The Voice You Built for Decades Doesn’t Belong to the New Owner
You spent 39 years attached to a single, distinctive phrase — your own voice, your own cadence, your own timing — until that phrase became inseparable from a national brand in the minds of millions. Then the company was sold. The new owners missed the annual payment, blamed it on bank wires and ownership transitions, claimed you hadn’t performed your obligations, and threatened to sue you if you didn’t simply let the breach pass. And the reservation line kept playing your recording.
That is the moment this page is written for. It is the moment the spokesperson Tom Bodett found himself in when he filed suit against Motel 6 and its parent G6 Hospitality in Manhattan federal court in June 2025. If you are a creator, performer, voice talent, brand ambassador, author, or any kind of professional whose name or voice has been fused with a commercial identity over years of work — and the new owners of that brand are reaching for it without honoring the contract or the law — what follows is what we do about it.
We work in this area at the intersection of two distinct legal regimes: breach of contract (your deal with the brand was a contract, and they broke it) and right of publicity (your name, voice, and likeness are property the law protects even after the license ends). New York law gives a spokesperson in this position a tight, well-armed set of weapons. What follows is the full map — the statutes, the evidence, the defense playbook, the dollar math, and the questions real people in this situation actually ask us.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
The Four Weapons in This Lawsuit
A spokesperson’s case against a brand that broke the contract and kept using the voice sits on four independent legal pillars. We deploy all four together, because they hit from different angles and survive different defenses.
Breach of Contract — The $1.2 Million Floor
The contract is the spine. Bodett’s agreement with Motel 6 called for a $1.2 million annual payment. That number is a contractual liquidated figure — not an estimate, not a guess. When the new owners missed it, they breached the contract. The breach alone entitles Bodett to the unpaid amount as a floor.
Breach of contract in New York requires four elements: (1) a valid contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damages. Here, the contract existed for nearly four decades. Bodett performed for 39 years. The new owners breached by failing to pay the annual amount. Damages begin at $1.2 million and grow from there with continued unauthorized use of the voice, dilution of the personal brand, and any consequential harm to Bodett’s other endorsement opportunities.
A plaintiff in a 39-year commercial relationship can also reach for expectation damages — what the contract would have produced had it been honored. Bodett’s complaint puts the floor at $1.2 million; the contractual structure may have included escalators, royalties, or performance bonuses we will develop in discovery.
From the complaint: “First, they blamed the delay on the ownership transition and the need to work ‘through bank transfers.’ Then, they claimed with no proof whatsoever that Plaintiffs had not performed their obligations under the Agreements, and threatened to sue Plaintiffs for non-performance if Mr. Bodett would not agree to simply let Motel 6’s breach lie.”
That passage is the breach narrative the court reads in the first ten pages. The defense’s own words — the bank-transfer excuse, the unproven non-performance claim, the threat to countersue — are the case for breach, captured in the company’s own emails.
New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 — The Voice Statute
New York does not recognize a common-law right of publicity. Instead, the right is governed by Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 — and these statutes are strict.
Section 50 prohibits the use of any person’s name, portrait, picture, or voice within New York for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without that person’s prior written consent. Section 51 is the civil enforcement mechanism — it creates the private right of action and authorizes damages, including exemplary (punitive) damages where the defendant used the persona knowingly.
Two features make this statute unusually powerful for a spokesperson case:
-
No “consent by implication” loophole. Prior consent must be written. A handshake, a verbal extension, or a “we’ll work it out” phone call is not consent. The new owners’ claim that the relationship was somehow continuing through informal arrangements is not a defense — the license expired when the contract was breached and the relationship was terminated.
-
Punitive damages are on the table by design. Where the defendant knowingly used the persona, New York law authorizes exemplary damages — not just the licensing value of the use, but a punishment designed to deter the next company that thinks it can keep a famous voice on its phone tree without paying for it. The complaint’s description of the company continuing to use the voice recordings after Bodett terminated the relationship is exactly the conduct § 51 punitive damages were written to punish.
The statute of limitations under § 51 is one year — tight, and part of why we move fast on these cases (see the evidence section below).
Lanham Act § 43(a) — Federal False Endorsement
The federal hook sits in Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), which prohibits false designations of origin and false descriptions in interstate commerce. Courts have consistently read this provision to include false endorsement — the use of a person’s identity in a way that falsely suggests they are associated with, sponsoring, or endorsing a product or service.
For a spokesperson whose voice is still playing on a brand’s reservation line, the false-endorsement theory is direct: every caller who hears Bodett’s voice and books a room is being told, by operation, that Bodett endorses this hotel — when in fact the new owners are running the brand without his consent. That is a false statement about affiliation in interstate commerce.
Lanham Act claims also unlock powerful remedies: injunctive relief (a court order forcing the brand to stop), the defendant’s profits, the plaintiff’s damages, and — in appropriate cases — corrective advertising at the defendant’s expense.
Unjust Enrichment — The Profits Argument
Independent of contract and statute, a defendant who took a valuable service (here, the continued use of a 39-year voice identity) without paying for it has been unjustly enriched at the plaintiff’s expense. The measure of unjust enrichment is the value of the benefit retained — here, the reasonable licensing value of a 39-year voice identity on a national reservation line, plus the revenue attributable to voice-driven bookings.
Unjust enrichment is the theory that lets the plaintiff pry into the company’s books. Where the contract price ($1.2 million annually) reflects a negotiated rate that may have underpriced the asset, unjust enrichment argues for the market value of the use — a number that, for a 39-year cultural icon, can be substantially higher than the contracted rate.
The Evidence That Disappears Fast
A right-of-publicity / breach-of-contract case against a major brand is won or lost on specific records — and most of those records die on short timers. Here is what we need, who has it, and how fast it can vanish.
1. Voice Recordings and Reservation Line Audio
What it proves: that the brand continued to use the speaker’s voice on the reservation line after the relationship ended; that consumers heard the voice and associated it with the brand.
Who has it: the brand’s call center, telephony vendor, and any cloud-stored IVR recordings.
How fast it can die: voice and IVR recordings are typically retained on rolling 30-day to 90-day overwrite cycles — sometimes shorter. This is the single most time-sensitive record in the case. The day a spokesperson calls us, we send a litigation-hold and preservation letter to the brand, the call center, and any third-party IVR vendor.
2. Internal Emails and Communications About the Missed Payment
What it proves: the company’s actual state of mind — the excuses it offered, the threat to countersue for non-performance, the internal deliberations about the relationship.
Who has it: the brand’s marketing, legal, and executive teams. The new owners’ communications with the prior owners during the transition are also discoverable.
How fast it can die: routine corporate email retention can be as short as 30 to 90 days absent litigation hold. Some companies use ephemeral or “vanishing” messaging for sensitive discussions.
3. Marketing Analytics and Conversion Data
What it proves: the value of the unauthorized use — how many calls came in, how many reservations converted, how much revenue the voice-driven booking experience generated.
Who has it: the brand’s marketing analytics and revenue-management systems.
How fast it can die: analytics dashboards overwrite regularly; underlying call-detail records vary by carrier and platform, often 30 to 180 days.
4. Contract Documents and Amendments
What it proves: the contractual floor of the relationship, the termination mechanism, the assignment provisions that determine whether the contract survived the sale.
Who has it: the brand’s legal team; the selling prior owner.
How fast it can die: these are typically durable, but assignment and side-letter documents often live in scattered files and can be hard to find.
5. Sales and Booking Records from the Reservation Line
What it proves: the volume of commerce directly tied to the voice-driven reservation experience.
Who has it: the brand’s reservation system, call center vendor, and revenue management team.
How fast it can die: transactional data is generally durable, but the call recordings paired with the data are not.
6. Brand Standards and Style Guides
What it proves: the specific requirements for using Bodett’s voice — what the brand told agents and vendors the voice was approved for, and whether those instructions changed after termination.
Who has it: the brand’s marketing operations team.
How fast it can die: durable, but access can be slow.
The Master Move
The first thing we do — before any complaint is drafted, before any negotiation — is a preservation letter to the brand, the parent company, the call center, and every third-party telephony or analytics vendor. We name every category of record above. We cite the duty to preserve under FRCP 37(e) and spoliation doctrine. And we send the letter the same week a spokesperson calls us.
The Corporate Defense Playbook — and How We Counter Each Move
When a large hospitality company is caught having broken a contract and continued using a famous voice without consent, its defense team runs a recognizable playbook. We have seen these moves across our business litigation and intellectual property torts cases. Here are the plays we expect, and what we do about each.
Move One: “It Was the Prior Owner’s Contract — Not Ours”
The new owners argue the contract was an obligation of the old company, that they didn’t assume it, and that the speaker can’t enforce it against them.
Our counter: Contractual rights are routinely assumed in corporate sales. A buyer’s due diligence includes reviewing material contracts; representations and warranties in the purchase agreement typically allocate which obligations transfer. If the new owners are using the voice to drive reservations, they are receiving the benefit of the contract — and under the doctrine of assumption by conduct, they cannot accept the benefit while disclaiming the burden. We will subpoena the purchase agreement, the schedules of assumed contracts, and the closing-day representations.
Move Two: “We Didn’t Use the Voice — It Was a Licensed Recording”
The brand claims the reservation line plays a recording licensed from the prior owner, not a “use” of the speaker’s voice by the new owners.
Our counter: The recording is the speaker’s voice. NY Civil Rights Law § 50 prohibits use of a voice for purposes of trade — the new owners’ trade. Whether the recording sits on a server inherited from the prior owner or on a server the new owners provisioned, the commercial use is the new owners’ use. We will obtain the chain of custody for the recording files and the payment records for any supposed “license” — and if no license exists, the unauthorized-use claim is on.
Move Three: “We’ll Sue You for Non-Performance”
The brand threatens a counterclaim — that the speaker didn’t perform under the agreement and is therefore barred from enforcing it.
Our counter: A counterclaim threat is not a defense. The doctrine of first material breach requires the breaching party to prove the other side’s failure before declining to perform — and the first material breach here is the missed $1.2 million payment. The contract was unpaid before it was unperformed. We will move to dismiss any counterclaim that does not survive Rule 9(b) particularity standards where applicable, and we will demand specific proof of any alleged non-performance. The complaint’s description of “no proof whatsoever” of the company’s non-performance claim is exactly the language courts seize on when granting summary judgment on a counterclaim.
Move Four: “Statute of Limitations”
The brand argues the § 51 claim is time-barred or that breach claims have not accrued for continuing use.
Our counter: Each unauthorized use is a fresh violation. We plead the most recent use as the operative date. We also plead continuing violation doctrine where applicable, and we reserve the option to amend to add uses discovered in discovery.
Move Five: “You Can’t Prove Damages”
The brand argues the speaker can’t quantify the value of the voice use.
Our counter: Industry comparables — voice-over licensing rates in national hospitality reservation systems, A-list endorsement multiples, post-termination licensing premiums. The contract itself provides a floor; the Clio induction provides a market-position benchmark. We will engage a voice-over licensing expert and a damages economist to build the number from primary sources.
Move Six: “Let’s Settle Cheap and Bury the Story”
The brand offers a low six-figure settlement with a non-disclosure agreement, betting the speaker wants the matter to go away quietly.
Our counter: That bet is often wrong. A 39-year voice partnership is not something to bury. Spokespersons who hold out for the right settlement — with public recognition of the partnership, structured compensation, and a court-ordered injunction stopping the unauthorized use — frequently do materially better. We negotiate with that leverage in mind, and we are prepared to take the case to verdict if the brand will not do the right thing.
Frequently Asked Questions
I am a long-time spokesperson / voice actor / brand ambassador whose contract was just terminated or breached. Do I have a case?
That depends on three things: (1) whether you have a written contract with the brand; (2) whether the brand is continuing to use your name, voice, image, or likeness without your consent after termination; and (3) what the contract says about post-termination use, assignment, and remedies. Many terminated spokespersons have stronger claims than they realize, especially under NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51. The first move is to preserve the evidence — call us before you sign anything else.
What is the statute of limitations for a right-of-publicity case in New York?
For an unauthorized use of name or voice claim under NY Civil Rights Law § 51, the limitations period is generally one year under CPLR § 215(3). For a breach of contract claim tied to the same facts, the period is six years under CPLR § 213(2). Lanham Act false-endorsement claims run a longer federal period, often two to four years depending on the circuit. Because the § 51 clock is short and because each day of unauthorized use is potentially a fresh violation, spokespersons need to move quickly.
The new owners say the contract was the prior owner’s, not theirs. Are they off the hook?
Usually no. Material contracts are routinely assumed in corporate sales; representations and warranties in the purchase agreement allocate obligations; and under the assumption-by-conduct doctrine, a buyer that accepts the benefit of a contract (including the right to use a famous voice to drive reservations) cannot disclaim the burden. We subpoena the purchase agreement and the closing-day schedules. If the new owners are using your voice, they are bound.
What if the brand says it is just playing “old” recordings?
The recording is your voice. NY Civil Rights Law § 50 prohibits the use of a voice for purposes of trade without prior written consent — regardless of how the brand came to possess the recording. The chain of custody and the payment records for any supposed license are discoverable. If there is no current written license, the use is unauthorized — full stop.
How much is my case worth?
It depends on what the contract said, what the recordings prove, and what the company’s internal communications reveal about its state of mind. As a general range, a clean breach-of-contract case starts at the unpaid contract amount; a case with continued unauthorized use adds the reasonable royalty value of that use (often a multiple of the base endorsement rate for an A-list spokesperson); and a case with knowing post-termination use under § 51 can add exemplary (punitive) damages. For a Bodett-profile case, our working range is approximately $1.2 million at the floor to $5 million and beyond at the top, depending on the strength of the continuing-use evidence. We will give you an honest, evidence-based range at the first consultation.
What if the brand threatens to countersue me for non-performance?
A counterclaim threat is not a defense to your claims, and it does not change your right to enforce the contract. Under the doctrine of first material breach, the party who first failed to perform — here, the brand that missed the $1.2 million payment — cannot use the other party’s later performance failures to avoid its own obligations. We will move to dismiss or strike any counterclaim that does not meet federal pleading standards, and we will demand specific proof of any alleged non-performance.
What evidence should I preserve right now?
Everything. Specifically:
- The original contract and every amendment, side letter, and email about scope, payment, and termination.
- All recordings of your voice used by the brand — radio, TV, reservation line, app.
- Your calendars, agent correspondence, and performance records for the years of the partnership.
- Any written communications with the brand about the missed payment, the termination, or the post-termination use.
- Public-facing evidence of continued use — call the reservation line and record it (where lawful), capture web and app audio, screenshot social media.
- Your own endorsement history outside the brand, including any representation that would be damaged by continued unauthorized use.
We send a litigation-hold letter to the brand and every third-party vendor the day you call us. Speed matters.
What is the difference between a right-of-publicity claim and a Lanham Act false-endorsement claim?
A right-of-publicity claim under NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 is a state-law claim that protects your personal identity — your name, voice, likeness — from commercial use without consent. A Lanham Act false-endorsement claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) is a federal claim that protects consumers and trademark owners from false statements about who is associated with a product or service. They overlap: the brand’s continued use of your voice on the reservation line is both an unauthorized use of your identity (state) and a false statement to consumers that you endorse the brand (federal). We plead both, because they hit from different angles and survive different defenses.
I am not in New York. Can you still help?
We work with local counsel in the appropriate jurisdiction and accept cases nationwide where the law and facts warrant. The first consultation is free and we will tell you quickly whether we are the right fit — and if we are not, we will point you to someone who is. Our contact page is the fastest way to reach us.
What does it cost to bring one of these cases?
No fee unless we win. We work on contingency: 33.33% of the recovery before trial, 40% if the case goes to verdict. Costs of litigation (filing fees, expert witnesses, deposition transcripts) are advanced by the firm and recovered from the gross recovery at the end. The first call is free and confidential. For a fuller walkthrough, see our contingency-fee explainer.
How long will the case take?
It depends on the defendant’s posture. If the brand denies the obvious and fights discovery, a Manhattan federal case of this complexity runs 18 to 36 months to trial, with settlement windows opening at the close of fact discovery, after expert reports, and at the eve of trial. If the brand recognizes the exposure and engages early, a structured settlement can be reached in 6 to 12 months. We press for the earliest fair resolution consistent with the value of the case, and we are prepared to try it if the brand will not.
Talk to Us
If you are a spokesperson, creator, voice talent, or other professional whose identity has been used without consent after a contract ended — or whose long-running brand partnership has just been breached by a new owner — call us before you sign anything else. We move on these cases the same week you call.
- Free 24/7 consultation: 1-888-ATTY-911
- Direct: (713) 528-9070 · Cell: (713) 443-4781
- Email: ralph@atty911.com · lupe@atty911.com
- Web: attorney911.com/contact
Our primary office is at 1177 West Loop S, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77027, with additional offices in Austin, Beaumont, and a second Houston location. We work with local counsel in the appropriate jurisdiction and accept cases nationwide where the law and facts warrant.
Hablamos Español. Lupe Peña conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. Spanish-speaking clients should reach out in whatever language is comfortable — our intake team is fully bilingual.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. This page is legal information, not legal advice. The analysis above reflects New York law as of June 2026; statutes, cases, and corporate structures change. If you are in this situation, the time-sensitive first move is to preserve the evidence and talk to a lawyer before you sign or settle.