Berlin court ordered YouTuber to pay €4,000 for using AI-generated voice clone of professional voice actor without consent in commercial videos.
A Berlin court ruled on August 20, 2025, that using AI-generated voice clones without permission violates personality rights under German law, ordering a YouTuber to pay €4,000 in damages to a professional voice actor whose voice was replicated for commercial videos.
The Berlin Regional Court’s 2nd Civil Chamber issued judgment in case 2 O 202/24, establishing that AI-generated voice imitations carry the same legal liability as human voice impersonators. The defendant, who operates a YouTube channel with 190,000…
Berlin court ordered YouTuber to pay €4,000 for using AI-generated voice clone of professional voice actor without consent in commercial videos.
A Berlin court ruled on August 20, 2025, that using AI-generated voice clones without permission violates personality rights under German law, ordering a YouTuber to pay €4,000 in damages to a professional voice actor whose voice was replicated for commercial videos.
The Berlin Regional Court’s 2nd Civil Chamber issued judgment in case 2 O 202/24, establishing that AI-generated voice imitations carry the same legal liability as human voice impersonators. The defendant, who operates a YouTube channel with 190,000 subscribers, created two videos using an AI-cloned version of a prominent German voice actor’s distinctive tone—specifically, the voice used to dub a well-known actor in German-language films.
Subscribe PPC Land newsletter ✉️ for similar stories like this one
According to the court documents, the plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter on September 28, 2023, demanding removal of the infringing content and reimbursement of legal costs totaling €1,088.60. The plaintiff’s attorney set a deadline of October 15, 2023. When the defendant submitted a cease-and-desist declaration but refused to pay damages, the case proceeded to litigation.
The court found three critical points supporting its decision. First, the AI imitation of a recognizable voice violated personality rights even though no actual recording of the plaintiff was used. Second, the commercial purpose of the videos—driving traffic to the defendant’s online merchandise shop—outweighed any claims to satire or freedom of expression protections. Third, licensing agreements with AI tool providers do not replace the requirement for consent from individuals whose voices are being imitated.
“The plaintiff is a German actor, voice actor, and audiobook and radio play narrator,” according to court documents. The witness testimony established that the plaintiff commands premium rates as “the best-booked advertising voice in Germany,” with minimum fees starting around €1,800 for video work with limited usage rights.
The defendant argued the voice was simply “an authentic voice with a heroic sound” suggested by AI software, not a deliberate imitation. The court rejected this defense. Video commenters identified the voice as belonging to the plaintiff or his professional dubbing work, creating what the court termed “attribution confusion.” This confusion led viewers to believe the voice actor had consented to appear in the videos.
The ruling addresses a technical question that courts have only recently begun examining. According to the decision, German law recognizes that personality rights extend to distinctive voice characteristics, even without specific statutory protection comparable to image rights under Sections 22-24 of the German Art Copyright Act. The Federal Court of Justice has established that personality rights protect financial interests, including the economic value of distinctive characteristics like voice, name, or image.
German courts have increasingly addressed digital rights issues, though this represents one of the first rulings specifically examining AI voice cloning technology. The Berlin court explicitly stated that legal analysis should not differ whether voice replication occurs through AI systems or human impersonators.
The commercial context proved decisive. While the videos contained satirical commentary about government policies, the court determined their primary purpose was commercial. Each video concluded with promotional references to the defendant’s web shop selling merchandise including “woke zero” t-shirts. The court found this commercial exploitation overshadowed any satirical elements that might have warranted freedom of expression protection.
“The use of the plaintiff’s voice ultimately serves to increase the defendant’s click numbers and sales, so that commercial use is in the foreground,” according to the ruling. The court emphasized that viewers could incorrectly assume the voice actor endorsed the defendant’s political views and products, potentially damaging the plaintiff’s reputation among audiences who do not share those perspectives.
The defendant’s licensing arrangement with the AI tool provider offered no legal protection. The court stated explicitly: “It is irrelevant whether the defendant paid the AI provider for use and acquired a corresponding usage right,” because the defendant presented no evidence that the plaintiff consented to having his voice cloned or used for commercial purposes.
The €4,000 damage award reflects a fictitious licensing fee calculation. Under established German legal doctrine for unauthorized image use, courts may award compensation equal to what reasonable parties would have negotiated as a usage fee. The witness testimony supported the €2,000-per-video assessment, noting that the plaintiff’s rates begin around €1,800 for advertising work with restricted usage, and that the defendant’s 190,000-subscriber channel represented substantial commercial reach without time limitations.
The court applied Section 812 paragraph 1 sentence 1 case 2 of the German Civil Code, which addresses unjust enrichment. “Whoever shows that they attribute economic value to the use of a third party’s image for commercial purposes must allow themselves to be held to the property-law allocation created thereby and pay compensation for value corresponding to the use,” according to the judgment.
Additional damages of €1,155.80 covered the plaintiff’s legal fees, calculated based on a total dispute value of €24,000 using standard attorney fee schedules. The court found these costs justified because the cease-and-desist letter was appropriate given the unlawful voice usage, which the defendant should have recognized.
Buy ads on PPC Land. PPC Land has standard and native ad formats via major DSPs and ad platforms like Google Ads. Via an auction CPM, you can reach industry professionals.
The ruling carries particular weight because it addresses AI-generated content specifically. The court noted the lack of disclosure that viewers were hearing an AI-generated voice rather than the actual voice actor. This omission, combined with the commercial exploitation and potential reputational harm, contributed to the finding of substantial personality rights violation.
Deepfake content has emerged as a significant concern for digital platforms, with Microsoft Advertising revising policies in October 2024 to specifically address deepfake technology and fraudulent endorsements. Google has similarly implemented ranking penalties for sites hosting non-consensual deepfake content, though those measures focus primarily on explicit imagery rather than voice cloning.
The decision establishes that German law treats AI-generated voice clones as equivalent to the individual’s actual identity for legal purposes. “If an AI output sounds like a real person or constitutes an audio deepfake, treat it as if you were using that person’s identity,” according to the court’s guidance.
This matters for the marketing community because voice AI technology has become increasingly accessible and sophisticated. Marketing professionals using AI-generated voices for advertisements, promotional content, or brand communications now face clear legal liability if those voices recognizably imitate real individuals without consent—regardless of whether the AI provider offers licensing terms.
The Berlin court rejected arguments that freedom of expression or artistic freedom protected the unauthorized voice usage. While acknowledging these constitutional protections require balancing competing interests, the court found the plaintiff’s rights to control commercial exploitation of his voice outweighed the defendant’s interest in using that specific vocal characteristic for satirical content. The defendant remained free to create satirical videos; the restriction only prevented unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s distinctive voice.
The ruling also touches on data protection considerations under the General Data Protection Regulation. According to the decision, even if voice cloning falls under GDPR’s data processing rules, lawful processing requires either consent or a legitimate interest that outweighs the individual’s fundamental rights. The commercial nature of the defendant’s usage failed to satisfy these requirements.
German courts have established a pattern of strict interpretation regarding consent and commercial usage rights in digital contexts. Recent decisions have addressed cookie banner compliance, review manipulation using the Digital Services Act, and platform liability for trademark violations in advertising, demonstrating judicial willingness to impose obligations on digital content creators and platforms.
The August 20, 2025 judgment becomes provisionally enforceable upon the defendant posting security equal to 110% of the awarded amount. The defendant bears all legal costs, typical in German civil proceedings where the losing party pays both sides’ attorney fees and court costs.
For voice actors, the precedent provides a foundation for asserting personality rights against unauthorized AI replication. The case demonstrates that distinctive professional voices used in dubbing, audiobook narration, or advertising carry economic value protected by law. The court’s explicit comparison to image rights suggests courts may develop parallel frameworks for voice protection as AI technology advances.
The decision arrives as European jurisdictions grapple with AI regulation more broadly. The European Commission has published guidance on political advertising transparency, while German data protection authorities face criticism for enforcement delays on consent mechanism violations. The Berlin ruling represents a concrete application of existing personality rights doctrine to emerging AI capabilities.
Marketing technology providers should note the court’s emphasis on attribution confusion. When AI-generated voices create the impression that specific individuals have endorsed content or products, liability arises regardless of technical disclaimers or AI provider licensing. The only protection comes from obtaining direct consent from the individuals whose voices are being replicated.
The judgment specifies that consent from AI tool providers “does not replace consent from the individual being imitated.” This principle extends beyond voice to other distinctive personal characteristics with commercial value, potentially affecting AI-generated likenesses, writing styles, or other personality attributes used in marketing contexts.
The case also highlights damages calculation methodology that German courts apply to personality rights violations. Rather than limiting recovery to provable economic losses, courts award what the plaintiff could have commanded in a hypothetical licensing negotiation. This approach compensates for the violation itself, not merely documented financial harm.
The Berlin Regional Court’s reasoning draws on Federal Court of Justice precedent regarding unauthorized image usage in advertising. Those established principles now extend explicitly to AI voice technology, creating legal continuity despite technological advancement. Courts need not develop entirely new legal frameworks when existing personality rights doctrine adequately addresses AI-generated content.
Subscribe PPC Land newsletter ✉️ for similar stories like this one
Timeline
- September 28, 2023: Plaintiff’s attorney sends cease-and-desist letter demanding removal of AI-voiced videos and €1,088.60 in legal costs
- October 15, 2023: Deadline for defendant’s response passes
- October 31, 2023: Plaintiff’s attorney accepts defendant’s cease-and-desist declaration but demands €2,000 per video in damages plus increased legal costs of €1,155.80
- November 14, 2023: Second payment deadline expires without settlement
- March 25, 2025: Oral hearing held demonstrating voice comparison
- July 9, 2025: Court takes witness testimony regarding plaintiff’s professional rates and industry practices
- August 20, 2025: Berlin Regional Court issues judgment ordering €4,000 plus legal costs
- October 2024: Microsoft Advertising revises policies to address deepfake technology
- August 2024: Google announces search ranking penalties for sites with non-consensual deepfake content
- January 2025: German court confirms platform liability under Digital Services Act
Subscribe PPC Land newsletter ✉️ for similar stories like this one
Summary
Who: The Berlin Regional Court’s 2nd Civil Chamber ruled in favor of a professional German voice actor and dubbing artist against a YouTuber with 190,000 subscribers who operated an online merchandise shop.
What: The court ordered the defendant to pay €4,000 in damages plus €1,155.80 in legal costs for using AI-generated voice cloning technology to create an imitation of the plaintiff’s distinctive professional voice in two commercial YouTube videos without obtaining consent.
When: The court issued its judgment on August 20, 2025, following initial cease-and-desist demands beginning September 28, 2023, and hearings held in March and July 2025.
Where: The case was decided by the Berlin Regional Court (Landgericht Berlin) under German civil law, with implications for AI voice usage throughout German jurisdiction and potentially broader European application of personality rights doctrine.
Why: The ruling matters because it establishes that AI-generated voice clones receive identical legal treatment to human voice imitations under German personality rights law, creating clear liability for marketers and content creators who use recognizable AI-cloned voices for commercial purposes without obtaining consent from the individuals being imitated, regardless of licensing agreements with AI tool providers.