Reviser note, July 16, 2026: These are allegations in newly filed lawsuits, not findings that the defendants violated the law. The article now uses nine defendants, the count supported by the fetched reporting, and removes unsupported damages, product, and settlement details.
TL;DR:
- Seven Illinois journalists, podcasters, and audiobook narrators sued technology companies in May 2026 under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.[1][3]
- The lawsuits allege that publicly available recordings were used to extract voiceprints and train voice-related AI products without written notice or consent.[1][4]
- Nine defendants are named across the reported cases: Google, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, NVIDIA, ElevenLabs, Adobe, and Samsung.[1][2]
- BIPA provides statutory damages and a private right of action. The amount depends on whether a violation is negligent or intentional, and a court still has to decide the allegations.[5]
What the Lawsuits Allege
Loevy + Loevy announced the filings on May 14, 2026. The firm named seven Illinois plaintiffs: journalists Carol Marin, Phil Rogers, Robin Amer, Yohance Lacour, and Alison Flowers, plus audiobook narrators Lindsay Dorcus and Victoria Nassif.[1]
The firm's release names nine defendants: Amazon, Apple, Google or Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Adobe, ElevenLabs, and Samsung. It says the complaints challenge the collection and use of voiceprints in AI voice software.[1]
Bloomberg Law reported that three of the cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 11 and 12. It identified Rogers v. Nvidia, Marin v. Alphabet, and Flowers v. Microsoft, and said the complaints allege that voiceprints were collected from public recordings without written permission.[4]
Why BIPA Matters
The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act is the law the plaintiffs are using. A summary from the Lyon Firm says the statute requires written notice, disclosure of the purpose and duration of collection, written consent, and a public retention and destruction policy before biometric information is collected.[5]
The same summary says BIPA allows a private lawsuit and lists liquidated damages of $1,000 for a negligent violation and $5,000 for an intentional or reckless violation. Those are statutory amounts. They are not a prediction of what any plaintiff will receive in these cases.[5]
Whether a voiceprint fits the statute in each case, whether the defendants collected one, and whether the conduct was negligent or intentional are all questions for the courts.
The Products Named in the Reporting
Biometric Update reported that the Google complaint names Gemini Live, NotebookLM Audio Overviews, YouTube auto-dubbing, Google Cloud Text-to-Speech, and Google Assistant. The article says the plaintiffs allege Google trained voice AI on their voiceprints without consent.[3]
Common Dreams reported that other complaints refer to Adobe Firefly and Meta voice products, among other AI tools. Those descriptions come from the complaints and plaintiffs' lawyers. They do not establish that the companies used a particular plaintiff's voice or violated BIPA.[2]
The Previous BIPA Settlements
Common Dreams reported two prior settlements as context: Meta's $650 million settlement over Facebook photo-tagging claims and Google's roughly $100 million settlement over Google Photos claims.[2]
Those cases involved different products and facts. A prior settlement does not decide whether these voice cases succeed. It does explain why a law with per-violation damages can create serious pressure when a case reaches a large class.
What the Cases Could Change
If courts accept the plaintiffs' theory, companies could face a new line of biometric claims over audio used in model training. The core issue would not be who owns a recording under copyright law. It would be whether a company extracted and used an identifiable biometric voiceprint without the notice and consent required by Illinois law.
That remains a legal theory, not a ruling. The complaints still have to survive motions, prove their factual allegations, and answer questions about what data the defendants collected and how they used it.
What You Can Do
The Bottom Line
The lawsuits test whether Illinois's biometric privacy law reaches voiceprints extracted from public audio and used to build AI products. The plaintiffs say companies skipped consent. The defendants will have a chance to answer.
For now, the important fact is the legal theory: a voice can be treated as biometric information, and the question is headed to court.
Sources
- Loevy + Loevy: Illinois Journalists, Actors, and Vocal Artists File Class-Action Lawsuits (May 14, 2026)
- Common Dreams: Journalists, Audiobook Narrators Sue AI Giants Under Illinois Biometric Privacy Law (May 14, 2026)
- Biometric Update: Tech Giants Sued Under BIPA Over Voiceprints Used to Train AI (May 14, 2026)
- Bloomberg Law: Reporters Sue Nvidia, Google, Microsoft Over AI Voice Models (May 12, 2026)
- The Lyon Firm: Voiceprint Privacy Lawsuits 2026 (February 13, 2026)
Published: May 16, 2026