The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) was passed in 2008 — making Illinois the first US state to regulate the collection and use of biometric data. BIPA defines biometric identifiers as fingerprints, voiceprints, retina scans, iris scans, and facial geometry. Voiceprints are explicitly covered — a fact central to these AI voice lawsuits.
BIPA requires that any company collecting biometric identifiers must: inform individuals in writing that biometric data is being collected; disclose the specific purpose and duration for which the data will be stored and used; obtain written consent from the individual before collection; publish a publicly available written policy on the company’s data retention and destruction schedule. BIPA also prohibits companies from profiting from biometric data and from disclosing biometric data to third parties without consent.
BIPA violations carry statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent violation and $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation — with no requirement to prove actual harm. In a class action covering potentially millions of voiceprint captures, the potential damages exposure is significant. Facebook’s $650 million BIPA settlement and Google’s $100 million BIPA settlement in the Photos case demonstrate that these lawsuits produce major financial outcomes.
The Plaintiffs
| Plaintiff | Role | Notable Awards/Recognition |
| Carol Marin | Broadcast journalist | Emmy Award winner, Order of Lincoln recipient |
| Philip Rogers | Broadcast journalist | Emmy Award winner, Peabody winner, Pulitzer finalist |
| Robin Amer | Investigative podcaster | Peabody Award winner |
| Yohance Lacour | Investigative podcaster | Award-winning investigative journalist |
| Alison Flowers | Investigative journalist | Award-winning journalist — part of all suits except Amazon and Apple |
| Lindsay Dorcus | Audiobook narrator | Professional voice actor and narrator |
| Victoria Nassif | Audiobook narrator | Professional voice actor and narrator |
The plaintiffs are not anonymous individuals — they are nationally recognised professionals whose voices are distinctive, publicly identifiable, and have significant commercial value in the broadcast journalism, podcasting, and audiobook narration markets. The choice of plaintiffs who are specifically in voice-related professions is deliberate: their voiceprints are particularly valuable as AI training data, and AI voice systems built on their voices directly compete with their professional work.
The Core Allegations
Voiceprint collection without consent
The plaintiffs allege that ElevenLabs captured their unique voiceprints — extracted from publicly available audio recordings of their professional work including broadcast journalism segments, podcast episodes, and audiobook recordings — and used these voiceprints to train its AI voice synthesis models. The allegation is that this collection occurred without the written consent, advance notice, or published retention policy that BIPA requires.
Profit from biometric data
BIPA specifically prohibits companies from profiting from biometric identifiers. The plaintiffs allege ElevenLabs profited from their voiceprints by building commercial AI voice products on models trained with their biometric data — and has charged customers to use those products — without compensating or obtaining consent from the individuals whose voiceprints underpin the model quality.
Market displacement
A particularly significant element of the complaints is the market displacement argument: ElevenLabs’ AI voice technology — trained on professional voice actors’ and journalists’ voiceprints — now competes directly with those same professionals in the audiobook narration, voiceover, and broadcasting markets where they earn their living. The technology displaces the very people whose biometric data made it possible. This argument connects the BIPA violation to real economic harm in a way that pure privacy violation claims do not.
BIPA vs Other AI Voice Lawsuits: What Is Different
| Lawsuit | Legal Basis | What It Targets | ElevenLabs Status |
| Vacker v. ElevenLabs (Aug 2024) | Right of publicity, DMCA | Specific default voices (Bella, Adam) | Active — ElevenLabs seeking dismissal |
| BIPA class action (May 2026) | Illinois BIPA biometric privacy | Entire voice model training pipeline | Filed May 12, 2026 — early stage |
| Parallel BIPA suits vs Google/Meta/Microsoft etc | Illinois BIPA | Each company’s AI voice training practices | Filed simultaneously May 12, 2026 |
The BIPA lawsuit is structurally different from the earlier Vacker case. Vacker targeted specific voices and specific acts — creating the Bella and Adam defaults from specific actors’ recordings. The BIPA case targets the underlying training data collection practice: the allegation is that ElevenLabs systematically collected voiceprints from publicly available audio without the BIPA-required consent process. This is a broader, structural claim about how ElevenLabs built its models, not a specific voice appropriation claim.
The Loevy + Loevy Legal Strategy
Loevy + Loevy is a prominent Chicago-based civil rights law firm with a track record in major biometric privacy cases. The firm describes the coordinated filing as targeting ‘one of the largest violations of biometric privacy ever committed.’ The firm’s attorney Ross Kimbarovsky stated: ‘These companies know the law, know their liability, and know exactly how to build consent systems that comply with BIPA. They’ve built a billion-dollar industry on stolen voices because they thought no one would make them pay for it.’
The multi-defendant filing strategy is notable. By suing nine companies simultaneously with the same plaintiffs, Loevy + Loevy creates a coordinated litigation campaign that shares discovery costs across cases, applies consistent legal theory across multiple defendants, and maximises media attention and public pressure. The prior BIPA settlements from Google and Meta — totalling over $2 billion — demonstrate that this strategy produces outcomes.
ElevenLabs’ Position
ElevenLabs had not issued a public statement responding to the May 2026 BIPA lawsuit at the time of publication. This is not unusual at the initial filing stage — companies typically respond through their legal filings rather than press releases when litigation is first filed. In the earlier Vacker case, ElevenLabs sought to have the case dismissed on standing grounds, arguing the plaintiffs had not demonstrated concrete injury. That case proceeded despite the dismissal attempt.
ElevenLabs’ existing consent framework for Professional Voice Cloning — which requires explicit, documented consent from voice owners — demonstrates the company understands and applies consent principles to its voice cloning product. The BIPA lawsuit’s allegation is specifically about the training data collection that preceded this consent framework, not about the current voice cloning product’s operation.
What BIPA Settlements Look Like
| Company | BIPA Issue | Settlement Amount | Year |
| Facebook/Meta | Photo tag biometric data (FaceID) | $650 million | 2021 |
| Google Photos face grouping | $100 million | 2022 | |
| Google/Texas (related) | Voiceprint and facial geometry | $1.375 billion | 2025 |
| Clearview AI | Facial recognition without consent | $52 million+ | Multiple |
| Six Flags | Theme park biometric fingerprints | $36 million | 2022 |
The scale of previous BIPA settlements — particularly Google’s $1.375 billion Texas settlement in 2025 for voiceprint and facial geometry data — indicates the potential financial exposure for AI voice companies facing similar claims. The per-violation damages structure ($1,000 negligent, $5,000 intentional) multiplied across a class of affected individuals creates the mathematical basis for these large settlement figures.
What This Means for ElevenLabs Creators and Users
Platform stability
BIPA litigation is a lengthy process — even the major Facebook settlement took years from filing to resolution. ElevenLabs at $11 billion valuation with $500M+ ARR and $850M raised is well-resourced to manage litigation. The lawsuit does not pose an existential threat to the platform in the near term. Creators and developers using ElevenLabs for content production should not interpret this litigation as a reason to stop using the platform or migrate to alternatives.
Content created on ElevenLabs
The lawsuit concerns ElevenLabs’ training data practices — how the company built its AI models. It does not directly affect the commercial rights or ownership of content that creators generate using the platform. Audio generated by paid subscribers retains its commercial use rights per ElevenLabs’ terms of service.
Future consent and training policies
If this litigation proceeds and produces a settlement or judgment, it will likely require changes to how ElevenLabs and other AI voice companies handle training data consent. This may result in opt-out mechanisms for content creators whose publicly available audio was used in training, revised consent policies, or expanded disclosure about what training data was used and from which sources.
Three Insights Most Coverage of This Lawsuit Misses
1. The Coordinated Nine-Defendant Filing Is Unprecedented in AI Voice
Most coverage of the May 2026 BIPA lawsuit focuses on the ElevenLabs case specifically. The more significant development is the coordinated simultaneous filing against nine major AI companies — Google, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, Apple, Adobe, Samsung, and ElevenLabs — using the same plaintiffs and the same legal theory. This is a coordinated legal campaign against the entire AI voice and audio AI ecosystem, not a targeted attack on one company. The implications of the coordinated strategy are industry-wide: if Loevy + Loevy achieves a favourable ruling in any of these cases, it establishes precedent applicable to all of them.
2. Voiceprints Are Uniquely Problematic as Biometric Identifiers
BIPA covers multiple biometric identifiers — fingerprints, facial geometry, retina scans, and voiceprints. Of these, voiceprints are uniquely available in publicly accessible form. A journalist’s voiceprint can be extracted from any publicly broadcast interview. An audiobook narrator’s voiceprint is available in their published recordings on Audible. This public availability makes voiceprint collection from audio recordings significantly easier than equivalent facial or fingerprint data collection — and potentially more systematic. The lawsuit’s argument that companies ‘captured, stored, and fed [voiceprints] into training pipelines without ever obtaining written consent’ describes a technically straightforward extraction process from publicly available audio.
3. Illinois Is the Strategic Choice, Not the Obvious One
These plaintiffs are from Illinois — which is why BIPA applies and why the suits were filed in the Northern District of Illinois. BIPA’s statutory damages structure ($1,000-$5,000 per violation without proof of actual harm) and Illinois’ status as the most established biometric privacy law jurisdiction in the US makes it the strongest possible legal foundation for these claims. The choice of Illinois plaintiffs was not incidental — it was a prerequisite for the legal strategy. This is worth noting for AI voice companies operating nationally: BIPA’s jurisdictional scope covers anyone located in Illinois at the time of biometric data collection, not just Illinois-incorporated companies. Any AI voice company that collected audio from Illinois-based journalists, podcasters, or voice actors faces potential BIPA exposure.
What Happens Next
ElevenLabs has not yet filed a formal response to the May 2026 BIPA lawsuit. The typical litigation timeline from initial filing to resolution in a complex class action is 2-5 years. Near-term procedural steps will include ElevenLabs’ answer or motion to dismiss (expected within 60 days of service), class certification proceedings (whether the court certifies this as a class action covering all affected individuals), discovery (where each side requests documents and data from the other), and potential settlement discussions. Monitor the Northern District of Illinois court docket for case updates.
Key Takeaways
- ElevenLabs was sued under Illinois BIPA on May 12, 2026 by seven Pulitzer/Emmy-winning journalists and audiobook narrators alleging voiceprint collection without consent for AI model training.
- Coordinated with parallel suits against Google, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, Adobe, Amazon, Apple, and Samsung — a campaign targeting the entire AI audio ecosystem simultaneously.
- BIPA damages: $1,000 per negligent violation, $5,000 per intentional violation — no proof of actual harm required. Prior settlements: Facebook $650M, Google $1.375B (Texas).
- This is a separate, broader action from the earlier Vacker v. ElevenLabs (2024) which targeted specific default voices. BIPA targets the training data collection pipeline.
- Platform stability for ElevenLabs creators is not immediately affected — litigation is a multi-year process for a well-resourced company.
Conclusion
The May 2026 BIPA lawsuit against ElevenLabs is the most legally significant challenge the company has faced since launch — not because of its specific claims against ElevenLabs but because it is part of a coordinated industry-wide legal campaign that will likely shape how AI voice companies handle training data consent for years to come. The legal outcome will take years to resolve. The policy outcome — changes to how AI companies collect and use voice data — may come much sooner as companies adjust their practices under litigation pressure and anticipate potential regulatory requirements from the EU AI Act and US state biometric privacy laws expanding beyond Illinois.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the ElevenLabs BIPA lawsuit?
A proposed class-action lawsuit filed May 12, 2026 in Illinois federal court alleging ElevenLabs violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting journalists’ and voice actors’ voiceprints to train AI models without written consent, notice, or a published retention policy.
Who filed the lawsuit against ElevenLabs?
Seven Illinois professionals: journalists Robin Amer, Yohance Lacour, Carol Marin, Phil Rogers, Alison Flowers, and audiobook narrators Lindsay Dorcus and Victoria Nassif. Represented by civil rights firm Loevy + Loevy.
Is this ElevenLabs’ first lawsuit?
No. Vacker v. ElevenLabs (filed August 2024) alleged ElevenLabs created the default Bella and Adam voices from specific voice actors’ recordings without consent. The May 2026 BIPA suit is a separate, broader action.
Does this affect creators using ElevenLabs?
Not directly in the near term. The lawsuit concerns training data collection practices, not the commercial rights of content created by paid subscribers. Platform stability is not immediately threatened for a company at ElevenLabs’ financial scale.
What is BIPA?
The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (2008) — the US’s strongest biometric data privacy law. Requires written consent before collecting biometric identifiers including voiceprints. Statutory damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation without proof of harm required.
Methodology
Lawsuit filing from Law360 (May 12, 2026), Sifted (May 13, 2026), Biometric Update (May 15, 2026), Common Dreams (May 15, 2026), and Courthouse News Service (May 13, 2026). Plaintiff details from Common Dreams and Loevy + Loevy official statement. BIPA requirements and settlement precedents from Loevy + Loevy official filing statement and The Lyon Firm BIPA guide. ElevenLabs Vacker case from CourtListener PACER records and The Voice Realm analysis (2025). This article was drafted with AI assistance and reviewed by the editorial team at ElevenLabsMagazine.com. This article covers active litigation and does not constitute legal advice.
References
Law360. (May 12, 2026). Google, Meta Hit With Suits Over Use Of Voices For AI. https://www.law360.com/articles/2476478
Loevy + Loevy. (May 2026). Illinois Journalists, Actors, and Vocal Artists File Class-Action Lawsuits. https://www.loevy.com/illinois-vocal-artists-sue-big-tech-companies-over-voice-ai/
Common Dreams. (May 15, 2026). Journalists, Audiobook Narrators Sue AI Giants Under Illinois Biometric Privacy Law. https://www.commondreams.org/news/illinois-biometric-information-privacy-act
Biometric Update. (May 2026). Tech giants sued under BIPA over voiceprints used to train AI. https://www.biometricupdate.com/202605/tech-giants-sued-under-bipa-over-voiceprints-used-to-train-ai
Courthouse News Service. (May 13, 2026). Illinois suits accuse Microsoft, Nvidia of stealing voiceprints for AI products. https://www.courthousenews.com
