Not OP, or the replier, but I think the longer answer here is that if Scarlett Johansson <insert any wealthy and/or popular figure> can't win a lawsuit against a company that has effectively:
(1) Used content she has created (vocal lines) in order to train a generative AI with the ability to create more of that content (vocal lines), without permission or payment, let alone acknowledgement
(2) In doing so removed the scarcity of the content she provides (Generative AI is effectively unlimited in the lines it can produce once effectively trained)
Then no smaller time actor, voice actor, artist, musician, etc, is likely to have any chance defending themselves against the theft of their work for AI purposes.
And, with that precedent set, the legal and financial landscape of art and creativity will have changed in a way that discourages anybody from creating original works for financial gain, because we've systematised the creation of original and derivative works with no legal or financial ramifications.
Maybe, but I don't think it's likely that they used any actual copyrighted material of her voice. It's not illegal to want one voice actor to play a role (or record voice data), then get a different, somewhat (but not actually very) similar sounding voice actor to do it instead.
