Judge rejects Google’s bid to dismiss David Greene’s AI voice lawsuit

Former NPR host David Greene can pursue his claims that Google used his voice without permission in NotebookLM, following a reported rejection of the company’s dismissal request. Hoodline reports that a California judge rejected Google’s challenge to all four claims on October 23 in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

From a tentative decision to a reported rejection

Before that decision, Bloomberg Law reported on October 21 that the court had tentatively rejected Google’s demurrer—a challenge to whether the complaint states legally sufficient claims. The judge then took the matter under submission after a contested hearing, rather than announcing a final decision.

Hoodline says the judge also rejected Google’s argument that Greene’s journalism, rather than his voice, made him well known. She found that a radio broadcaster’s voice could reasonably be inferred to be widely known.

A familiar voice—or a paid actor?

NotebookLM’s Audio Overviews, introduced in September 2024, turns uploaded documents into podcast-style conversations between male and female AI hosts. Greene alleges Google used copies of his voice to develop, train and refine the tool.

Greene hosted NPR’s Morning Edition for almost a decade and also hosted Up First. He says listeners flagged the male AI host’s resemblance to him. He believes its speech patterns, phrasing, emphasis and sentence construction also resemble his style.

Hoodline, citing CNET, reports that a forensic software company hired by Greene returned a 53% to 60% confidence rating that his voice was used to train the software behind NotebookLM.

Google calls Greene’s allegations baseless. It says the male NotebookLM voice came from a professional actor it paid to record audio.

Four claims under California law

Greene filed the lawsuit on January 23. The judge described it as a novel application of a statute enacted long before generative AI. His complaint includes:

• Statutory right of publicity under California Civil Code Section 3344.
• Unfair competition.
• Common-law misappropriation.
• Quasi-contract and unjust enrichment.

Google had moved the case to federal court, but a federal judge returned it to state court on July 23. That decision rejected Google’s Copyright Act preemption argument, finding that a voice itself is not copyrightable and Greene’s claims concern outputs rather than inputs.

Greene seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement and injunctive relief—financial remedies and a court order restricting the challenged conduct. His complaint specifies no dollar amount.