Johnny Cash Estate Sues Coca-Cola Over “Sound-Alike” Ad
Johnny Cash’s estate has filed a new federal lawsuit against Coca-Cola — accusing the brand of unlawfully using a mimic voice in a 2025 ad.
The estate of Johnny Cash has filed a federal lawsuit against Coca-Cola — accusing the beverage company of unlawfully using a voice that closely mimics the late singer’s in a 2025 ad campaign.
The ad campaign entitled “Fan Work Is Thirsty Work” was created for the NCAA college-football season. According to the lawsuit, the vocal track is performed by a long-time Cash tribute artist, who the estate claims was selected to evoke Cash’s distinctive baritone without obtaining permission or paying licensing fees.
Filed in Nashville on November 25, 2025, the complaint invokes the newly enacted ELVIS Act (a.k.a. the Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act), which expands protections for an individual’s voice under Tennessee’s right of publicity law. Cash’s estate argues that using a sound-alike voice commercially without consent violates these protections.
A lawyer for the estate bluntly called it “theft of his integrity, identity and humanity.” The suit asks the court for an injunction to block further airing of the ad and for unspecified monetary damages — reportedly at least $75,000.
Though the ad’s song is original and not a previously released track by Cash, the estate says the vocal imitation is so striking that many viewers assumed it was a genuine Cash recording — a claim bolstered by social-media comments from fans. This lawsuit is widely regarded as one of the first major tests of The ELVIS Act — legislation designed to protect artists’ voice, image, and likeness from commercial exploitation.
Coca-Cola has not publicly responded to the allegations, and representatives for the company have not returned editorial requests for comment by other publications.
A Growing Trend: Artists and Estates Push Back
In recent years, other artists (and/or their estates) have challenged brands for using their likeness, voice, or style without consent and we might expect more lawsuits to roll in as AI proliferates the media creation industry. Just a few recent cases shed light on this growing trend:
- George Carlin’s estate vs. Dudesy Podcast (2024): Carlin’s heirs sued after the podcast released an hour-long “comedy special” titled “George Carlin: I’m Glad I’m Dead,” featuring a synthesized voice and AI-generated images meant to imitate Carlin’s style and delivery. The creators agreed to take down the special and permanently refrain from using Carlin’s likeness.
- LOVO, Inc. – voice actors class-action lawsuit (2024): Two voice actors filed a class-action lawsuit accusing LOVO of cloning their voices without consent and selling those clones commercially. A federal judge recently allowed some of their “publicity rights” and copyright claims to proceed — a significant legal win for those in support of AI-driven voice cloning.
- Bette Midler vs. Ford Motor Company (1988): Going further back, numerous examples of legal battles offer insight into the wider trend of artists pushing back against unauthorized commercial use of their voice or music (even without AI). Bette Midler’s famous 1988 win against a car company for using a sound-alike voice in an advertisement now intersects with new legal frameworks being propped up to guard against AI impersonation.
What’s notable about the Cash case is that it does not involve AI or deepfake technology: the voice at issue reportedly belongs to a human tribute artist. The central issue is whether human impersonation — when used to evoke a recognizable artist — amounts to unauthorized use of persona under modern publicity laws.
