CASE NOTE · JULY 2026
Greene v. Google: the difference between an input and an output
The Northern District of California addressed a removal and copyright-preemption question. It did not decide whether an injunction should issue.
David L. Greene alleged that NotebookLM’s default male AI host resembled his distinctive voice. In the published record, he brought California state-law claims, Google removed the action, and the district court granted remand on 23 July 2026. The court treated the alleged imitation of identity in the output as distinct from any copying of recordings used as an input.
That holding is a starting point for analysing voice and likeness claims, not a merits finding that any particular voice was cloned. A new federal preliminary-injunction application would need its own jurisdictional basis, evidence and Rule 65 showing.
Source: Greene v. Google LLC, No. 3:26-cv-01773-CRB, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164082 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2026). The opinion did not determine any licence, video-avatar, financial-endorsement or political-endorsement allegation; those questions require separate evidence.