Lehmann v. YouTube
| Court | Munich Regional Court I |
| Country | Germany |
| Parties | Claimants: Manfred Lehmann Defendant: YouTuber (name unknown) |
| Date Claim Issued | Not publicly available |
| Type of Claim | Infringement of personality rights (right to one’s own voice) and unjust enrichment. |
| Status as of May 2026 | Judgment delivered on 20 August 2025; claimant succeeded. |
| Summary of Key Background Facts | The defendant used an AI-generated voice in two YouTube videos that closely resembled the well-known voice of the claimant, a professional voice actor. The claimant had not given consent. Due to the high similarity, parts of the audience assumed that the claimant had actually voiced the videos, as reflected in user comments. The videos did not disclose that the voice was AI-generated. The claimant considered this an unlawful use of his voice and sought payment of a fictitious licence fee. |
| Remedies sought | Payment of a fictitious licence fee (€4,000). |
| Summary of key legal arguments | Claimant’s claim The claimant argued that the use of the AI-generated voice infringed his personality rights, in particular the right to one’s own voice. The strong similarity created the impression that he had participated in or consented to the videos. He further claimed that the association with the content could harm his reputation. Defendant’s defence The defendant argued that he had merely selected a voice suggested by the AI without intentionally imitating the claimant. He also relied on freedom of expression and artistic freedom, referring to the satirical nature of the videos. Court’s Judgment The court found an infringement of the claimant’s personality rights, in particular the right to one’s own voice. It held that an AI-generated imitation must be treated in the same way as an imitation by a human impersonator. Due to the deliberately created similarity, the court found a likelihood of confusion, as a significant part of the audience believed that the claimant had contributed to the videos. The interference was not justified, and the claimant’s interests outweighed the defendant’s freedom of expression and artistic freedom. |
