The Consent Problem From Lawsuit to Voxifyer's AI Voice Standard

The Consent Problem: From the Lovo Lawsuit to Voxifyer’s AI Voice Licensing Standard

In July 2025, a New York federal court issued a decision in what many have called the first major lawsuit over AI voice cloning in the United States. The case—Lehrman & Sage v. Lovo, Inc.—exposes a simple truth with profound implications: consent without clarity is not consent at all.

The lawsuit, filed by professional voice actors Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage, alleges that their voices were cloned without proper permission and sold commercially by AI startup Lovo. The case has quickly become a bellwether for the future of voice rights in the AI era.

At Voxifyer, this case is more than a headline—it’s a validation of the principles we are building, developing, and testing into our platform. Where the law struggles to keep up, Voxifyer is designing systems that embed licensing, traceability, and compliance into every layer of voice technology.

The Case in Detail

The Commission

Lehrman and Sage were hired through Fiverr to record short scripts described as “research use only.” Payment was modest, reflecting the understanding that these were test materials.

The Allegation

Instead of being used for research, their recordings allegedly formed the training data for Lovo’s AI voices—later marketed under pseudonyms like “Kyle Snow” and “Sally Coleman.” These clones were then licensed to clients for commercial use. (The Fashion Law)

The Court’s Ruling

In July 2025, Judge Paul Oetken dismissed federal copyright and trademark claims, ruling that U.S. copyright law does not extend to an individual’s voice. However, crucially, he allowed state law claims to proceed—covering the right of publicity, consumer protection, and breach of contract (Skadden).

Even more importantly, Oetken recognized that AI voice systems continuously generate and replicate voices. This means claims are ongoing and not limited by a one-year statute of limitations—a key precedent for future cases.

Why Consent Breaks Down in AI

The Lovo case illustrates why traditional notions of consent are inadequate in the AI era.

Misleading Terms Voice actors agreed to “research use.” In practice, this meant commercial deployment. Ambiguity in contracts created exploitation.

Indefinite Usage

Once voices are fed into AI systems, they can be used endlessly, far beyond the scope of the original agreement.

Lack of Traceability

Voice actors often cannot track where, how, or by whom their cloned voices are being used.

Reactive Enforcement

The burden of proof falls on creators—forcing them into costly litigation long after the harm has occurred.

Without new licensing standards, consent will remain murky, unenforceable, and easily manipulated.

Global Context: Not Just a U.S. Problem

The Lovo case resonates globally, echoing similar concerns raised elsewhere:

In Denmark, lawmakers are rewriting copyright law to enshrine rights over voice and facial features (Guardian).

In India, the Bombay High Court affirmed singer Arijit Singh’s personality rights, protecting his voice and style across digital and metaverse platforms (WIPO).

In the U.S., Tennessee’s ELVIS Act safeguards performers against AI misuse (NPR).

The pattern is clear: governments and courts are scrambling to catch up. But they remain reactive.

Voxifyer’s Licensing Standard: Proactive by Design

At Voxifyer, we believe that trust in AI voice will only be possible when consent is unambiguous, auditable, and enforceable. That’s why we are embedding licensing standards into the very fabric of our platform.

Licensing by Default

No voice can be trained, cloned, or deployed without explicit approval. Consent is not buried in contracts—it’s the foundation.

Immutable Traceability

Every use of a voice is logged, verified, and auditable. Creators know exactly where and how their voice is being used.

Transparent Contracts

Voxifyer’s licensing agreements are designed for the digital age—clear, enforceable, and tied directly to platform use.

Continuous Compensation

Voices generate value every time they are used. Creators deserve to share in that value continuously, not just once.

Client Ecosystem Integration

Compliance is embedded directly into client workflows—producers, studios, and agencies can adopt AI voices responsibly without legal risk.

Why This Matters for the Creative Industry

The creative economy thrives on trust. Actors, musicians, and voice professionals need assurance that their talent will not be exploited. Brands and media producers need confidence that their use of AI voices is compliant and defensible.

The Lovo case demonstrates what happens when trust is broken: litigation, reputational damage, and industry-wide skepticism. Voxifyer is ensuring that trust is not an afterthought—it is the infrastructure.

Conclusion: From Loopholes to Standards

The Lehrman & Sage v. Lovo case is a cautionary tale about what happens when consent is vague and contracts fail to protect creators.

But it is also an opportunity. It shows the urgent need for licensing systems that are explicit, traceable, and enforceable—systems that prevent exploitation before it happens.

That is exactly what Voxifyer is building. By embedding consent and compliance into the core of voice technology, we are setting the new standard for the AI voice ecosystem.

Because consent without clarity isn’t consent at all.

• Read The Fashion Law’s coverage: The Fashion Law

• Explore Skadden’s analysis: Skadden

• Further Voxifyer Reading

  Contact Voxifyer Here