The landmark decision arose from a lawsuit filed in November by Kenjiro Tsuda, a well-known voice actor aged 55, who is best recognized for voicing the character Kento Nanami in the anime series Jujutsu Kaisen. Tsuda brought the action against the operator of TikTok, alleging that an anonymous user had created and uploaded 188 videos narrated by an artificial intelligence (AI) voice that closely mimicked his own. The videos, posted between July 2024 and September 2025, focused on urban myths, the occult, and trivia. While the court recognized the legal principle that unauthorized use of a performer’s voice can infringe upon their rights, it dismissed Tsuda’s specific demand that TikTok remove the videos, noting that the account owner had already deleted the content by June 29 of this year. Consequently, Tsuda’s legal team stated they would not appeal the dismissal of the removal order.
The legal question at the heart of the case centered on whether Japan’s existing framework for personality rights, which traditionally protects an individual’s name and image, extends to their voice. Japan currently lacks specific legislation that clearly stipulates voice rights. However, the Justice Ministry has recently issued guidelines suggesting that uploading social media content using voices similar to those of real individuals to generate revenue may constitute a rights violation. In her ruling, Judge Takahashi stated that a “human voice, like a portrait, symbolizes an individual’s character.” She clarified that the protection applies specifically when the purpose of using the voice is to take advantage of its commercial appeal.
Tsuda’s legal team argued that the AI-generated narration was a “deep” and “lustrous” baritone that was distinctly his own, misleading viewers into believing the content was narrated by the actor himself. An analysis conducted during the proceedings found strong similarities between Tsuda’s actual voice and the AI-generated audio. The plaintiff contended that the account holder was leveraging these vocal traits to increase the commercial value of the channel. According to the lawsuit, the anonymous poster earned between 500,000 and 750,000 yen (approximately $3,200 to $4,800) per month from the videos. The account had amassed over 200,000 subscribers, with an average view count of roughly 1.47 million per video. Many subscribers had commented on the narrations, noting their resemblance to Tsuda.
In response, the operator of TikTok argued that the videos employed a “standard male voice” and that any perceived similarities to Tsuda were highly subjective. The platform maintained that the audio would not be mistaken for the actor by a reasonable viewer. The user who posted the videos further claimed that the AI model had been trained on a friend’s voice rather than Tsuda’s, and argued that the lawsuit lacked merit because the account had been deleted prior to the final hearing.
The ruling carries significant implications for the Japanese voice acting industry, where many performers achieve star status through their vocal “appearances” in anime and other media. Yuko Sasaki, executive director of the Japan Actors Union, highlighted ahead of the ruling that an actor’s voice is the result of years of rigorous training and apprenticeship. Industry figures have expressed growing concern that AI mimicry poses a threat to their livelihoods. By establishing that voice is a protected component of one’s identity, the court has provided a legal basis for performers to challenge unauthorized commercial exploitation of their vocal traits, even in the absence of specific statutory voice rights laws. The decision effectively closes a gap in Japanese jurisprudence, aligning the protection of vocal identity with established precedents for image and portrait rights, and sets a precedent for future cases involving generative AI and personal identity.
With the videos already deleted, the immediate practical remedy for Tsuda was moot, but the judicial recognition of voice as a protected right remains the definitive outcome. The case underscores the evolving nature of intellectual property and personality rights in the face of rapid technological advancement, forcing a reassessment of how personal identity is defined and protected in the digital sphere.
