Eleven Labs Inc. files motion to dismiss voice cloning lawsuit Amer v. Eleven Labs Inc.
Bot Mutiny |
AI voice platform Eleven Labs Inc. has filed a legal memorandum to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by Robin Amer and six other plaintiffs over allegations of unauthorized voiceprint collection.
Eleven Labs Inc. filed a memorandum of law on August 17, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought by Robin Amer, Carol Marin, Philip Rogers, Alison Flowers, Lindsey Dorcus, Yohance Lacour, and Victoria Nassif. The filing, docketed in CourtListener, argues that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim and that the court lacks jurisdiction. The lawsuit, Amer v. Eleven Labs Inc. (Case No. 26-cv-05437), centers on allegations that the Delaware-based corporation violated several Illinois statutes through its AI voice modeling technology. Eleven Labs Inc. is moving to dismiss claims related to the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (IRPA), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (IUDTPA). ## The BIPA Defense
The defendant argues that the plaintiffs don't plead facts showing that Eleven Labs Inc. collected or possessed their voiceprints. According to the memorandum, the plaintiffs haven't plausibly alleged that their specific voices were used to train the challenged AI models. The company further asserts that even if voice recordings were used, they weren't transformed into BIPA-protected voiceprints capable of identifying individuals. The filing claims the plaintiffs are trying to apply BIPA extraterritorially, which the company argues is impermissible. Specific defects are noted for BIPA Section 15(a), where Eleven Labs Inc. argues the plaintiffs lack standing. For Sections 15(c) through (e), the company maintains it doesn't encode voiceprints in relevant models or make those specific models available to others. ## Right of Publicity and Digital Replicas
The memorandum disputes claims under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act. Eleven Labs Inc. states the plaintiffs failed to show their identities were used for a "commercial purpose" as defined by Section 30(a). Regarding the newer "digital replica" claims under Sections 30(b) and 30(d), the company argues the plaintiffs haven't met the statutory requirements to state a claim. ## Fraud and Enrichment Claims
Eleven Labs Inc. also challenges the ICFA claims, stating there's no evidence of a deceptive statement or unfair practice. The filing notes a failure to plead proximate cause, a necessary element for consumer fraud claims in Illinois. The defense also addresses the IUDTPA and unjust enrichment claims, requesting the court dismiss them alongside the primary biometric and publicity counts. The case is currently assigned to District Judge Steven C. Seeger. Eleven Labs Inc. is relying on precedents such as Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly to argue the complaint's allegations are too thin to proceed.