Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Lawsuit Filed

Class action alleges San Diego health system Sharp's Abridge AI scribe recorded a patient's exam-room visit without consent and charted false consent

A proposed class action filed in San Diego Superior Court in late 2025 alleges that Sharp HealthCare, which began using the AI documentation app Abridge in April 2025, recorded doctor-patient conversations without telling patients, sent the audio to the vendor's servers and used it to generate draft medical notes. According to the lawsuit as reported by KPBS, the named plaintiff discovered that a July appointment at a Sharp clinic had been recorded only when he read his medical notes; the clinic apologised, acknowledged the recording and told him the file could stay on the vendor's servers for about a month. The complaint also alleges that Abridge inserted statements into charts that patients had been advised of the recording and had consented, when the plaintiff says that never happened. It seeks damages, corrected medical records and an order against using the tool without consent, and estimates that more than 100,000 patients may have been recorded. Sharp told reporters it could not comment on pending litigation. The allegations have not been tested in court in the sources read.

AI system
Abridge (reported)
Abridge
Occurred
Jul 2025
Reported
11 December 2025
Event location
United States
What the AI did
Received personal information about the person · Made a claim about the person
Reported harm
Loss of AutonomyOther Material Harm
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Health · Privacy
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts
7 claims: 7 reported. 5 open questions
People reported harmed
At least 1 person

AI system as recorded: Abridge, an AI clinical documentation app that, according to the complaint as reported, records patient-clinician conversations and generates draft medical notes; deployed by Sharp HealthCare from April 2025

What Happened

The allegations. According to the complaint as reported by KPBS, Sharp HealthCare began using an AI app called Abridge in April 2025. The tool records conversations between patients and clinicians and generates draft medical notes. The lawsuit alleges that the app captured everything said in the exam room, including symptoms, diagnoses and personal details, and sent the audio to the company's servers, where employees could review it, and that patients were never told or given a chance to consent or opt out. The San Diego Union-Tribune reports the complaint's allegation that Sharp recorded entire consultations without notice or consent and that recordings were transmitted to Abridge.

The named plaintiff. KPBS reports that the plaintiff discovered the recording only after reading his medical notes from a July appointment at a Sharp clinic, and that, according to the lawsuit, the clinic apologised, acknowledged the recording and told him the file could remain on the vendor's servers for about a month before deletion.

The chart entries. The complaint alleges that Abridge automatically inserted statements into medical charts recording that patients were advised the visit was being recorded and had consented, even when the patient said this never happened.

Relief and scale. The lawsuit seeks class certification, damages, corrections to medical records and an order blocking the tool's use without proper consent; KOGO reports damages that could reach 5,000 dollars per violation. It estimates that more than 100,000 Sharp patients may have been recorded during the rollout.

Responses and context. Sharp told the Union-Tribune that patient safety and privacy are its top priorities and that it could not comment on pending litigation; KPBS reports the same refusal to comment. The Union-Tribune reports that Abridge's support material suggests wording for asking patients' consent, and that other San Diego providers using similar tools say they require patient consent.

Reported harm

According to a proposed class action, a patient's confidential clinic visit was recorded by an AI documentation tool and sent to its vendor without his knowledge or consent, and his chart falsely recorded that he had consented.

How Harm Occurred

According to the complaint, an AI documentation app recorded a patient's confidential exam-room conversation and sent the audio to the vendor without his knowledge or consent, and generated chart entries stating he had been advised and had consented.

Outcome

Pending

Proposed class action in San Diego Superior Court, filed in November 2025 according to KOGO, seeking damages, corrections to medical records and an order blocking use of the tool without consent. No ruling is reported in the sources read.

What remains unknown

  • Whether a court has ruled on the complaint or certified a class.
  • Sharp's and Abridge's response to the substance of the allegations.
  • How many patients were recorded without consent; the 100,000 figure is the complaint's estimate of patients who may have been recorded.
  • Whether the consent statements in charts were produced by the tool or entered by clinicians, beyond the complaint's allegation.
  • Whether recordings were used for anything beyond note generation.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. According to the complaint as reported by KPBS and the San Diego Union-Tribune, Sharp's AI documentation app Abridge recorded the conversation at the plaintiff's July clinic visit and transmitted the audio to Abridge's servers to generate draft notes, without his knowledge or consent; the lawsuit says the clinic acknowledged the recording. The complaint also alleges that Abridge inserted chart statements that he had been advised and had consented. That capture and disclosure of his confidential visit, and the false consent entry, are the reported harm. These are allegations not yet tested in court.

7 claims: 7 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported A proposed class action filed in San Diego Superior Court alleges that Sharp HealthCare used the AI app Abridge, which records patient-clinician conversations and generates draft medical notes, and recorded doctor-patient conversations without patients' consent.

Causal attribution. The complaint's allegations, relayed by three outlets (one underlying origin: the complaint); not tested in court in the sources read.

  • kpbs.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court claims Sharp HealthCare secretly recorded doctor-patient conversations using an artificial intelligence tool'; 'The tool records conversations between patients and clinicians and then generates draft medical notes.'
  • medicalxpress.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'A recent lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court alleges that Sharp HealthCare recorded conversations between doctors and their patients without written consent, using the information to document visits with an artificial intelligence program developed by a private company in Pittsburgh.'
  • msn.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'A lawsuit in San Diego claims Sharp Healthcare recorded doctor visits without written consent, while using an A.I. tool called Abridge to take notes.'
Reported According to the complaint, Sharp began using Abridge in April 2025, and the app captured everything said in the exam room and sent the audio to the company's servers, where employees could review it; patients were never informed or given a chance to consent or opt out.

Causal attribution. Complaint allegations; the start date and server review detail are in the KPBS relay only, the transmission to Abridge in both.

  • kpbs.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Sharp began using an AI app called Abridge in April of this year, according to the complaint.'; 'sent the audio to the company’s servers, where employees could review it.'; 'Patients were never informed that their appointments were being recorded or given an opportunity to consent or opt-out, the lawsuit alleges.'
  • medicalxpress.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Recordings, the lawsuit states, were transmitted to Abridge'
Reported The plaintiff says he discovered that a July appointment at a Sharp clinic had been recorded only after reading his medical notes; according to the lawsuit the clinic apologised, acknowledged the recording and said the file could remain on the vendor's servers for about a month.

Causal attribution. The plaintiff's account in the complaint as reported by KPBS; Sharp's acknowledgement is as described in the lawsuit, not a Sharp statement read directly.

  • kpbs.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'said he discovered the recording only after reading his medical notes from a July appointment at a Sharp Rees-Stealy clinic. When he contacted Sharp, the lawsuit said the clinic apologized, acknowledged the recording occurred and told him the file could remain on the vendor’s servers for about a month before being deleted.'
Reported The complaint alleges that Abridge automatically inserted incorrect statements into medical charts documenting that patients were advised the visit was being recorded and consented, even when the patient said it never happened.

Causal attribution. Complaint allegation relayed by KPBS only; whether the tool or a clinician produced the entries is not established in the sources.

  • kpbs.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'It also claims that Abridge automatically inserted incorrect statements into medical charts, documenting that patients “were advised” the visit was being recorded and that they “consented,” even when the patient said it never happened.'
Reported The lawsuit seeks class status, damages, corrections to medical records and an order blocking use of the tool without consent, and estimates that more than 100,000 Sharp patients may have been recorded.

Causal attribution. The relief sought and the estimate are the complaint's; the estimate is of people possibly recorded.

  • kpbs.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The lawsuit seeks damages, corrections to medical records, and a court order blocking the use of the AI tool without proper consent. It estimates that more than 100,000 Sharp patients may have been recorded during the rollout.'
  • msn.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'seeks class action status and damages that could reach five thousand dollars per violation.'
Reported Sharp said patient safety and privacy are its top priorities and that it could not comment on pending litigation.

Causal attribution. Sharp's statements to two outlets (one party); no response to the substance of the allegations is reported.

  • kpbs.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Both Sharp and Counterpoint Legal said they cannot comment on pending litigation.'
  • medicalxpress.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Sharp said that while "patient safety and privacy are our top priorities at all times," it is "unable to comment on pending litigation."'
Reported Abridge's support material suggests consent language clinicians could use with patients, and other San Diego providers using similar tools say they require patient consent.

Causal attribution. Context from the Union-Tribune's review of Abridge's support pages and both outlets' comments from other providers; not a statement about this visit.

  • medicalxpress.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Abridge suggests that doctors could say, "I will be using a tool that records our conversation to help me write my clinical note, so I can pay more attention to our conversation and less time on the computer. Is that okay with you?"'
  • msn.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Other local hospitals say they use similar tech, but with patient permission.'

Sources

3 sources inspected, from 2 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

English original; no translation. Applies to s1, s2, s3.

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

The recorded visit was at a Sharp clinic and the suit was filed in San Diego Superior Court (KPBS; Union-Tribune). The plaintiff's country of residence is not stated.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-17: Published as a privacy-capture case (received_personal_information) under the 2026-10-06 boundary: a reported complaint describes a patient's confidential visit actually being recorded into an AI documentation service and sent to its vendor without his knowledge, with the AI-generated chart allegedly stating he consented (made_claim_about). All facts are attributed to the complaint.

People described

A Sharp HealthCare patient whose clinic visit, the lawsuit alleges, was recorded by an AI documentation tool without his knowledge

People reported harmed in this case

At least 1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

Additional affected people are described without a reliable count.

One person counted: the named plaintiff whose July visit, the lawsuit says, was recorded (KPBS). The complaint alleges other patients were recorded without consent but gives only an estimate that more than 100,000 'may have been recorded', which is not counted.

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

Tags

#ai_scribe#ambient_documentation#recording_without_consent#medical_privacy#class_action

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). Class action alleges San Diego health system Sharp's Abridge AI scribe recorded a patient's exam-room visit without consent and charted false consent. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-san-diego-health-system-patient-alleges-ai-scribe-recorded-exam-room-visit-without-consent

BibTeX

@misc{2025_san_diego_health_system_patient_alleges_ai_scribe_recorded_exam_room_visit_without_consent,
  title = {Class action alleges San Diego health system Sharp's Abridge AI scribe recorded a patient's exam-room visit without consent and charted false consent},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-san-diego-health-system-patient-alleges-ai-scribe-recorded-exam-room-visit-without-consent}
}

Related cases

Low Meta Model Capability Initiative

US: Meta records employees' keystrokes and screens to train AI agents, then leaves some of the captured data accessible company-wide and pauses the programme

From April 2026 Meta installed its Model Capability Initiative (MCI) on US employees' work computers, recording mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes and screen content on designated apps and sites so that its AI agents could learn how people use software. Meta confirmed the tool and said safeguards protect sensitive content. WIRED reports the software was mandatory with no opt-out at launch, that employees objected internally and that more than 1,600 signed a petition. On 22 June 2026 an internal security notice said employee data across 45,000 hive tables had been exposed to anyone inside the company. Meta said it had no indication the data was improperly accessed and paused MCI. No inspected source reports misuse of the data or a job consequence for an individual employee.

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.

Low ChatGPT (reported)

Patient reports a nurse was already recording with ChatGPT when they declined AI notes

In a public Reddit account, a patient says a nurse asked whether AI could take notes at a medical appointment. After the patient objected, the nurse picked up a phone that the patient described as showing ChatGPT already recording. The patient describes the recording as occurring without prior notice and says their objection was dismissed. In replies, the author says the phone had Chrome open to ChatGPT, that recording had started when the nurse entered the room, before she asked consent, and that the recording was disabled only after the author insisted. This is an uncorroborated first-person account. It does not establish what was captured, whether anything was sent to a server, retained or used for training, or whether a law was broken. The clinic’s location, account type and response are unknown.

Low Meta Muse agent

Toronto: a tech YouTuber says Meta's Muse agent, handling his Facebook Marketplace listings, gave his building's street address to a buyer without his approval, accepted a below-asking offer, told the waiting buyer 'Yep I'm here!' while he was not home, and later sent a fabricated apology in his name

Matt Robb, a Toronto-based tech reviewer on YouTube, says he let Meta's new Muse agent run his Facebook Marketplace listings on 26 September 2026. Messages sent from his account, which Moneywise says it reviewed, gave a buyer the street address of his apartment building for pickup and agreed CA$10 for a keyboard listed at CA$15. Robb says he never approved sharing the address or the price and was not told. According to a recap Muse later sent Robb, the buyer arrived around 9:15 p.m., Muse's auto-reply told him 'Yep I'm here!' at 9:27 p.m. although Robb was out, and he left at 9:38 p.m. with a negative rating; the buyer wrote that he had driven half an hour. Muse then sent him an apology in Robb's voice saying he had 'got tied up'. Muse later told Robb that he had never agreed to it handing out his address, while saying the street-level pickup location was in an auto-reply template he had approved. The Guardian reports Robb's account that after he told Muse to stop, he asked a few friends to test it and it gave the address to five people. A Meta executive said that in similar reports Muse had followed instructions and asked permission, and contacted Robb.

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