A Shanghai appeals court has upheld a voice actor’s victory over a company that commercially used an identifiable AI imitation of her voice without permission.
Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court rejected both sides’ appeals on September 29, 2026, leaving a RMB50,000 damages award intact, according to a court account republished with attribution to Shanghai High Court.
Who must produce the evidence?
The actor, identified as Ms. Wang, showed that her recordings were publicly accessible and that the synthetic speech was highly similar to her voice. The company controlled the training records but failed to substantiate a lawful source or adequately rebut her evidence.
The accompanying judicial explanation says that once a claimant establishes a reasonable access route and high similarity, the platform must provide evidence of lawful sourcing or show that the generated voice is unrelated to the claimant.
This was an appellate liability decision—not merely permission for a lawsuit to proceed. The dispute concerns personal voice rights, not a copyright ruling about all AI training.
China’s broader guidance
The result aligns with Supreme People’s Court guidance issued September 7. Subject to exceptions provided by law, Article 4 supports claims where someone’s voice is used without consent to train AI that produces an identifiable imitation.
Article 17 also permits adverse inferences when a party controlling documentary or electronic evidence refuses to provide it without justification. That does not eliminate a claimant’s obligation to present supporting evidence.
Why radio and audio businesses should watch
For broadcasters, podcasters, voice talent and audio-ad producers, the business takeaway is documentation: who supplied a synthetic voice, whose permission covers it, and what commercial uses that permission allows.
The ruling does not change U.S. law or automatically impose new obligations on American newsrooms. Its relevance outside China is a warning about vendor verification and consent—not a new worldwide rule against synthetic speech.
Source note: This report relies on the republished court account and the Supreme People’s Court’s official guidance. RNN has not independently reviewed the full case judgment. General information, not legal advice.