Case Intel

• Aero Cosmetics Products LLC filed a preemptive lawsuit seeking court declaration that voice actor Craig Schmitman has no valid claims after rogue employee used AI to clone his voice
• Company withdrew all uses of the AI-generated voice and issued multiple apologies after discovering the unauthorized adaptation in March 2025
• Case adds to growing federal litigation over unauthorized AI voice cloning as technology outpaces legal frameworks

A Texas-based vehicle cosmetics manufacturer has taken the unusual step of suing a voice actor in federal court, seeking judicial protection after an employee secretly used artificial intelligence to clone the performer's voice without authorization.

Aero Cosmetics Products LLC filed suit Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against voice actor Craig Schmitman, requesting a declaratory judgment that Schmitman lacks valid legal claims for voice misappropriation. The move comes after Schmitman's attorney sent what the company describes as a "demand letter replete with incendiary language" threatening litigation.

• November 2024: Aero Cosmetics made multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact Schmitman for additional voice-over work after previous collaborations
• March 2025: Unknown employee used AI technology to adapt Schmitman's prior recordings for updated script language in instructional video
• Recent weeks: Schmitman contacted company objecting to AI voice use; CEO Brian Phillips learned of unauthorized adaptation
• Tuesday: Aero Cosmetics filed preemptive federal lawsuit seeking declaratory relief

According to court documents, Aero Cosmetics had previously engaged Schmitman for legitimate voice-over work promoting the company's vehicle wax and wash products. When attempts to secure his services for new projects went unanswered, an employee took matters into their own hands.

The complaint, filed as case number 5:25-cv-01127, details how the rogue employee "used an AI resource to adapt the prior recording of the referenced voice-over to recite updated script language" around March 2025. Court filings indicate the AI-generated voice was used exclusively in an instructional video for existing customers, with "no revenues attributable to that video."

Company records show CEO Phillips remained unaware of the AI adaptation until Schmitman's complaint brought it to his attention. Upon discovery, Aero Cosmetics "withdrew all known uses of the adaptation and issued multiple apologies to Schmitman," according to the federal filing.

The company characterizes Schmitman's legal demand as containing "incendiary language, accusing Aero Cosmetics, such as 'stealing,' 'scheme,' and with a multitude of '!'s."

Schmitman's professional background includes narrating the 1987 documentary "Tiltrotor and the Future" about V-22 Osprey aircraft, appearing in History Channel's "Fly Past," and voicing an air traffic controller role in "Baywatch," according to IMDb records.

What This Lawsuit Does: Rather than wait for Schmitman to file suit, Aero Cosmetics seeks a preemptive declaratory judgment—essentially asking a federal judge to rule that no valid legal claims exist against the company.

The legal landscape for AI voice cloning involves several potential claims:

• Right of Publicity: Protects against commercial use of someone's voice or likeness without consent
• Invasion of Privacy: Particularly relevant when private recordings are manipulated
• Unfair Competition: When AI-generated content creates market confusion
• Breach of Contract: If original voice agreements contained exclusivity clauses

Burden of Proof: In declaratory judgment actions, the plaintiff (Aero Cosmetics) must demonstrate that a real legal controversy exists and that judicial resolution would serve the public interest. Schmitman could counter-sue with substantive claims requiring different evidentiary standards.

Key Legal Distinction: The complaint emphasizes the AI voice was used for existing customers only, not revenue generation—potentially weakening any commercial misappropriation claims under state right-of-publicity statutes.

What's Next

No hearing dates have been scheduled in the Western District of Texas case. Schmitman has not yet responded to the complaint, and his counsel information remains unavailable.

The case could proceed along several paths:

• Settlement discussions given Aero's stated willingness to apologize and cease use
• Motion to dismiss if Schmitman's team argues the declaratory judgment action is premature
• Counter-claims asserting substantive voice misappropriation violations
• Discovery phase examining the scope of AI voice usage and employee authorization protocols

This dispute joins a growing docket of federal AI voice litigation. Recent parallel cases include audiobook narrators suing speech synthesis company ElevenLabs in August 2024 for alleged unauthorized voice cloning, and a radio personality's lawsuit against Motel 6 for continued voice usage after contract termination.

The legal framework remains unsettled as technology advances faster than legislative adaptation. Actress Scarlett Johansson's high-profile objection to ChatGPT's voice similarity in May 2024 highlighted the intersection of AI development and personality rights.

Sources

• Federal Complaint (U.S. District Court Western District of Texas, Filed January 2025) — Case No. 5:25-cv-01127
• Craig Schmitman Professional Profile (IMDb Database)
• Legal Representation: Aero Cosmetics represented by David Henry, Munck Wilson Mandala LLP