Voice Actor Kenjirō Tsuda's TikTok Lawsuit Dismissed After AI-Voiced Videos' Removal
The Singaporean company that operates TikTok in Japan reported that the videos had been removed after the lawsuit's November 2025 filing. Thus, the company argued that Tsuda no longer has a legal interest in continuing the case.
According to the lawsuit's filing, an unidentified individual owned the TikTok account that posted at least 188 videos dealing with urban legends and conspiracy theories between July 2024 and September 2025. According to information the individual posted on another site, the revenue from the videos was estimated between 500,000 and 750,000 yen (about US$3,000 to US$4,500) per month.
Tsuda's legal team argued that the videos featured narration generated by AI to imitate Tsuda's characteristic "smooth, low-pitched" and "deep, husky" voice. They claimed that the videos were misleading viewers into believing that the narration is Tsuda's voice, thus attracting them. Tsuda's camp had sought the removal of the videos based on the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and the right of publicity, which is the right to protect the image of public figures such as celebrities and entertainers.
The defense had argued that the voice in the narration was a "universal male voice" generated by training AI on the voice of the poster's friend, as was stated on the poster's external website. The company's lawyers argued that there was no confusion and therefore no violation of the law. TikTok also denied any infringement of publicity rights, arguing that most of the comments on the videos were opinions and reactions regarding to the content, and the viewers were not drawn in by the voice of the narration.
In related news, an expert panel for the Ministry of Justice issued guidelines in August on how to interpret the existing laws to protect voices from unauthorized generative AI use. The guidelines indicated that the voices of voice actors and actors are legally protected under the right of publicity, just as their likenesses (e.g. photographs) are. The guidelines also indicated that depending on how much they infringed on that right, generative AI providers could face joint liability.
Source: Mainichi Shimbun (Kōtarō Adachi) via Hachima Kikō
KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.