZED USE OF PLAINTIFFS’ VOICES CONTINUES
71.
LOVO claims that its Genny voices were created using thousands of other
voices. The voice of “Kyle Snow” was undoubtedly the voice of Plaintiff Lehrman. The
voice of “Sally Coleman” was undoubtedly the voice of Plaintiff Sage. Upon information
and belief, the voices of other LOVO voice options are undoubtedly the voices of other
class Plaintiffs who neither gave their authorization to use their voice – for either
teaching Genny, use by LOVO, or sale by LOVO as part of its service – nor were
properly compensated.
- 17 -
PDF Page 19
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 18 of 37
72.
On August 18, 2023 and September 27, 2023, attorneys for Mr. Lehrman
and Ms. Sage contacted counsel for LOVO. Plaintiffs’ counsel demanded that LOVO
cease and desist from marketing, promoting, and offering Mr. Lehrman and Ms. Sage’s
voices.
73.
Counsel for LOVO responded, “Kyle Snow or Sally Coleman are not
popular and sales are negligible.”
74.
Defendant’s statements are untrue and belied by its own advertising:
Defendant listed Kyle Snow as one of its “The 5 Best Male Voices For Text to Speech.”
75.
Defendant wrote a glowing review of Ms. Sage’s voice on Fiverr, and
stated regarding Ms. Sage’s voice that, “Stellar is an understatement. We would
recommend her to anyone.”
- 18 -
PDF Page 20
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 19 of 37
76.
Defendant’s counsel informed Plaintiffs that their voices would be
removed from the LOVO service.
77.
Upon information and belief, that is not true. On August 30, 2023 LOVO’s
attorneys stated that Ms. Sage’s and Mr. Lehrman’s voices were removed. However,
Ms. Sage’s and Mr. Lehrman’s voice were still available to new customers through the
end of September 2023. And upon information and belief, Mr. Lehrman’s and Ms.
Sage’s voices are still available to any LOVO customer who previously downloaded the
voices for use in a project prior to the removal request.
- 19 -
PDF Page 21
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 20 of 37
78.
Moreover, even though Plaintiffs’ counsel directed Defendant to preserve
all documents related to this matter in the cease-and-desist letter, LOVO deleted
messages that were part of the Fiverr correspondence between Ms. Sage and the LOVO
representative.
DEFENDANT RECOGNIZES THE IMPROPER USAGE OF PLAINTIFFS’
VOICES
79.
Ironically, LOVO itself recognizes the threat of improper usage of
AI-generated voices. In 2019, co-founder Lee wrote in an article for Medium:
Some people are alarmed by the possibility of their voices being used
unbeknownst to them, or in malicious, illegal ways. Others are
concerned they are going to take away the jobs. While they are right
to be concerned, it shouldn’t be a divisive confrontation. Just like
how we must be wary of our images, names, affiliations, and
identities are used by ourselves or others, we must ensure that our
laws and ethics develop in step with the technology to create a safe
environment.6
80.
The founders of LOVO even created another company, VoiceVerse, which
sold voice NFTs (non-fungible tokens). The founders stated on a pitch website about
their “[v]ision”:
A person’s voice is uniquely linked to their identity. Once you hear
that person’s voice, it immediately reminds you of them, and
memories you had with them. Voice is personal. Voice brings out
emotion. Voice is unique. Voice is a powerful aspect of one’s identity.7
Medium, “Voice Conversion: Definition, Technology, Usage & Concerns,” Orbis AI Inc.
(Sept. 13, 2019), https://medium.com/@tom_44446/voice-conversion-definitiontechnology-usage-concerns-8b8f103a343b
6
VoiceVerse Docs, “Vision,” docs.voiceverse.com/whitepaper/english/vision. Separately,
VoiceVerse has already been found to have stolen technology from another company.
See Ule Lopez, WCCF Tech, “Voiceverse NFT Service Reportedly Uses Stolen
Technology from 15ai,” (Jan. 16, 2022), https://wccftech.com/voiceverse-nft-service-usesstolen-technology-from-15ai/.
7
- 20 -
PDF Page 22
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 21 of 37
DEFENDANT’S IMPROPER USE OF CELEBRITY NAMES AND LIKENESSES
AND OTHER VOICES
81.
Defendant not only improperly appropriates the voices of the named
Plaintiffs who are “working actors” but not “celebrities”; Defendant also borrows the
name and likeness of some of the nation’s most well-known celebrities, including
Barack Obama (crudely represented as “Barack Yo Mama”), Conan O’Brien (“Cocoon
O’Brien”), and Elton John (“Elton John Cena”), to promote its services and show the
capabilities of the LOVO product.
82.
Defendant boasts that its Genny tool allows users to “[c]lone any voice and
create high-quality custom voice content,” and illustrates that capability with the
barely disguised names and images above.
- 21 -
PDF Page 23
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 22 of 37
83.
LOVO even used celebrity-cloned voices in its pitch to potential investors:8
84.
LOVO boasts that it offers 600 voice options.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
85.
This action is brought by the Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of a
class (the “Class”) pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
86.
Plaintiffs seek certification of the following Class and Subclasses:
All persons whose voices were used by LOVO without permission or
proper compensation for the purpose of creating or refining its AI
text-to-speech generator; or whose AI-replicated voice was used,
licensed, or sold without authorization or appropriate compensation;
or whose name or stage name was used by LOVO to market its
services without authorization or proper compensation.
The Elton John clone begins at approximately 2:27,
https://www.pollockcohen.com/media/SoundFiles/Lovo2020PitchatSkyDeck.mp4.
8
- 22 -
PDF Page 24
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 23 of 37
87.
Excluded from the proposed Class are Defendant and its employees,
officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates,
and the judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff
assigned to this case, as well as all persons who make a timely election to be excluded
from the proposed class.
88.
Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or modify the class definition,
including as to subclasses and particular issue classes.
89.
Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The Class consists of many
hundreds and perhaps thousands of actors whose voices were used by LOVO without
authorization or proper compensation. LOVO has bragged that its proprietary
algorithm and machine-learning software, which it refers to as “Generator” or “Genny,”
was trained using data from thousands of voices and thousands of hours of recordings.
Those actors were not appropriately compensated for the use of their voices for training
an AI program. Some of those voices, such as those of Ms. Sage and Mr. Lehrman, were
not augmented by any other voices.
90.
Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The claims asserted by the Plaintiffs
are typical of the claims of the Class. At all relevant times, Defendant acquired voices
for Genny either by appropriating actors’ voices without their knowledge, or by
deceiving actors as to the true nature of the “academic research” project they were
signing up for when they agreed to provide voice recordings. Class members’ voices
were used either to train the AI program, or as unaltered options for LOVO customers
to use.
- 23 -
PDF Page 25
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 24 of 37
91.
Adequacy of representation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiffs will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and do not have any interests
antagonistic to those of other Class members. Plaintiffs have retained counsel
competent and experienced in class actions and consumer protection litigation, who are
competent to serve as Class Counsel. Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and
adequately protect the interest of the class members.
92.
Ascertainability. The identities and of Class members can be readily
ascertained from business records maintained by Defendant and/or self-authentication.
The precise number of class members can be ascertained from Defendant’s records.
Plaintiffs anticipate providing appropriate notice to the Class to be approved by the
Court after class certification, or pursuant to court order.
93.
Commonality and predominance. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2); 23(b)(3).
This action is appropriate as a class action because common questions of law and fact
affecting the class predominate over those questions affecting only individual members.
Those common questions include but are not limited to, the following:
a) Whether Defendant appropriated Plaintiffs’ voices for use in its
AI Generator without the express permission of the Plaintiffs in
violation of New York Civil Rights Law § 51, which states:
Any person whose name, portrait, picture or voice is used
within this state for advertising purposes or for the
purposes of trade without the consent first obtained[.]”
(emphasis added).
b) Whether Defendant appropriated Plaintiffs’ professional
identities to promote its Genny subscription service without the
express permission of Plaintiffs in violation of New York Civil
Rights Law § 51.
c) Whether Defendant violated New York General Business Law
(“GBL”) §§ 349 and/or 350 by promoting Plaintiffs’ voices and/or
likenesses which they did not have the lawful right to promote.
- 24 -
PDF Page 26
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 25 of 37
d) Whether Defendant violated Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C.
§ 1125(a), by engaging in conduct that falsely represents
Plaintiffs as consenting to the use of the LOVO Genny tool and
allowing their voices to be included in the LOVO voice library.
94.
Superiority. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). A class action is superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy for at least
the following reasons:
a) given the complexity of issues involved in this action, the expense
of litigating the claims, and the money at stake for any individual
Class member, few, if any, Class members could afford to seek
legal redress individually for the wrongs that Defendant has
committed against them;
b) the prosecution of thousands of separate actions by individual
members would risk inconsistency in adjudication and outcomes
that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for
Defendant and burden the courts;
c) when Defendant’s liability has been adjudicated, the Court can
determine claims of all Class members;
d) this action will cause an orderly and expeditious administration
of the Class claims and foster economies of time, effort, and
expense;
e) without a class action, many Class members would continue to
suffer injury while Defendant retains the substantial proceeds of
its wrongful conduct; and
f) this action does not present any undue difficulties that would
impede its management by the Court as a class action.
95.
Plaintiffs request that the Court afford Class members with notice and
the right to opt out of any Class certified in this action.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of New York Civil Rights Law Sections 50, 51
96.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in this Complaint and
restate them as if fully set forth herein.
- 25 -
PDF Page 27
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 26 of 37
97.
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
the proposed Class against Defendant for violations of the New York Civil Rights Law
Sections 50, 51.
98.
New York Civil Rights Law Section 51 imposes liability on a party for
misappropriating an actor’s voice “for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade
without ... written consent[.]”
99.
Plaintiffs are persons under the law.
100.
Defendant’s actions as set forth herein used Plaintiffs’ voices without
Plaintiffs’ consent in violation of New York Civil Rights Law Sections 50, 51.
101.
Plaintiffs have been injured by Defendant’s misappropriation in that they
did not receive appropriate compensation for the use of their voices; and their voices
and brands were harmed by the inferior voice quality generated by Defendant’s Genny
text-to-speech tool.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Deceptive Acts and Practices in Violation of the
New York Deceptive Practices Act, N.Y. GBL § 349
102.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in this Complaint and
restate them as if fully set forth herein.
103.
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
the proposed Class against Defendant for violations of the New York Deceptive
Practices Act. N.Y. GBL § 349.
104.
N.Y. GBL § 349 imposes liability on anyone who engages in “[d]eceptive
acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce or in the furnishing
of any service” in New York.
- 26 -
PDF Page 28
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 27 of 37
105.
Plaintiffs are “persons” under N.Y. GBL § 349(h).
106.
Defendant’s actions as set forth herein occurred in the conduct of
business, trade, or commerce under N.Y. GBL § 349(a).
107.
Defendant has engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that has misled and
harmed Plaintiffs. Defendant misrepresented to Plaintiffs what their voices would be
used for. LOVO told Plaintiffs that their voices would be used only for academic
research purposes.
108.
Defendant engaged in practices that were directed at consumers who
wanted to utilize the services of established voice-over actors or authorized AI-created
voices, and they thought they could do so affordably and legally. That was deceptive:
LOVO did not have the right to use Plaintiffs’ voices and it significantly harmed
Plaintiffs – not only by misappropriating their voices and their right to publicity and
failing to properly compensate Plaintiffs, but by depriving them of control of their own
brand. Defendant led consumers to believe that LOVO either had the rights to use and
offer actors’ voices; or that the voices offered were completely AI-generated and not
merely clones of real actors’ – Plaintiffs’ – voices. The consumers included individuals,
sole practitioners, and small businesses. They thought they were getting a more
affordable but legal deal – and thought they were getting authorized, affordable access
to established actors.
109.
In the course of business, Defendant made deceptive affirmative
misrepresentations and omissions to consumers by publishing and disseminating
misleading information that the Plaintiffs – or their recognizable voices – were
- 27 -
PDF Page 29
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 28 of 37
affiliated with LOVO and had given their consent to be included in LOVO’s product
offerings.
110.
These misrepresentations and omissions alleged herein were materially
misleading.
111.
The acts and practices alleged herein are deceptive acts and practices
covered under N.Y. GBL § 349 and have caused Plaintiffs and class members
significant ascertainable monetary and non-monetary injuries. Among other injuries,
Defendant’s deceptive acts and practices have caused significant monetary damages,
along with damages to Plaintiffs’ individual brands.
112.
Defendant willfully and knowingly violated N.Y. GBL § 349. It knew that
Plaintiffs had not given their consent for the use of their voices.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
False advertising in violation of the
New York False Advertising Act, N.Y. GBL § 350
113.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in this Complaint and
restate them as if fully set forth herein.
114.
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
the proposed Class against Defendant for violations of the New York False Advertising
Act, N.Y. GBL § 350.
115.
N.Y. GBL § 350 imposes liability on anyone who uses false advertising in
the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in
New York. “False” includes “advertising, including labeling of a commodity … if such
advertising is misleading in a material respect,” taking into account “the extent to
- 28 -
PDF Page 30
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 29 of 37
which the advertising fails to reveal facts material in light of … representations [made]
with respect to the commodity[.]” N.Y. GBL § 350(a).
116.
Defendant’s actions as set forth herein occurred in the conduct of
business, trade, or commerce under N.Y. GBL § 350.
117.
Defendant has engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that has misled and
harmed Plaintiffs. The actions and practices alleged herein were directed at consumers
who wished to utilize the services of established voice-over actors – or purely
AI-generated voices – and thought they were getting those services in an authorized
and affordable way.
118.
This false and deceptive advertising harmed Plaintiffs by diverting
legitimate away from them, and significantly harmed Plaintiffs – not only by
misappropriating their voices and their right to publicity and failing to appropriately
compensate Plaintiffs – but by depriving them of control of their own brand.
119.
A cause of action based upon false advertising is appropriate because the
Defendant utilized false advertising to mislead consumers into believing that Plaintiffs’
voices were available at a bargain price and without oversight of their brand.
120.
The false advertising alleged herein was materially misleading.
121.
The acts and practices alleged herein constitute false advertising covered
under N.Y. GBL § 350 and have caused millions of dollars in significant monetary
damages to Plaintiffs by diverting legitimate work from them and depreciating their
brands.
122.
Defendant willfully and knowingly violated N.Y. GBL § 350.
- 29 -
PDF Page 31
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 30 of 37
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Unfair Competition and False Affiliation in
Violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
123.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in this Complaint and
restate them as if fully set forth herein.
124.
Defendant’s conduct as set forth herein significantly impacts interstate
commerce and commerce within this district.
125.
Section 43 of the Lanham Act provides liability as to
Any person ... who uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol,
or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of
origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading
representation of fact, which—
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as
to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with
another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or
her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her
or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities … .
126.
As described more fully herein, Defendant has engaged in such conduct in
the promotion of its Genny voice-over product.
127.
This conduct has caused, and is likely to cause, mistake and deception as
to the affiliation, connection, or association of Plaintiffs and the other Class members,
with LOVO.
128.
Through this conduct, Defendant also misrepresents the nature and
characteristics of its catalog of available voices.
129.
This course of conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following:
a) confusing, or likely confusing, potential customers about the
existence of any business affiliation between Plaintiffs and Class
- 30 -
PDF Page 32
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 31 of 37
members with LOVO, and the ability to directly purchase
Plaintiffs’ services with the LOVO Genny subscription;
b) misrepresenting that Plaintiffs and the Class members have a
consensual business partnership with LOVO and are part of its
catalog of available voices;
c) misrepresenting that customers may use LOVO to directly
purchase Plaintiffs’ services;
d) failing to inform LOVO customers that Plaintiffs and the Class
members have not consented to offer their professional services
through LOVO;
e) failing to inform LOVO customers that the LOVO subscription
service cannot be used in place of other payment methods to pay
for services provided by Plaintiffs and the Class members;
f) harming the reputations of Plaintiffs and the Class members by
falsely affiliating them with LOVO;
g) harming the reputations of Plaintiffs and the Class members by
refusing to completely remove them from the LOVO website after
they have requested disaffiliation; and
h) stealing potential customers from Plaintiffs and the Class
members by diverting them to purchase services from the LOVO
subscription service, rather than directly transact with Plaintiffs
and the Class members.
130.
The false and misleading statements and omissions described herein are
material because they are intended to have an impact on whether consumers or
businesses become LOVO customers and on whether those consumers or businesses
choose to join the LOVO subscription service.
131.
The false and misleading statements and omissions described herein
actually deceive or have the tendency to deceive potential customers of Plaintiffs and
class members.
132.
Defendant’s conduct, as described herein, constitutes a violation of the
Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
- 31 -
PDF Page 33
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 32 of 37
133.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violations and false and
misleading statements and omissions described herein, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117,
Plaintiffs and the class members have been, or are likely to be, damaged. Plaintiffs and
the Class are therefore entitled to recover from Defendant all profits, gains, and
advantages obtained stemming from this improper conduct.
134.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Plaintiffs are further entitled to recover the
costs of this action. Defendant’s conduct was knowing, characterized by malicious
intent, and explicitly designed to deceive the general public to reap profits unjustly at
the expense of Plaintiffs and the Class, entitling Plaintiffs to a statutory multiplier of
actual damages, additional damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
False Advertising in Violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
135.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in this Complaint and
restate them as if fully set forth herein.
136.
Defendant’s conduct as set forth herein significantly impacts interstate
commerce and commerce within this District.
137.
As described more fully herein, Defendant has engaged in a course of
conduct with respect to the advertising of its LOVO directory of available actors that
contains false and/or misleading statements of fact, or omissions of essential facts,
including those about Plaintiffs and class members, who did not consent to partner with
LOVO.
138.
These false and/or misleading statements, or omissions of material facts,
include, but are not limited to, the following:
- 32 -
PDF Page 34
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 33 of 37
a) confusing, or likely confusing, potential customers of Plaintiffs
and the Class members as to Plaintiffs’ and the Class members’
affiliation with LOVO and the ability to use the LOVO service in
place of traditional access to these actors;
b) misrepresenting that Plaintiffs and the Class members have
partnered with LOVO and that their voices are available through
the LOVO subscription service;
c) misrepresenting that the goods and services offered by Plaintiffs
and the Class members may be paid for directly through the
LOVO subscription service;
d) failing to inform LOVO customers that Plaintiffs and the Class
members are in no way affiliated with the LOVO subscription
service;
e) failing to inform LOVO customers that the LOVO subscription
service cannot be used to pay for the professional services of the
Plaintiffs and the Class members;
f) misrepresenting the number of actors accessible through the
LOVO subscription service to convince customers and other
actors to participate in the LOVO subscription service;
g) harming the reputations of Plaintiffs and the Class members by
falsely affiliating them with LOVO;
h) harming the reputations of Plaintiffs and the Class members by
refusing to remove actors’ voices from the LOVO website who
have requested disaffiliation; and
i) stealing potential customers from Plaintiffs and the Class
members by diverting them to purchase a misleading LOVO
subscription rather than directly transact with Plaintiffs and the
Class members.
139.
The false and misleading statements and omissions described herein are
material and are intended to have an impact on whether consumers purchase the
LOVO subscription service.
140.
The false and misleading statements and omissions described herein
actually deceive or have the tendency to deceive potential customers of Plaintiffs and
the Class members.
- 33 -
PDF Page 35
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 34 of 37
141.
Defendant’s conduct as described herein constitutes a violation of Lanham
Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
142.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation and false and
misleading statements and omissions described herein, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117,
Plaintiffs and the Class have been or are likely to be damaged. Plaintiffs and the Class
are likewise entitled to recover from Defendant all profits, gains, and advantages
obtained during the execution of this improper conduct.
143.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Plaintiffs are further entitled to recover the
costs of this action. Defendant’s conduct was knowing, characterized by malicious
intent, and explicitly designed to deceive the general public to unjustly reap profits at
the expense of Plaintiffs and the Class, entitling Plaintiffs to a statutory multiplier of
actual damages, additional damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Unjust Enrichment
144.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in this Complaint and
restate them as if fully set forth herein.
145.
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
the proposed Class against Defendant for unjust enrichment.
146.
Defendant appropriated Plaintiff’s voices without Plaintiffs’ permission
and then marketed AI-generated versions of Plaintiffs’ voices as part of Defendant’s
business, receiving millions of dollars in revenue – without ever properly compensating
Plaintiffs.
147.
Defendant also used Plaintiffs’ voices – without permission or
compensation – to raise millions of dollars in venture capital.
- 34 -
PDF Page 36
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 35 of 37
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Tortious Interference with Advantageous Business Relationship
148.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in this Complaint and
restate them as if fully set forth herein.
149.
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
the proposed Class against Defendant for tortious interference.
150.
Defendant interfered in the business relationships Plaintiffs had with
SAG-AFTRA – specifically the requirement to abide by union rules – and with those
producers (including but not limited to studios, networks, corporations, and others
engaged in voice-over production) who were signatories to SAG-AFTRA agreements and
contracts.
151.
LOVO was aware of these SAG-AFTRA agreements and contracts with
Plaintiffs and other voice-over actors.
152.
LOVO acted with malice and utilized improper and illegal means to
utilize Plaintiffs’ voices without their permission, consent, or actual compensation to
build its Generator and market its service.
153.
This improper and illegal allocation of Plaintiffs’ voices caused Plaintiffs
harm with both SAG-AFTRA and the producers/signatories, threatening Plaintiffs’
relationship with SAG-AFTRA and the producers/signatories, threatening their
membership in SAG-AFTRA, depriving them of work and income, and devaluing their
personal brands and reputations.
- 35 -
PDF Page 37
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 36 of 37
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Fraud
154.
LOVO committed fraud by materially misrepresenting to Plaintiffs
Lehrman and Sage, and other members of the Class, what would be the ultimate uses
for their voice-over recordings.
155.
Moreover, LOVO omitted to tell Plaintiffs that their voice recordings
would be used for promotion of LOVO’s services and as available voice options on the
LOVO website.
156.
Defendant knew what the use would be of the voice recordings, including
that it would be used for promotion of LOVO and as options for the LOVO website.
157.
Defendant intended to defraud Plaintiffs and the Class.
158.
Plaintiffs reasonably relied on these material misrepresentations; indeed,
Plaintiffs confirmed that the voice recordings would only be used for academic, and not
public, purposes.
159.
Plaintiffs were damaged by these misrepresentations. Plaintiffs and the
Class have not been fully compensated for the use of their voices by LOVO and have
suffered from the degradation of their services. They would not have given permission
for their voices to be used had they known the truth.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed Class,
request relief and judgment against Defendant as follows:
A.
certifying the Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class,
and designating Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class Counsel;
- 36 -
PDF Page 38
Case 1:24-cv-03770 Document 1 Filed 05/16/24 Page 37 of 37
B.
awarding Plaintiffs and the Class compensatory damages and
actual damages, trebled, in an amount exceeding $5,000,000, to be
determined by proof;
C.
awarding Plaintiffs and the Class appropriate relief, including
actual and statutory damages;
D.
awarding Plaintiffs and the Class punitive damages;
E.
awarding Plaintiffs and the Class civil penalties;
F.
granting Plaintiffs and the Class declaratory and equitable relief,
including restitution and disgorgement;
G.
enjoining Defendant from continuing to engage in the wrongful
acts and practices alleged herein;
H.
awarding Plaintiffs and the Class the costs of prosecuting this
action, including expert witness fees;
I.
awarding Plaintiffs and the Class reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs as allowable by law;
J.
awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and
K.
granting any other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: New York, New York
May 16, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
By:
/s/ Steve Cohen
Steve Cohen
Anna Menkova
POLLOCK COHEN LLP
111 Broadway, Suite 1804
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 337-5361
SCohen@pollockcohen.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and
the Proposed Class
- 37 -