Google accused of stealing David Green's voice for NotebookLM
Embedded Files
Occurred: 2024-
Page published: February 2026
Veteran U.S. broadcaster David Greene sued Google alleging that the voice used in its AI podcast feature in NotebookLM closely imitates his own without permission, raising concerns about the misuse of human voices by the technology firm.
What happened
What happened
Longtime NPR host David Greene sued Google in Santa Clara County, California, claiming that the male AI voice used in NotebookLM is an unauthorised clone of his own, and that the tech company used his vocal characteristics to train the AI without permission or compensation, giving users the ability to generate speech that sounds like him, including potentially saying things he would never endorse.
Greene reported being "freaked out" after friends and colleagues asked if he had licenced his voice to the app, noting that the AI perfectly mimicked his unique rhythm, intonation, and even his characteristic verbal tics.
Beyond the direct impact on Greene, the incident created a broader concern for creators: the possibility that an AI could be empowered to "speak" for them, potentially saying things they would never say, thereby damaging their public standing and future commercial opportunities.
Why it happened
Why it happened
The lawsuit stems from how modern generative AI systems are created: they are trained on massive datasets of human speech and text to produce natural-sounding audio, without clear consent mechanisms from individuals whose voices might be used or approximated.
Google denies any wrongdoing, stating that the voice in question was created by a paid professional actor and not directly based on Greene’s voice.
Tech and legal analysts note that even without exact copying of a person’s recordings, an AI voice that’s so similar it could deceive listeners can trigger legal claims around likeness, rights of publicity, and unfair competition.
What it means
What it means
For society: It signals a shift where human "craft"—such as a journalist’s delivery—can be commodified into a reusable digital asset without the creator's involvement.
For policymakers: The case pressures legislators to define whether a "voice" can be protected like a trademark. It follows similar controversies and suggests that existing copyright laws are insufficient to protect the "sonic identity" of individuals.
System 🤖
System 🤖
Audio Overview
Developer: Google
Country: USA
Sector: Media/entertainment/sports/arts
Purpose: Create audio conversation
Technology: Speech-to-text; Text-to-speech
Issue: Accountability; Appropropriation; Autonomy; Transparency
Regulation ⚖️
Regulation ⚖️
California Civil Code Section 3344 (Right of Publicity)
Legal, regulatory 👩🏼⚖️
Legal, regulatory 👩🏼⚖️
Greene v. Google
News, commentary, analysis 🗞️
News, commentary, analysis 🗞️
AIAAIC Repository ID: AIAAIC2200
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse