Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity

WebinarTV: patient foundation reports its 24 March 2026 Zoom support-group meeting for family members and caregivers was recorded and listed on WebinarTV by the next morning

The Graves' Disease & Thyroid Foundation reports that a Zoom support-group meeting it held on 24 March 2026 for parents, spouses and caregivers, with registration-form screening and waiting-room admission, was recorded without permission and listed on WebinarTV's website. The host writes that an email from a WebinarTV sender named 'Sarah Blair', found the next morning in a spam folder, said an On Demand page with Chapters had been set up for the meeting. The host adds that the chapters roughly matched the topics discussed and that it appears the content had also been turned into an AI-generated podcast. The host says a registrant with an email address ending in '.space' did not respond during introductions, that the removal link in the email apparently took the listing down, and that the host told the participants, contacted Zoom and filed complaints against WebinarTV. WebinarTV's chief executive told 404 Media and NBC Los Angeles that the company lists only public webinars and notifies hosts by email. The sources do not state how many people attended, whether the recording showed faces or names, or whether an automated agent made the recording.

AI system
WebinarTV
WebinarTV
Occurred
24 Mar 2026
Reported
31 March 2026
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Depicted or impersonated the person
Reported harm
Other Material Harm
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Privacy · Health
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts
5 claims: 5 reported. 9 open questions
People reported harmed
At least 1 person

AI system as recorded: WebinarTV recording and content-generation service (an On Demand page with Chapters and an AI-generated podcast, per the host)

Reported harm

The host of the foundation's support-group meeting says WebinarTV recorded the meeting without permission from the host or anyone else in the group and listed it on WebinarTV's website, and describes this as a betrayal of a community whose participants had a reasonable expectation of privacy (the host's account, published by the foundation and quoted by 404 Media).

What remains unknown

  • This record covers only the 24 March 2026 meeting. WebinarTV's recording of other hosts' meetings is reported from October 2025 (Zoom Community posts from 7 October 2025 and a Stanford information-security advisory of 14 November 2025), and those events are not part of this record.
  • How many people attended the meeting is not stated (the host mentions many no-shows), and no participant statement was inspected.
  • Whether the recording showed participants' faces or names is not stated for this meeting.
  • Whether an automated agent or a person made the recording is not established.
  • The host's statement that the content appears to have been turned into an AI-generated podcast is an observation, and the podcast was not inspected.
  • The date the listing was removed and whether copies persist are not stated.
  • No WebinarTV account of this meeting was inspected. The chief executive's statements concern the company's general practice.
  • The first 404 Media article (24 March 2026) is paywalled and only its opening paragraph was read.
  • The foundation's direct page returned 403, so the post was read from the Wayback capture of 31 March 2026 and any later edit is not reflected.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The host reports that WebinarTV's email offered a new feature called Chapters for the meeting, that the chapters roughly matched the topics discussed, and that it appears the content had also been turned into an AI-generated podcast (the host does not describe listening to it). 404 Media reports that WebinarTV turns recordings into AI-generated podcasts and that the persona sending host notices appears to be AI-generated, in reporting about another host's meeting. Whether an automated agent or a person made the recording is not established: the host writes about a registrant who did not respond during introductions and about bots with fake identities, and Zoom says WebinarTV records with a browser extension or other tools. The relation recorded is that the participants appear in a published recording and in content derived from it.

5 claims: 5 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported On 24 March 2026 the Graves' Disease & Thyroid Foundation held a Zoom support-group meeting for parents, spouses and caregivers. Registration was by form, the join link was not public, participants were admitted one at a time from a waiting room after the host checked the registration list, and the meeting was not intended to be recorded.

Causal attribution. The host's own account, published by the foundation and quoted by 404 Media. 404 Media's description of the meeting rests on the host's post and email, so the two sources are one chain.

  • gdatf.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    we set up a March 24th Zoom support group meeting specifically for parents, spouses, and caregivers.
  • gdatf.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    The actual link to join the meeting was not public, but I did post the registration form on our social media accounts.
  • gdatf.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    participants were admitted one at a time from the waiting room, after I confirmed that they were on the advance registration list.
  • gdatf.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    this meeting was not intended to be recorded, but rather to be a private discussion among participants.
  • 404media.co(opens in new tab) supports · English
    were admitted to the meeting one at a time from a Zoom waiting room.
Reported The following morning the host found in a spam folder an email from a sender named 'Sarah Blair' at WebinarTV. Its subject line carried the exact Zoom title of the meeting, and it said an On Demand page with a feature called Chapters had been set up for the meeting. The host says the chapters roughly matched the topics discussed, that it appears the content had also been turned into an AI-generated podcast, and that WebinarTV recorded the meeting without permission from the host or anyone else in the group.

Causal attribution. The host's account of an email from WebinarTV and of what the On Demand page showed. The host does not describe listening to the podcast in the inspected text and says only that it appears to exist. The two 404 Media passages marked as context describe a different host's meeting and WebinarTV's practice in general.

Reported The host's review of the registration report found a registrant who claimed to have a son or daughter who was a patient and used an email address ending in '.space'. This registrant did not respond during introductions. The host concluded this was how the meeting was infiltrated. The inspected sources do not show who operated that registration or whether an automated agent recorded the meeting. The host reports that no visible AI tools (such as Otter) were running during the meeting.

Causal attribution. The host's inference from the registration report. No forensic or platform record was inspected, and the sender of the WebinarTV email is not shown to be the same party as the registrant.

Reported WebinarTV's chief executive told 404 Media that the company asks every host for permission to promote their webinars, that it scrapes webinars and not Zoom meetings, and that webinars are broadcast to the public. The chief executive told NBC Los Angeles that WebinarTV emails hosts twice and does not support private Zoom meetings. NBC Los Angeles found dozens of links on the site labeled as Zoom meetings. 404 Media reports that Zoom said WebinarTV enters meetings through publicly shared links and records them with a browser extension or other tools.

Causal attribution. Company and Zoom statements about WebinarTV's general practice. None of these statements addresses the foundation's meeting, and no WebinarTV account of that meeting was inspected.

  • 404media.co(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Robertson told me that WebinarTV is not violating these people’s privacy because the site only scrapes Zoom webinars as opposed to Zoom meetings.
  • 404media.co(opens in new tab) supports · English
    We contact every host, twice to make sure they want the promotion.
  • 404media.co(opens in new tab) supports · English
    “Webinars are no different than Facebook Live, X broadcast, or Youtube Live. They are broadcast to the public.
  • 404media.co(opens in new tab) supports · English
    it said that based on its review WebinarTV accesses meetings using links that have been shared publicly, then records the sessions using browser extension or “other tools.”
  • nbclosangeles.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    WebinarTV sends two emails to hosts letting them know that their webinar is being added to the search engine,
  • nbclosangeles.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    the platform does not support private Zoom meetings, only webinars “open for anyone on the internet to view.”
  • nbclosangeles.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    NBCLA found dozens of links on WebinarTV labeled as Zoom meetings, raising questions about how content is sourced.
Reported The host says the removal link in the email apparently took the listing off the WebinarTV website, and that the host told the participants what had happened, contacted Zoom and filed complaints against WebinarTV. The host says the covert recording presumably still exists somewhere, that Zoom's response amounted to a suggestion to vet attendees better, and that participants had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The host titles this part of the post 'A Betrayal of our Community'.

Causal attribution. The host's account of the response and of the host's own view of the harm. No participant statement was inspected.

  • gdatf.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    I did end up clicking the remove link, which apparently took the program off the WebinarTV website, but presumably the covert recording still exists somewhere.
  • gdatf.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    I then notified participants of the situation (we’d actually had a lot of no-shows, which in this case, was a good thing), contacted Zoom, and filed complaints against WebinarTV.
  • gdatf.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    “not our problem – do a better job of vetting your attendees”
  • gdatf.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    participants in this meeting had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
  • gdatf.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    A Betrayal of our Community

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

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

The meeting was held online and the sources do not state where the participants were. The foundation's location, the meeting's time zone and the publishers' locations are not used to infer a country.

Reviewed for publication 2026-09-29: The foundation's own post (Wayback capture of 31 March 2026) and the 404 Media article of 13 April 2026 were read in full from the saved bodies and are treated as one chain because 404 Media quotes the host's post and email. NBC Los Angeles was read in full and supplies the company's general statements. Every claim stays at reported status. The host and participants are not named in this record.

People described

Participants in a patient foundation's Zoom support group for family members and caregivers, including the host. The number who attended is not stated

People reported harmed in this case

At least 1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One person counted: the host, who ran the meeting and describes the recording as a betrayal of the community. The other participants were recorded according to the host, but their number is not stated (the host mentions many no-shows) and none is reported harmed beyond being recorded, so they are not counted.

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

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). WebinarTV: patient foundation reports its 24 March 2026 Zoom support-group meeting for family members and caregivers was recorded and listed on WebinarTV by the next morning. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-webinartv-patient-foundation-caregiver-zoom-meeting-reportedly-recorded-and-listed

BibTeX

@misc{2026_webinartv_patient_foundation_caregiver_zoom_meeting_reportedly_recorded_and_listed,
  title = {WebinarTV: patient foundation reports its 24 March 2026 Zoom support-group meeting for family members and caregivers was recorded and listed on WebinarTV by the next morning},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-webinartv-patient-foundation-caregiver-zoom-meeting-reportedly-recorded-and-listed}
}

Related cases

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.

Medium Grok

Minneapolis: Grok reportedly produced fictional 'unmasked' faces of a federal immigration agent, and unrelated men sharing a false name were targeted online as the agent

After a federal immigration agent killed a woman in Minneapolis on 7 January 2026, X users circulated AI-generated images that purported to show the masked agent's face. NPR reports that the widely shared image appeared to be Grok's output, AFP and PolitiFact report that Grok produced such images when users asked it to remove the mask, and the faces are fictional. Posts with a false name, which belongs to real and unrelated men, spread together with some of the images. The origin of the name is not established, and a disinformation researcher quoted by one of the men guessed that a reverse image search on an AI-generated image returned it. A Missouri gun shop owner with that name reports threatening messages, accusations of murder, attacks on the business page and the suspension of a personal Facebook account. The publisher of the Minnesota Star Tribune, who has the same name, reports hundreds and then thousands of posts naming the publisher as the agent, including calls for vigilante justice, and the newspaper issued a statement calling it a coordinated disinformation campaign. AFP reports that xAI answered its inquiry with an automated reply. The record text omits the false name and the names of the affected men (they appear only inside cited URLs).

Low Unidentified video tool

Cryptocurrency analyst Mai Fujimoto reports losing X, Telegram and MetaMask accounts after Zoom call with reported deepfake of acquaintance

Coin Edition (20 June 2025), TradingView and Crypto.news relayed a public account by cryptocurrency analyst Mai Fujimoto. She said her main X account was hacked on 14 June 2025 after a 10-minute Zoom call with what appeared to be an acquaintance whose Telegram account had been compromised. The caller could not be heard and sent a link to fix an audio problem. She believes malware was installed at that point, and the outlets report that attackers then also accessed her Telegram and MetaMask accounts. The outlets describe the caller as a deepfake of the acquaintance. Binance founder Changpeng Zhao commented publicly on 20 June 2025 that video verification may become unreliable. No loss of funds is stated.

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.

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