Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity

First-person forum account: an agency employee in England says Gemini note-taking in Google Meet kept transcribing two prospective clients after the agency's boss left the call, and that the boss passed their private post-meeting discussion to staff to shape a follow-up pitch

In a public post to r/LegalAdviceUK on 28 September 2026, an employee of a marketing agency in England writes that their boss pitched a prospective client and the client's business partner on a Google Meet call with Gemini note-taking switched on. After the boss said goodbye and left, the two business partners stayed on the call to discuss the proposal and the other agencies they were considering, and Gemini kept taking notes. The boss then sent the employee the notes and transcript, which named a competing agency and included 'personal details of who they spoke to specifically on the call', and asked for a follow-up deck built on what the partners liked and disliked. The poster believes the partners did not know they were still being transcribed. Google's help page says Meet tells all participants when notes are being taken; whether the partners noticed is not known. The account is uncorroborated.

AI system
Gemini note-taking in Google Meet
Google
Occurred
Event date unknown
Reported
28 September 2026
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Made a claim about the person
Reported harm
Other Material Harm
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Work · Privacy
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts
4 claims: 1 documented, 3 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
2 people

AI system as recorded: Gemini note-taking in Google Meet ('Gemini Notetaker' in the poster's words; Google's help page calls the feature "Take notes for me")

What Happened

The meeting. The poster works for a marketing agency. Their boss 'was in a meeting with a prospective client and his business partner', taking them through a proposal deck on Google Meet ('it was on meet'), and 'Gemini Notetaker was on.' At the end, the boss 'said goodbye and left the meeting, and the two business partners stayed on the call to discuss the proposal and the other agencies they were looking at.' The poster writes: 'What they didn't know was that Gemini was still taking notes of what they linked/didn't like about the company and proposal.'

Use of the notes. The boss sent the poster 'the notes and transcript from the meeting to create a follow-up deck with ideas and activations that are more what they were looking for based on the notes Gemini took.' According to the poster, the partners 'named the other agency they were looking at and talked about personal details of who they spoke to specifically on the call.' The poster 'felt very wrong about reading through a conversation I wasn't supposed to know about'.

What the partners knew. In replies the poster says they had assumed the note-taker stops when the person who started it leaves, and adds: 'I don't think they were aware because the things they spoke about were very in detail and slightly scathing towards my boss' proposal.' Google's help page for the feature says 'Google Meet informs all meeting participants that notes are being taken and the pencil icon appears on all participants' screens', and that only 'The meeting organizer and participants internal to the host’s organization can start or stop notes.' Several commenters argued that the partners had been notified and stayed in the call; whether they saw or understood the notice is not established.

Limits. Single anonymous account by an employee who describes the meeting from the notes and transcript and does not say they attended; no notes, transcript or screenshots were published. The date of the meeting is not stated.

Reported harm

An agency employee reports that Gemini note-taking in Google Meet kept transcribing two prospective clients' private discussion after the agency's host left the call, and that the boss passed the notes, including a named competing agency and personal details, to staff to shape a follow-up pitch; the poster believes the partners were unaware (first-person account, uncorroborated).

Outcome

Unknown

No formal outcome. The poster asked whether they should write the follow-up deck from the notes; commenters who addressed the law said nothing illegal had occurred, several on the basis that Meet tells participants notes are being taken. Whether the prospective client was told is not known.

What remains unknown

  • Whether the partners saw or understood Meet's note-taking notice after the host left.
  • The date of the meeting and the partners' location.
  • Whether the follow-up deck was made or the prospective client learned of the transcript.
  • Where the call participants were located.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The poster names Gemini note-taking in a Google Meet call as the tool that kept producing notes and a transcript after the host left; Google's help page documents the feature. No notes or screenshots were published.

4 claims: 1 documented, 3 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported During a Google Meet pitch with Gemini note-taking on, the agency's boss left at the end, the prospective client's two business partners stayed on the call to discuss the proposal and competing agencies, and Gemini kept taking notes of that discussion.

Causal attribution. Poster's account; the poster does not say they attended the meeting and describes reading the conversation in the notes and transcript.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'My boss was in a meeting with a prospective client and his business partner'; 'Gemini Notetaker was on.'; 'my boss said goodbye and left the meeting, and the two business partners stayed on the call to discuss the proposal and the other agencies they were looking at.'; 'What they didn't know was that Gemini was still taking notes'
  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'it was on meet.'
Reported The boss sent the poster the notes and transcript to build a follow-up deck from them; the partners had named a competing agency and talked about personal details of the people they had spoken to.

Causal attribution. Poster's account of what they received and were asked to do.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'My boss sent me the notes and transcript from the meeting to create a follow-up deck'; 'They named the other agency they were looking at and talked about personal details of who they spoke to specifically on the call.'
Reported The poster believes the partners did not know they were still being transcribed; the poster says they had assumed the note-taker stops when the person who started it leaves.

Causal attribution. The poster's inference from the content of the discussion; commenters disputed it, arguing Meet notifies all participants.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'I assumed the notetaker stops when the person who activates them leaves'; 'I don't think they were aware because the things they spoke about were very in detail and slightly scathing towards my boss' proposal.'
Documented Google's help page says Meet informs all participants when notes are being taken, shows a pencil icon on all participants' screens, and lets only the organizer and participants internal to the host's organization start or stop notes.

Causal attribution. General product documentation; it does not establish what the partners saw in this meeting.

  • support.google.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Google Meet informs all meeting participants that notes are being taken and the pencil icon appears on all participants' screens.'; 'The meeting organizer and participants internal to the host’s organization can start or stop notes.'

Sources

4 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

Read in English on 2026-09-29: full self-text retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID. The poster handle is not recorded. Applies to s1.

The poster's own reply in the thread (archive API, 2026-09-29); a near-identical second reply (pckasgw) adds 'it was on meet.' Applies to s2.

The poster's second reply, stating the call was on Google Meet (archive API, 2026-09-29). Applies to s3.

Google Meet Help page for "Take notes for me", fetched 2026-09-29 (200). Describes the feature in general; it does not address this meeting. Applies to s4.

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

The poster titles the post '(England)', answering the subreddit's instruction to say whether the poster is in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland; that locates the poster and the law they ask about, not the call. The post does not say where the boss or the prospective clients were during the Google Meet call. Unknown after review.

Reviewed for publication 2026-09-29: Published under the 2026-09-15 charter's public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of an AI note-taker capturing and summarising people who were not its users, with the notes then used commercially, described with attribution and without corroboration. Google's documentation of participant notification is included as context. No handle, company or client name is recorded.

People described

Two business partners at a prospective client of a marketing agency (not named), whose discussion after the agency's host left a video call was transcribed and summarised; reported by an agency employee (the poster)

People reported harmed in this case

2 people

0 AI participants · 2 other people harmed

Two people: 'the two business partners' who stayed on the call and whose discussion was transcribed. They were not the users of the note-taker (the agency's boss was). The poster, who reports discomfort at being asked to use the notes, is not counted. Exact 2.

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

Tags

#first-person#reddit#gemini#google-meet#meeting-notetaker#transcription#privacy#work

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). First-person forum account: an agency employee in England says Gemini note-taking in Google Meet kept transcribing two prospective clients after the agency's boss left the call, and that the boss passed their private post-meeting discussion to staff to shape a follow-up pitch. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-england-gemini-meet-notetaker-kept-transcribing-prospects-after-host-left-first-person

BibTeX

@misc{2026_england_gemini_meet_notetaker_kept_transcribing_prospects_after_host_left_first_person,
  title = {First-person forum account: an agency employee in England says Gemini note-taking in Google Meet kept transcribing two prospective clients after the agency's boss left the call, and that the boss passed their private post-meeting discussion to staff to shape a follow-up pitch},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-england-gemini-meet-notetaker-kept-transcribing-prospects-after-host-left-first-person}
}

Related cases

Low Otter Notetaker

United States: seven people who say they did not hold Otter accounts say Otter's AI Notetaker recorded and transcribed their Zoom and Teams meetings without their consent, including a medical call and calls with a financial professional, and kept the data to train its models; a federal court let their 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 Meta AI support assistant

Third parties exploit Meta's AI-assisted Instagram account recovery tool to reset passwords, with account takeovers reported (17 April to 31 May 2026)

Meta announced the rollout of its AI support assistant on Facebook and Instagram on 19 March 2026. Meta's filing with the Maine Attorney General (notice dated 5 June 2026) says unauthorized third parties exploited a vulnerability in its AI-assisted Instagram account recovery tool (High Touch Support) to receive password reset links for accounts they did not own, and the listing gives 17 April 2026 as the breach date and 31 May 2026 as the discovery date. Videos that attackers posted, as described by TechCrunch, 404 Media and Krebs on Security, show attackers asking the assistant in a chat to link a new email address to a target username. Reported victims include the security researcher Jane Manchun Wong, who posted that her password was changed without her knowledge, the Instagram account of the U.S. Space Force's Chief Master Sergeant, and the accounts of Sephora and a dormant Obama White House page (TechCrunch marks the last as disputed by Meta). Krebs and the BBC report pro-Iran defacement of some accounts, and TechCrunch reports that some victims were locked out and that short handles were offered for resale. The filing gives 20225 persons affected in total and 30 in Maine, and the notice calls the Maine figure an upper bound. Meta says the tool worked as intended, that a bug in a separate code path failed to check the email address, and (through a spokesperson to Gizmodo) that the failure was not due to the AI agent itself. Meta says it disabled the tool on 31 May 2026, the day it discovered the exploitation.

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 Facebook video face-scan check

First-person forum account: a Facebook user says a video face-scan security check failed to recognise them after their appearance changed, an automated ID check then rejected their government ID over a nickname, and they were locked out of a five-year-old account

In a public post to r/facebook on 28 September 2026, a user writes that their five-year-old Facebook account was hit with a security check that asked for a video face scan, which 'failed completely'. They say their face had changed a lot through recent life circumstances and 'The AI simply didn't recognize me.' Facebook then asked for ID, and 'the automated system instantly rejected' their government ID because their profile uses a shortened nickname. The poster says they are locked out of years of memories, friends and active Marketplace listings and are looking for a way to reach a human or download their data. Meta has said that video selfies used to regain access to compromised accounts are compared with the account's profile pictures using facial recognition; whether this check worked that way is not known. The account is uncorroborated.

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