Johnny Cash Estate Sues Coca-Cola Over Alleged Unauthorized Vocal Imitation in National Ad
The estate of Johnny Cash has filed a federal lawsuit against Coca-Cola, alleging the company used an unauthorized imitation of the late singer’s voice in a national advertising campaign. The suit, filed Tuesday in Nashville, marks one of the first major legal actions to invoke Tennessee’s newly enacted Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act, known as the ELVIS Act, which expanded the state’s right-of-publicity protections to include an individual’s voice.
According to the complaint, the dispute centers on a song featured in a Coca-Cola commercial that has aired during college football broadcasts since August. The John R. Cash Revocable Trust asserts that the voice heard in the ad bears a “remarkably” close resemblance to Cash and was performed by Shawn Barker, a longtime tribute artist known for portraying the country legend on tour. The estate argues that the company intentionally hired Barker to evoke Cash’s distinct vocal identity without obtaining the required licensing or consent.
In the lawsuit, the trust characterizes the act as a violation of Cash’s rights and a clear example of the type of conduct the ELVIS Act was designed to prevent. Though Tennessee previously recognized protections for a person’s image, name, and likeness, the 2024 legislation broadened the statute to explicitly include vocal likeness in response to growing concerns over synthetic voice technologies and unauthorized imitation in commercial settings.
“Stealing the voice of an artist is theft,” the estate’s attorney, Tim Warnock of Loeb & Loeb, stated in a written comment accompanying the filing. “It is theft of his integrity, identity, and humanity. The trust brings this lawsuit to protect the voice of Johnny Cash and to send a message that protects the voice of all the artists whose music enriches our lives.”
The estate noted that it has historically licensed Cash’s intellectual property for commercial use, including high-profile placements of “Ragged Old Flag” and “Personal Jesus” in major televised events. In this case, however, the trust alleges that Coca-Cola made no attempt to engage in licensing discussions and instead opted to use a vocal imitation to capitalize on Cash’s cultural recognition without compensation.
“This case arises from Coca-Cola’s pirating Johnny Cash’s voice in a nationwide advertising campaign to enrich itself without asking for permission or providing any compensation to the humble man and artist who created the goodwill from which Coca-Cola now profits,” the complaint states.
The lawsuit requests injunctive relief that would prohibit Coca-Cola from continuing to air the advertisement and seeks monetary damages for alleged violations of Cash’s rights under the ELVIS Act, in addition to other state and federal claims. The filing does not allege that artificial intelligence was used to produce the vocal likeness; instead, it focuses on the estate’s claim that the company employed a human imitator to replicate Cash’s sound in a manner prohibited by the statute.
Coca-Cola has not publicly responded to the allegations, and representatives for the company did not immediately return requests for comment.
While the case does not involve generative AI directly, its outcome could carry broader implications for artists, estates, and companies navigating an era in which voice replication, human or digital, has become more feasible and commercially tempting. Industry groups have expressed growing concern over the potential misuse of recognizable vocal identities, and Tennessee’s ELVIS Act was among the first legislative responses intended to provide clearer legal remedies.
For the Cash estate, the lawsuit underscores a broader effort to safeguard one of the most identifiable voices in American music. Cash, who died in 2003, remains a symbol of the country genre and a significant commercial presence, with his voice and image continuing to appear in licensed media, documentaries, and archival releases. The trust argues that unauthorized imitation risks diluting that legacy and undermining the controlled stewardship of Cash’s body of work.
A court date has not yet been set, but the case will be closely watched as one of the first major tests of Tennessee’s updated right-of-publicity law and a potential bellwether for similar disputes in the entertainment and advertising sectors.
