Actor (data subject) – Court Ruling (Germany, 2025)

The data subject is a widely known actor and professional voice actor. The controller operated a YouTube channel with an associated online shop. The controller published two political satire videos on YouTube. The videos used an AI-generated voice that closely imitated the data subject’s voice. Viewers in the comments identified the voice as that of the data subject. The videos ended with references to the controller’s online shop, which sold merchandise linked to the channel’s political positioning. On 28 September 2023, the data subject contacted the controller and objected to the use of his voice. He requested cessation of use and reimbursement of legal costs. The controller submitted a cease-and-desist declaration but refused to pay damages, arguing that the voice was synthetic, lawfully acquired from an AI provider, and used for satire rather than advertising. The data subject claimed that the AI-generated voice constituted use of his personal voice, that the processing occurred without consent, and that it created the impression that he endorsed the videos and products. He sought compensation equivalent to his usual licensing fees and reimbursement of legal costs. First, the court held that the controller unlawfully interfered with the data subject’s right to his own voice. Although the voice was AI-generated, it closely imitated a distinctive personal characteristic attributable to the data subject. The court considered that a significant part of the audience would associate the voice with the data subject, which was sufficient to establish personal attribution. Second, the court addressed the issue under data protection law and noted that the use of an AI-generated voice imitating a real person can qualify as processing of personal data. The court examined Article 6(1) GDPR and found no valid legal basis. The data subject had not given consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Contractual necessity under Article 6(1)(b) GDPR was irrelevant. The controller relied on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, arguing legitimate interests linked to satire and freedom of expression. The court rejected this argument after balancing interests. It found that the processing primarily served the controller’s commercial interests, as the videos increased reach and indirectly promoted the online shop. The court stressed that the controller could express political opinions and satire without using an identifiable imitation of the data subject’s voice. The data subject’s rights therefore outweighed the controller’s interests. Third, the court held that no exemption applied under Article 85 GDPR. The processing was neither journalistic nor genuinely artistic in a way that would justify overriding the data subject’s rights, particularly given the commercial context and the lack of transparency about the AI-generated nature of the voice. As a consequence, the court ordered the controller to pay €4,000 as a fictitious license fee for the unauthorised use of the voice and €1,155.80 for reimbursable legal costs, plus interest.