Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing

Illinois residents allege in lawsuits that Fireflies.AI's meeting assistant captured their voiceprints without notice or consent

Four Illinois residents who say they never had Fireflies accounts allege in four federal lawsuits, two of them later consolidated, that the Fireflies.AI meeting assistant, enabled by a colleague, boss or meeting organiser, recorded their voices in Zoom or Microsoft Teams meetings between March and November 2025, analysed their vocal characteristics to tell speakers apart and generated transcripts attributing statements to them, capturing voiceprints without telling them or obtaining written consent, in breach of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. One plaintiff dismissed her case without prejudice in March 2026; the California court stayed its case at both parties’ joint request in April 2026; Fireflies has moved to dismiss the consolidated Illinois case and does not concede that it collected biometric data about the plaintiffs.

AI system
Fireflies.AI meeting assistant (reported)
Fireflies.AI Corp.
Occurred
1 Mar 2025 to 18 Nov 2025
Reported
18 December 2025
Event location
United States
What the AI did
Received personal information about the person
Reported harm
Other Material Harm
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Privacy · Work
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 6 sources
7 claims: 3 documented, 4 reported. 5 open questions
People reported harmed
At least 4 people

AI system as recorded: Fireflies, Fireflies.AI Corp.'s AI meeting assistant, joined to Zoom and Microsoft Teams meetings through another participant's or organisation's account (as alleged in the complaints)

What Happened

Fireflies is an AI meeting assistant that joins Zoom, Microsoft Teams and Google Meet calls when a participant enables it. Four putative class actions under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, filed between December 2025 and March 2026 (two of them later consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois), say that people who never signed up for Fireflies had their voices recorded and analysed when a colleague, boss or meeting organiser used it. One plaintiff says it captured her voiceprint in an organisation's virtual meeting on 18 November 2025; another says it recorded Zoom meetings in March and April 2025 through a company vice-president's account while he worked from home; a third says his boss's account recorded Microsoft Teams meetings between April and October 2025; a fourth says it was used in several meetings he attended. Each says Fireflies analysed his or her vocal characteristics to tell speakers apart and generated transcripts attributing statements to them, and that it never told them it was collecting voiceprints or obtained written consent, although its software can show participants that it is present. The first plaintiff dismissed her case without prejudice in March 2026. In the California case the court granted both parties’ joint request for a stay pending the Illinois motion to dismiss. In that motion Fireflies argues lack of standing and personal jurisdiction and says it does not concede that it collected any data about the plaintiffs covered by the law. No court has ruled on whether Fireflies captured voiceprints.

Reported harm

Four Illinois residents allege that an AI meeting assistant they never signed up for recorded their voices and captured voiceprints without notice or consent; Fireflies contests the suits and no ruling has found a capture.

Outcome

Ongoing

C.D. Ill. case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 10 March 2026; N.D. Cal. case: on the parties’ joint stipulation dated 23 April 2026, the court stayed the case on 24 April 2026 pending the Illinois motion; N.D. Ill. consolidated case: Fireflies moved to dismiss on 15 July 2026. No ruling on the merits is reported.

What remains unknown

  • Whether Fireflies in fact created voiceprints of the plaintiffs: it does not concede collecting biometric data and no court has ruled.
  • Whether the plaintiffs knew the meetings were being recorded or transcribed; the complaints say only that they were not told voiceprints were collected.
  • Why the first plaintiff dismissed her case without prejudice.
  • The outcome of Fireflies' motion to dismiss the consolidated Illinois case.
  • The fourth plaintiff's meeting dates are not stated in the consolidated complaint.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. Each complaint alleges that the Fireflies AI meeting assistant, enabled by another participant's or an organisation's account, itself recorded the plaintiff's voice in a virtual meeting, analysed the plaintiff's vocal characteristics to distinguish speakers and generated transcripts attributing statements to the plaintiff, capturing a voiceprint without notice or written consent (C.D. Ill., N.D. Cal. and N.D. Ill. complaints). That capture of the plaintiffs' voices and voiceprints by an AI transcription service is the reported privacy harm. Fireflies says it does not concede that it collected any biometric data about the plaintiffs, and no court has ruled, so the capture is alleged.

7 claims: 3 documented, 4 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported A complaint filed in the Central District of Illinois on 18 December 2025 alleges that, during a virtual meeting on 18 November 2025 that the plaintiff joined while in Illinois, a meeting participant enabled Fireflies, and Fireflies recorded her voice, analysed her vocal characteristics to distinguish her as a speaker and generated transcripts attributing statements to her; she says she never had a Fireflies account or gave written consent.

Causal attribution. The plaintiff's own allegation in a complaint; not tested by any ruling.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    While physically present in Illinois, Plaintiff participated in a virtual meeting on November 18, 2025 ... During the meeting, Fireflies was enabled by a meeting participant using ... During the meeting, Fireflies recorded Plaintiff’s voice, analyzed her vocal characteristics to distinguish her as a unique speaker, and generated transcripts attributing statements to Plaintiff, thereby capturing Plaintiff’s voiceprint. ... Plaintiff never created a Fireflies account, never agreed to Fireflies’ Terms of Service, and never executed any written release authorizing Fireflies to collect or store her biometric data.
Reported A complaint filed in the Northern District of California on 23 March 2026 by another Illinois resident alleges that in March and April 2025, while working from home, he attended virtual meetings recorded through another person's Fireflies account, and that Fireflies recorded his voice, analysed his vocal characteristics and generated transcripts attributing statements to him, without his having an account or giving written consent.

Causal attribution. The plaintiff's own allegation in a complaint; not tested by any ruling.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    In March and April 2025, while working from home for his ... The meetings were recorded by the Fireflies account of a ... characteristics to distinguish him as a unique speaker, and generated transcripts attributing ... never created a Fireflies account, never agreed to Fireflies’ Terms of
Reported A consolidated complaint filed in the Northern District of Illinois on 24 June 2026 alleges that one plaintiff attended Microsoft Teams meetings between April and October 2025 that were recorded by his boss's Fireflies account, and that a second plaintiff attended several virtual meetings where Fireflies was used, and that in each case Fireflies recorded the plaintiff's voice, analysed his vocal characteristics and generated transcripts attributing statements to him.

Causal attribution. The plaintiffs' allegations in a consolidated complaint; Fireflies has moved to dismiss.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    April 2025 and October 2025, he attended multiple virtual meetings ... on Microsoft Teams that were recorded by his boss’s Fireflies’ ... has attended several virtual meetings where Fireflies was being used. ... voice, analyzed his vocal characteristics to distinguish him as a unique speaker, and generated
Reported All three complaints allege that Fireflies did not tell the plaintiffs it was collecting voiceprints or biometric data, although its software can tell meeting participants that it is present, and did not obtain their written consent.

Causal attribution. Plaintiffs' allegations, drafted by the same plaintiffs' firm in all three complaints; the complaints say allegations about other matters rest on information and belief.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Fireflies did not inform Plaintiff, in writing or otherwise, that it was collecting her ... Although Fireflies’ software can inform meeting participants that it is present on a meeting, it does not inform participants that it is collecting voiceprints or biometric data.
  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Fireflies did not inform Plaintiff, in writing or otherwise, that it was collecting his
  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Fireflies did not inform Plaintiffs, in writing or otherwise, that it was collecting ... Although Fireflies’ software can inform meeting participants that it is present on a meeting, it does
Documented The plaintiff in the Central District of Illinois case voluntarily dismissed all her claims without prejudice on 10 March 2026.

Causal attribution. Established by the filed notice. The notice gives no reason.

Documented In the California case the plaintiff and Fireflies jointly asked the court to stay proceedings pending Fireflies' anticipated motion to dismiss in the Illinois cases, which the stipulation calls nearly identical, and the court entered the stipulation with its order stamp on 24 April 2026.

Causal attribution. Established by the filed joint stipulation and the court’s order stamp on it (document 25).

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    staying this case pending the resolution of Fireflies’ anticipated motion to dismiss the amended ... two nearly identical cases filed in the ... Document 25 Filed 04/24/26 ... IT IS S ... O ORD
Documented Fireflies has moved to dismiss the Northern District of Illinois case, arguing among other things lack of standing for one claim and lack of personal jurisdiction, and says it does not concede that it collected, stored or used any data about the plaintiffs that falls within the Illinois biometric privacy law.

Causal attribution. Established as the content of Fireflies' filed motion; its arguments are a party's position, not a ruling.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    First, plaintiffs lack Article III standing to assert a claim under Section 15(a) of BIPA ... Second, the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety under Rule 12(b)(2) because ... By referring to “biometric data” here and elsewhere, Fireflies does not concede that it collected, possessed, stored, or used any data regarding plaintiffs that falls within the scope of BIPA.

Sources

6 sources inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Class action complaint, C.D. Ill. No. 3:25-cv-03399, filed 18 December 2025; read in full on 2026-10-20 from the CourtListener RECAP copy. Applies to s1.

Notice of voluntary dismissal, C.D. Ill. No. 3:25-cv-03399, filed 10 March 2026; read on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy). Applies to s2.

Class action complaint, N.D. Cal. No. 3:26-cv-02479, filed 23 March 2026; read in full on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy). Applies to s3.

Joint stipulation requesting a stay (dated 23 April 2026), entered as document 25 on 24 April 2026 with the court’s ‘IT IS SO ORDERED’ stamp on page 4 (the text layer renders the stamp in fragments), N.D. Cal. No. 3:26-cv-02479; read on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy). Applies to s4.

Consolidated class action complaint, N.D. Ill. No. 1:26-cv-02675, filed 24 June 2026; read in full on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy). Applies to s5.

Fireflies.AI Corp.'s motion to dismiss, N.D. Ill. No. 1:26-cv-02675, filed 15 July 2026; read on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy). Applies to s6.

Event countries: United States. Affected-person countries: United States. Court countries: United States.

Each complaint says the plaintiff took part in the meetings while physically present in Illinois (C.D. Ill. and N.D. Cal. complaints; N.D. Ill. consolidated complaint). The courts are federal courts in Illinois and California.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-20: Published under the 2026-10-06 privacy clarification: four Illinois residents allege in filed complaints that an AI meeting assistant enabled by someone else recorded their voices, analysed them to distinguish speakers and generated transcripts attributing statements to them, capturing voiceprints without notice or written consent. The captures are allegations, Fireflies contests the suits, and one case was voluntarily dismissed. Plaintiffs, employers and the hosting organisation are not named.

People described

Four Illinois residents without Fireflies accounts who say their voices were recorded and voiceprints captured in work or organisation meetings (names not repeated here)

People reported harmed in this case

At least 4 people

0 AI participants · 4 other people harmed

Four named plaintiffs each allege their own voice was recorded and voiceprint captured (C.D. Ill. complaint; N.D. Cal. complaint; N.D. Ill. consolidated complaint for two plaintiffs). Putative class members and Fireflies' stated user numbers are not counted.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#fireflies-ai#ai-notetaker#meeting-transcription#privacy#bipa#voiceprint#class-action#non-user

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Illinois residents allege in lawsuits that Fireflies.AI's meeting assistant captured their voiceprints without notice or consent. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-illinois-fireflies-ai-meeting-assistant-voiceprint-capture-lawsuits

BibTeX

@misc{2025_illinois_fireflies_ai_meeting_assistant_voiceprint_capture_lawsuits,
  title = {Illinois residents allege in lawsuits that Fireflies.AI's meeting assistant captured their voiceprints without notice or consent},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-illinois-fireflies-ai-meeting-assistant-voiceprint-capture-lawsuits}
}

Related cases

Low Otter Notetaker

United States: seven people who say they had no Otter account allege its AI Notetaker recorded calls without consent; a judge let core privacy claims proceed

Seven people in California, Illinois and Washington state are suing Otter.ai in a consolidated class action in the Northern District of California. Each says another meeting participant used Otter's AI Notetaker on a Zoom or Microsoft Teams call they joined, and that Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversation without their consent; six of them date their calls between March 2024 and May 2025. They say they were not Otter account holders. The calls they describe include a medical consultation, meetings with a financial professional and work discussions. They allege that Otter keeps the recordings and uses them to train its speech-recognition models, that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs, and one of them says learning of the recording left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed. On 13 August 2026 the court found that the alleged interception of private conversations was a concrete injury and let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, while dismissing some claims. Otter's answer to the consolidated complaint, filed on 17 September 2026, says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' experiences and denies the allegations.

Medium Unidentified OpenAI generative AI service (reported)

An insurer says a health-guidance contractor's employee entered data on 19,996 people, including disease information, into an unauthorised generative AI service

Notices from RIZAP's client insurers say that on 20 August 2026 it emerged that a staff member of RIZAP, the company they contract for specific health guidance, had entered data containing members' personal information into an external generative AI service that RIZAP had not permitted for work. The National Civil Engineering and Construction National Health Insurance Association (Doken Kokuho) puts the whole data set at 19,996 people, 1,167 of them its own members, and says the service was not under a corporate contract and that the matter was found when the employee noticed the transmission and reported it. A local-government employees' mutual aid association counts 726 of its members across 14 branches, and the IHI group health insurance society 210, according to a security news site that reads these as subsets of the 19,996. The data included membership numbers, email addresses, names, dates of birth, sex, some addresses and phone numbers, the type of health guidance and, for members with them, high blood pressure, diabetes or dyslipidaemia. The IHI society's notice, as relayed, names OpenAI as the provider and says OpenAI answered on 1 September that the data had not been used for model training. RIZAP's release, as described in an ITmedia column, says no third party other than the service operator could have viewed the data. Doken Kokuho says RIZAP confirmed to it that no third party viewed or used the information through the service; whether the provider's staff could view it was still being checked when the mutual aid association and the IHI society published.

Medium ChatGPT

Texas health plan says an employee uploaded a file of members' personal and prescription data to ChatGPT from a home network, against its policy

Community First Health Plans, a nonprofit health plan in San Antonio, Texas, said in a 29 June 2026 release that on the evening of 29 April 2026 one of its employees uploaded a file containing personal information of some members to ChatGPT from a home computer network, circumventing the plan's firewall safeguards and violating its policy. The plan says it does not use ChatGPT and that its systems detected the violation and alerted its IT department. According to the release, the file may have included members' names, addresses, dates of birth, member identification numbers and prescription drug information. The next morning the plan revoked the employee's access, directed and verified deletion of the data from the employee's ChatGPT account, asked OpenAI to delete any related data, and ended its relationship with the employee. It notified affected members and federal and state agencies, offered 12 months of identity monitoring and says it is not aware of any misuse. The release gives no number of affected members.

High ChatGPT (reported)

Eindhoven municipality says staff uploaded files with residents' youth-care and social-support data and applicants' CVs to public AI websites such as ChatGPT

The municipality of Eindhoven in the Netherlands told its council in an information letter shared on Thursday 18 December 2025 that a sample of staff data traffic from 23 September to 23 October 2025 showed files containing personal data of residents and employees had been sent to public AI websites such as ChatGPT, according to Omroep Brabant and Binnenlands Bestuur. The files included youth-care (Jeugdwet) documents, internal reports and CVs, mostly from departments that provide care and support to residents. According to Omroep Brabant's account of findings by the advisory firm Hooghiemstra & Partners, the youth-care documents held information about the mental and physical health of minor children, and social-support (WMO) documents and applicants' CVs were also entered. The municipality reported the breach to the Dutch Data Protection Authority on 23 October, blocked public AI websites and asked OpenAI to delete the files. The council says the scale cannot be determined because the data was kept for only 30 days, so it cannot inform those affected, and that the risk of misuse is limited but cannot be ruled out. A spokesperson said OpenAI had not yet replied.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents