'NCIS' actor Katrina Law granted restraining order after alleging AI impersonation by Keith Andreen

Law alleges her ex-husband used AI voice cloning to impersonate her and damage her reputation

NCIS actor Katrina Law has been granted a temporary restraining order after alleging her estranged husband used artificial intelligence to impersonate her and damage her reputation.

Katrina Law filed the request on December 23, accusing Keith Andreen of using AI technology to mimic her voice and send messages to people in her life.

According to court documents, Law claimed Andreen sent voice messages that appeared to come from her to several individuals, including a new romantic partner. She alleged he had “continuously attempted to spread false information and lies about me to friends and colleagues in an effort to destroy my reputation and career.”

“I am an actress. He has used AI to falsely impersonate me [by] sending voice messages to people using my voice and likeness in an effort to destroy my reputation and disturb the peace,” Katrina Law stated in her filing. She denied sending any such messages herself, describing the recordings as confusing and out of character.

Katrina Law claimed Andreen had access to extensive footage of her speaking due to her television career, which she believes enabled him to recreate her voice. “Numerous AI programs available online allow you to clone any voice, and then use text to prompt the AI about what to say in the cloned voice,” she said, adding that she plans to introduce the alleged recordings at trial.

The actress also accused Andreen of hacking her social media and email accounts and placing a tracking device under the bonnet of her car. She alleged Ring doorbell footage showed him attaching the device, which a private investigator later identified as electronic tracking equipment.

Katrina Law further claimed Andreen had expressed suicidal ideation and displayed increasingly unstable behaviour. A temporary restraining order was granted on December 24, requiring him to stay at least 100 yards away from Law and their daughter, prohibiting surveillance or tracking, and mandating the surrender of any firearms.

The order remains in effect until January 13, when a hearing will take place. The former couple is scheduled to attend mediation on January 12 to address custody arrangements.

In her filing, Law emphasized the emotional toll the alleged actions have had on her personal and professional life. She stated that the situation caused fear, stress, and uncertainty, especially given the realistic nature of the voice recordings. She claimed the messages risked undermining trust with people close to her and could have lasting effects on her career.

The case highlights growing concerns about how artificial intelligence can be misused in personal disputes. Voice cloning tools have become widely accessible, allowing users to replicate speech patterns with limited audio samples. Legal experts have increasingly warned that such technology can blur the line between authentic and fabricated evidence, making cases like this more complex.

Katrina Law’s accusations regarding digital intrusion added another layer to the dispute. She alleged unauthorized access to her private accounts, which she claims further compromised her sense of safety. These claims, if proven, could result in additional legal consequences beyond the restraining order already in place.

The alleged placement of a tracking device raised serious safety concerns, according to the filing. Katrina Law stated that discovering the device intensified her fear and prompted her to seek immediate legal protection. The involvement of a private investigator was cited as a key step in identifying the equipment and documenting the incident.

While the restraining order is temporary, it signals that the court found sufficient cause to intervene at this stage. The upcoming hearing will determine whether longer term protections are necessary. Until then, both parties are expected to comply fully with the court’s restrictions.

As the case proceeds, it may draw attention to the need for clearer legal frameworks around AI impersonation. Situations involving voice cloning and digital manipulation continue to challenge existing laws, especially when reputational harm and personal safety are involved.