01
Factual background & dispute
- The claimant is a well-known professional in education and parenting.
- A store promoted family-education books using footage of the claimant's public speeches and an AI-synthesized voice highly similar to the claimant's voice.
- The merchant argued that other online users had published the videos and that it only operated the store and sold the books.
02
Core issues & judicial focus
- When a synthesized voice is sufficiently identifiable as a particular natural person
- Whether the commercial use of a portrait and synthesized voice was authorized
- What review duty applies to a merchant that commissions influencer promotion
03
Judicial finding & holding
- The recognizable synthesized voice and unauthorized promotional use of the claimant’s portrait and voice infringed personality interests.
- The commissioning merchant negligently failed to check the material’s origin and personality-rights authorization and was jointly liable with the video maker. The finding depended on the commissioning arrangement, contract, review capacity and evident risks.
- The court ordered an apology and RMB 120,000 in damages and reasonable costs; neither party appealed.
Dates & procedural record
- Published as a representative case by the Beijing Internet Court.
- The SPC republished the case and identified the decision date as 18 July 2025.
04
Practical risk implications
01Commercial use of a synthesized voice requires express authorization covering synthesis, dissemination, and promotion.
02Brands and merchants should verify the source of influencer materials, personality-rights authorizations, and generated-content labels.
03Voice models, source materials, authorization documents, and published versions should remain traceable.