Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing

U.S. Bank customers allege in a class action that Pega Voice AI transcribed and analysed their customer-service calls without consent

Four U.S. Bank account holders in California, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania allege in a federal class action filed on 2 October 2026 that Pegasystems' Pega Voice AI, which they say U.S. Bank uses in its contact centres, transcribed their customer-service calls in real time, analysed them with natural language processing and generated suggestions to the agent, without their prior consent. They say they gave account numbers, a date of birth and a home address on the calls, made between about December 2025 and August 2026. The claims are allegations; The CourtListener index of the docket, checked on 21 October 2026, listed the summons as returned executed on 16 October and no response from Pegasystems.

AI system
Pega Voice AI (reported)
Pegasystems Inc.
Occurred
Dec 2025 to Aug 2026
Reported
2 October 2026
Event location
United States
What the AI did
Received personal information about the person
Reported harm
Other Material Harm
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Privacy · Finance
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source
5 claims: 1 documented, 4 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
At least 4 people

AI system as recorded: Pega Voice AI, Pegasystems' AI agent-assist service for contact centres, which the complaint says U.S. Bank uses on customer-service calls (as alleged)

What Happened

Pega Voice AI is Pegasystems' agent-assist product for contact centres. A putative class action filed in the District of Massachusetts on 2 October 2026 (No. 1:26-cv-14506) by four U.S. Bank account holders alleges that U.S. Bank uses the product and that, on the plaintiffs' calls to U.S. Bank's customer service line, it monitored the conversation with the human agent, transcribed it in real time, analysed it with natural language processing and generated suggestions to the agent. The plaintiffs say they were at home in California (calls in or about December 2025 and January 2026), Massachusetts (in or about June 2026) and Pennsylvania (in or about March and August 2026), that they discussed account matters and gave identifying details, and that neither the bank nor Pegasystems obtained their prior consent to the vendor listening in. They claim violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Massachusetts wiretapping statute and the Pennsylvania wiretapping act and seek statutory damages for themselves and proposed classes. U.S. Bank is not a defendant. The complaint relies on Pegasystems' published material about the product and about U.S. Bank to say the service was in use; whether it ran on these particular calls and what callers were told is not established beyond the plaintiffs' account.

Reported harm

Four bank customers allege that an AI service they never chose transcribed and analysed their customer-service calls, including account details, without their consent; the claims are untested.

Outcome

Ongoing

Complaint filed 2 October 2026 in the District of Massachusetts (No. 1:26-cv-14506); the summons was returned executed on 16 October 2026, and the CourtListener index of the docket checked on 21 October 2026 listed no response from Pegasystems.

What remains unknown

  • Whether Pega Voice AI in fact ran on the plaintiffs' calls; the complaint infers its use from Pegasystems' published material about U.S. Bank.
  • What, if anything, callers were told at the start of the calls about recording or analysis.
  • Whether Pegasystems retained transcripts or call contents after the calls.
  • Pegasystems' response; the CourtListener index of the docket checked on 21 October 2026 listed none.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The complaint alleges that Pega Voice AI itself monitored each plaintiff's call with a U.S. Bank agent, transcribed it in real time, analysed it with natural language processing and generated suggestions to the agent, so that the vendor read and learned the contents of the calls, including account details, without the caller's prior consent. That capture into an AI transcription and analysis service is the reported privacy harm.

5 claims: 1 documented, 4 reported. What the statuses mean

Documented Four U.S. Bank account holders filed a putative class action against Pegasystems Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on 2 October 2026, claiming violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Massachusetts wiretapping statute and the Pennsylvania wiretapping act.

Causal attribution. The filing documents that the claims were made; it does not establish them.

Reported The complaint alleges that U.S. Bank uses Pegasystems' Pega Voice AI, an artificial-intelligence tool for live customer-service calls, in its contact centres.

Causal attribution. Plaintiffs' allegation, which the complaint supports with Pega's own published customer material about U.S. Bank; not yet answered by Pegasystems.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Para 2: 'Pega Voice AI is employed by numerous entities, including U.S. Bank'; 'to monitor voice and text-based interactions'. Para 20: 'Pega Voice AI is an artificial intelligence tool that'.
Reported The plaintiffs say they called U.S. Bank's customer service line from their homes on multiple occasions: two from California (in or about December 2025 and January 2026), one from Massachusetts (in or about June 2026) and one from Pennsylvania (in or about March and August 2026).

Causal attribution. Plaintiffs' own account of their calls.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Para 47: 'occasions, including in or about January 2026 from his home'. Para 8: 'was in California when he spoke to a representative from U.S. Bank over the phone from his home on multiple occasions, including in or about December 2025'. Para 9: 'was in Massachusetts when he spoke to a representative from U.S. Bank over the phone from his home on multiple occasions'. Para 10: 'was in Pennsylvania when he spoke to a representative from U.S. Bank over the phone from his home on multiple occasions, including in or about March 2026 and August 2026'.
Reported The complaint alleges that on each plaintiff's calls Pega Voice AI monitored the conversation with the human U.S. Bank agent, transcribed it in real time, analysed it with natural language processing and generated suggestions to the agent, so that Pegasystems read and learned the contents of the conversations.

Causal attribution. Allegation of what the AI service did on these calls; no court has found that it captured the plaintiffs' calls.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Paras 50, 57, 64, 71: 'monitored the conversation between Plaintiff'; 'conversations with U.S. Bank using natural language processing, and generated suggestions to the U.S. Bank agent'. Para 51: 'read and learned, in'.
Reported The plaintiffs say neither U.S. Bank nor Pegasystems obtained their prior consent to the vendor listening in, and that on the calls they gave personal and account details, such as a home address, account number and date of birth, or account numbers and balances.

Causal attribution. Plaintiffs' account of what they disclosed and of the absence of consent.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Paras 52, 59, 66, 73: 'consent, express or otherwise, to have Defendant eavesdrop on'. Para 49: 'provided personal information such as his home address his account number and his date of birth'. Para 70: 'including his account numbers, account names, account balances, and other account information'.

Sources

1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Class action complaint, D. Mass. No. 1:26-cv-14506, filed 2 October 2026; all 40 pages read on 2026-10-21 from the CourtListener RECAP copy. Applies to s1.

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

The complaint says each plaintiff was at home in California, Massachusetts or Pennsylvania when calling U.S. Bank (paras 7-10; para 68 says the Pennsylvania plaintiff called from his home and/or business). The court is the federal court in Massachusetts.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-21: Published under the 2026-10-06 privacy clarification: four named bank customers allege in a filed complaint that an AI transcription and analysis service, run by a vendor they never chose inside their bank's contact centre, captured their calls and account details without prior consent. The captures are allegations and no court has ruled.

People described

Four U.S. Bank account holders who say they called the bank's customer service line from home in California, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania (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 that their own calls were transcribed and analysed without consent (complaint paras 7-10 and 47-74). Proposed class members are not counted.

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

Tags

#pega-voice-ai#contact-centre#call-transcription#privacy#wiretap#class-action#banking

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). U.S. Bank customers allege in a class action that Pega Voice AI transcribed and analysed their customer-service calls without consent. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-us-bank-customers-allege-pega-voice-ai-transcribed-and-analysed-customer-service-calls-without-consent

BibTeX

@misc{2025_us_bank_customers_allege_pega_voice_ai_transcribed_and_analysed_customer_service_calls_without_consent,
  title = {U.S. Bank customers allege in a class action that Pega Voice AI transcribed and analysed their customer-service calls without consent},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-us-bank-customers-allege-pega-voice-ai-transcribed-and-analysed-customer-service-calls-without-consent}
}

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.

Low Abridge (reported)

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.

Low Fireflies.AI meeting assistant (reported)

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.

Low Unidentified image tool (suspected)

Manhattan Airbnb: guest says host's damage-claim photos were manipulated or AI-generated, Airbnb first ordered payment then refunded her

The Guardian reported on 2 August 2025 that a London-based academic who rented a Manhattan apartment through Airbnb in 2025 was accused by the host of more than 12,000 pounds of damage, supported by photos including a cracked coffee table. She says differences between two photos of the table show they were digitally manipulated or AI-generated. Airbnb first told her to reimburse 5,314 pounds after reviewing the photos, then, five days after Guardian Money asked about the case, accepted her appeal, credited 500 pounds and, after she refused an 854-pound offer, refunded her booking cost of 4,269 pounds, and the host's negative review of her was taken down. Airbnb apologised. Airbnb told the host it could not verify the images he submitted and warned him. The host did not respond to the Guardian. No source establishes that AI was used.

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