{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T09:00:47.440Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"california","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":5,"coverage":{"cases":5,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":5,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":5,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-us-bank-customers-allege-pega-voice-ai-transcribed-and-analysed-customer-service-calls-without-consent","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page headers: 'Case 1:26-cv-14506-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/02/26'; para 5: 'Wiretapping Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99, and the Pennsylvania'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"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'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"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'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"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'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"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'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."}],"effects":[{"label":"bank customers say an AI service transcribed and analysed their customer-service calls, including account details, without their consent","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.307198/gov.uscourts.mad.307198.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"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.","independence_group":"dmass-plaintiffs-complaint"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["privacy","finance"],"unknowns":["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."],"geography":{"basis":"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.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"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.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-21"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"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.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"U.S. Bank customers allege in a class action that Pega Voice AI transcribed and analysed their customer-service calls without consent","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2025-12-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-02","aiSystem":"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)","aiProduct":"Pega Voice AI (reported)","aiCompany":"Pegasystems Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"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.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":4,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"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.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.307198/gov.uscourts.mad.307198.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Class action complaint against Pegasystems Inc., D. Mass. No. 1:26-cv-14506, filed 2 October 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-21T03:08:54.693563+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-21T03:08:54.693563+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["pega-voice-ai","contact-centre","call-transcription","privacy","wiretap","class-action","banking"]},{"id":"2025-illinois-fireflies-ai-meeting-assistant-voiceprint-capture-lawsuits","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"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.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"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","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"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","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"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.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Fireflies did not inform Plaintiff, in writing or otherwise, that it was collecting his","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"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","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Plaintiff hereby dismisses, without prejudice, all of her claims against Defendant in the above-captioned lawsuit","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"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","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"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)."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"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.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"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."}],"effects":[{"label":"plaintiffs say an AI meeting assistant they never signed up for recorded their voices and captured voiceprints without notice or written consent","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"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.","independence_group":"cdill-plaintiff-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340.13.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Notice of voluntary dismissal, C.D. Ill. No. 3:25-cv-03399, filed 10 March 2026; read on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy).","independence_group":"cdill-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.466340/gov.uscourts.cand.466340.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Class action complaint, N.D. Cal. No. 3:26-cv-02479, filed 23 March 2026; read in full on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy).","independence_group":"ndcal-plaintiff-complaint"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.466340/gov.uscourts.cand.466340.25.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"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).","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496785/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496785.27.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"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).","independence_group":"ndill-plaintiffs-complaint"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496785/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496785.31.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"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).","independence_group":"fireflies-motion"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","work"],"unknowns":["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."],"geography":{"basis":"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.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"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.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-20"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"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.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"Illinois residents allege in lawsuits that Fireflies.AI's meeting assistant captured their voiceprints without notice or consent","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2025-03-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-11-18","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2025-12-18","aiSystem":"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)","aiProduct":"Fireflies.AI meeting assistant (reported)","aiCompany":"Fireflies.AI Corp.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"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.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":4,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"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.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Class action complaint against Fireflies.AI Corp., C.D. Ill. No. 3:25-cv-03399, filed 18 December 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-20T03:13:40.245348+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-20T03:13:40.245348+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["fireflies-ai","ai-notetaker","meeting-transcription","privacy","bipa","voiceprint","class-action","non-user"]},{"id":"2017-mobley-v-workday-ai-applicant-screening-job-rejections-discrimination-lawsuit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 1: 'brings this action for employment discrimination against Workday, Inc.'; 'algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other similarly situated job applicants on the basis of race, age, and disability'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A job applicant brought an employment discrimination action against Workday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that its algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other applicants on the basis of race, age and disability.","causal_attribution":"The order establishes that the action exists and what it alleges. It does not establish that the allegations are true."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 2-3: 'Mobley has allegedly applied to over 100 positions with companies that use Workday'; 'screening tools for talent acquisition and hiring since 2017'; 'Mobley was allegedly denied employment for every one of the'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that since 2017 he applied to more than 100 positions with companies that use Workday's screening tools and was denied employment on every one.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court on a motion to dismiss. It is not a finding."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 3: 'his application was rejected less than an hour later'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that one application, submitted at 12:55 a.m., was rejected less than an hour later.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court. The plaintiffs argue that the timing indicates automated screening, and no finding has been made."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2: 'enabling these applications to make hiring decisions'; 'employer should accept or reject an application'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that Workday's tools embed AI and machine learning and determine whether an employer should accept or reject an application.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court. Workday disputes that its tools make hiring decisions."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The motion to dismiss the disparate impact claims under Title VII, the ADEA, and the'; 'ADA is therefore denied'; 'intentionally discriminated against him based on race and age'; 'Document 80 Filed 07/12/24'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 12 July 2024 the court granted Workday's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part: the disparate-impact claims proceed and the claims of intentional discrimination were dismissed.","causal_attribution":"The court's own ruling on the pleadings. It decides whether the claims may proceed and makes no finding of discrimination."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 1: 'motion for preliminary certification of the collective is GRANTED'; 'Mobley is joined by four other plaintiffs over the age of forty'; 'Document 128'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 16 May 2025 the court granted preliminary certification of a collective on the age-discrimination claim, and four other plaintiffs over forty had joined the named plaintiff.","causal_attribution":"The court's own procedural ruling, which the order says can be revisited after discovery. It makes no finding of discrimination."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 1: 'who allege that they too have applied for hundreds of jobs via Workday and have been rejected almost every time without an interview'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The four further plaintiffs allege that they applied for hundreds of jobs via Workday and were rejected almost every time without an interview.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs' allegations as recited by the court. They attribute the rejections to age discrimination in the recommendation system, which is not established."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the plaintiffs filed their class-certification request on September 14 in federal court in San Francisco'; 'Workday has denied wrongdoing, saying its AI tools evaluate job qualifications rather than protected characteristics'; 'its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed, and rejected'; 'A hearing on whether the case can proceed as a class action is scheduled for March 9, 2027'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Black Information Network, citing Reuters, reported on 24 September 2026 that the plaintiffs filed a class-certification request on 14 September, that Workday denies wrongdoing and says its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected, and that a hearing is scheduled for 9 March 2027.","causal_attribution":"A relay of Reuters reporting. The motion and the Reuters article were not read."}],"effects":[{"label":"denied employment on every one of more than 100 applications to companies using Workday's screening tools (plaintiff's allegation)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"four further plaintiffs over forty rejected almost every time without an interview (their allegation, as recited by the court)","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.80.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English: the 20-page order of 12 July 2024 as text extracted from the PDF.","independence_group":"mobley-v-workday-court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.128.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English: the 20-page order of 16 May 2025 as text extracted from the PDF.","independence_group":"mobley-v-workday-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.binnews.com/alternate/amp/2026-09-24-black-job-seekers-allege-workdays-ai-hiring-tools-discriminate-seek-class-action/","kind":"news_relay","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English. The article attributes its account to Reuters, whose article was not read.","independence_group":"reuters-workday-class-certification-2026-09"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Whether Workday's tools, the employers' own settings or human reviewers produced each rejection.","Which employers were involved beyond those named in the order, and the dates of the individual applications.","The contents of the September 2026 class-certification motion and of the Reuters article, neither of which was read.","The outcome of the case on the merits."],"geography":{"basis":"The case is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, and the 2025 order describes the proposed group as a 'nationwide collective' under US federal employment statutes, which places the applications in the United States. The plaintiffs' places of residence were not read in the passages inspected.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete, court-documented allegation that an AI applicant-screening system repeatedly rejected a named job applicant. The existence of the suit and two rulings are established by the court's orders. The rejections and the role of the tools are the plaintiffs' allegations, which Workday denies and no court has decided.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The plaintiffs allege that Workday's AI-based screening and recommendation tools decided or recommended the rejection of their applications. The court's orders recite those allegations and found the disparate-impact claims plausibly pleaded. The 2025 order quotes Workday's discovery statement that its Candidate Skills Match tool 'utilizes artificial intelligence' and that customers choose whether to turn it on. Workday says its tools evaluate qualifications and that its customers control rejections. Whether an automated tool made any particular rejection is not established.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Job applicant alleges Workday's AI applicant-screening tools rejected more than 100 of his applications on the basis of race, age and disability; a US federal court let disparate-impact claims proceed and preliminarily certified an age-discrimination collective","summary":"Derek Mobley sued Workday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the company's algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other job applicants on the basis of race, age and disability. According to the court's summary of the complaint, Mobley alleges that since 2017 he applied to more than 100 positions with companies that use Workday's screening tools and was denied employment on every one, in one instance less than an hour after applying at 12:55 a.m. On 12 July 2024 the court dismissed the claims of intentional discrimination and allowed the disparate-impact claims to proceed. On 16 May 2025 it granted preliminary certification of a collective on the age-discrimination claim, by which time four further plaintiffs over forty had joined. The Black Information Network, citing Reuters, reported on 24 September 2026 that the plaintiffs had asked the court to certify a class action and that a hearing is set for 9 March 2027. Workday denies wrongdoing and says its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected. No court has ruled on whether the tools discriminated.","incidentDate":"2017-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","aiSystem":"Workday's applicant screening tools on its job-application platform, which the court's orders describe from the complaint as 'algorithm-based applicant screening tools' (2024) and an AI-based 'applicant recommendation system' (2025). The plaintiffs allege the tools score, sort, rank or screen applicants. Workday says its AI tools evaluate job qualifications and that its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected (as relayed from Reuters). The 2025 order names two tools discussed in the certification briefing: Candidate Skills Match, which Workday said in discovery 'utilizes artificial intelligence' to compare a job posting with an application within its Workday Recruiting service and which customers can turn on or off, and Workday Assessment Connector, which is alleged to use machine learning","aiProduct":"Workday applicant screening tools","aiCompany":"Workday","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The named plaintiff alleges that he was denied employment on every one of more than 100 applications made since 2017 to companies using Workday's screening tools and that the tools discriminated by race, age and disability. Four further plaintiffs over forty allege repeated rejections without an interview. Workday denies wrongdoing, and no court has ruled on the merits.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":5,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Five plaintiffs who allege rejections: the named plaintiff and the four opt-in plaintiffs whose declarations the court's 16 May 2025 order describes ('four other plaintiffs over the age of forty'; each 'alleges that they received at least one \"automated\" rejection email'). People who may opt in to the collective are not counted. The count records people who report harm and does not establish that the tools caused it.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.128.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court, N.D. California, Mobley v. Workday, order granting preliminary collective certification, 16 May 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:19:40.629587+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:19:40.629587+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["made-decision-about","hiring","applicant-screening","workday","employment-discrimination","age-discrimination","lawsuit","institutional-use"]},{"id":"2021-atherton-california-flock-alpr-misread-plate-gunpoint-stop-lawsuit-settled","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'At about 5:30 a.m. on April 16, 2021, an automatic license plate reader (ALPR) had misread'; 'over and ordered him at gunpoint to throw his keys out of the window, get out of the car, and lie on his stomach to be handcuffed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'was stopped by local police at gunpoint, instructed to lie on the ground, and handcuffed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In April 2021 Atherton police stopped the driver at gunpoint, made him lie on the ground and handcuffed him.","causal_attribution":"The lawsuit as reported by The Almanac and police records as reported by Business Insider."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'caused the ALPR to read the “H’s” of the license plate as “M’s.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Police records show that the Flock camera confused an \"H\" for an \"M\"; officers noted that \"the Flock cameras misread\" the plate.'; 'The license plate in question was obstructed by dirt, causing one of the letters (H) to look like an M,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The license-plate reader misread the letter H on his dirt-obscured plate as M.","causal_attribution":"The driver's lawsuit (The Almanac) and police records and an Atherton police commander (Business Insider) agree on the misread and the dirt."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Records show that the case was settled on March 16, 2023, for $45,000.'; 'the Atherton police officers denied all allegations, as well as the injuries that'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'filed a lawsuit and settled with the town and police officers for $45,000.'; 'denies any wrongdoing and contends that it acted properly and lawfully.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"He sued three officers for unreasonable seizure and excessive force; the officers denied the allegations and the injuries claimed, and the case was settled on 16 March 2023 for $45,000, with the town denying wrongdoing.","causal_attribution":"Court records and the settlement agreement as reported by The Almanac; Business Insider reports the same settlement amount and the town's denial."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'matched them to the ones of a reported stolen vehicle.'; 'Atherton police followed the vehicle for several minutes but failed to visually verify what the ALPR had falsely captured, according to the suit.'; 'With the belief that they were pursuing a “high-risk felony stop,”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the suit, the reader matched the plate to a reported stolen vehicle, and officers followed the car for several minutes without visually verifying the plate before making what they believed was a high-risk felony stop.","causal_attribution":"The driver's lawsuit as reported by The Almanac."}],"effects":[{"label":"stopped at gunpoint, made to lie on his stomach and handcuffed after a license-plate reader misread his plate as a stolen car's","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/police/2024/02/12/atherton-officer-involved-in-the-arrest-of-m-a-student-also-named-in-lawsuit-over-unreasonable-seizure-and-use-of-excessive-force/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-04 from the Internet Archive 2026 capture (The Almanac, 12 February 2024, updated 16 February 2024); the live site returned HTTP 429. Draws on the amended complaint, the officers' answer and the settlement agreement.","independence_group":"atherton-2021-stop-lawsuit-records"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.businessinsider.com/flock-safety-alpr-cameras-misreads-2026-3","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-10-04 (Business Insider, 9 March 2026); full text present in the served page. Cites police records and an Atherton police commander.","independence_group":"business-insider-records-review"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The court and case number of the 2022 lawsuit; the complaint was not read.","The injuries he claimed; The Almanac says only that the officers denied them.","Whether The Almanac's unnamed automatic license-plate reader and Business Insider's Flock camera are the same device; Business Insider cites police records for the Flock identification."],"geography":{"basis":"The stop was made by Atherton, California, police (The Almanac; Business Insider), and the suit was brought against Atherton officers and settled with the town. The court is not named in the bodies read; US rests on the suit against a California town's officers.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional-use case consistent with the held Flock misread rows: the driver's lawsuit (The Almanac) and police records (Business Insider) describe a license-plate-reader misread that led Atherton officers to stop and handcuff him at gunpoint; the town settled for $45,000 while denying wrongdoing. He is not named here.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-04"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The lawsuit (The Almanac) says an automatic license-plate reader misread the dirt-obscured plate and matched it to a stolen vehicle; Business Insider, citing police records, identifies the camera as Flock's, reports that it confused an H for an M and that officers noted the Flock cameras misread the plate, and describes the cameras as AI cameras. The plate match against a stolen-vehicle record is the automated system's claim about his car; following without visual verification and the armed stop were officers' decisions.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Atherton, California: police stopped a driver at gunpoint in April 2021 and made him lie on his stomach to be handcuffed after a license-plate reader misread the letter H on his dirty plate as M and matched it to a stolen car; the town settled his lawsuit for $45,000 in 2023","summary":"At about 5:30 a.m. on 16 April 2021, according to a lawsuit reported by The Almanac, an automated license-plate reader in Atherton, California, misread the dirt-obscured plate of a driver's car, reading its letter H as M, and matched it to a reported stolen vehicle. Atherton police followed the car for several minutes without visually verifying the plate, then made a high-risk felony stop, ordering him at gunpoint to throw his keys out of the window, get out and lie on his stomach to be handcuffed. He sued three officers in 2022 for unreasonable seizure and excessive force; the officers denied the allegations and the injuries he claimed, and the case was settled on 16 March 2023 for $45,000. Business Insider, citing police records, reported in March 2026 that the misread came from a Flock camera and that officers noted the Flock cameras had misread the plate; an Atherton police commander said the plate was obstructed by dirt and that the town denies wrongdoing.","incidentDate":"2021-04-16","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-02-12","aiSystem":"Automated license-plate-reader camera in Atherton, California, identified by Business Insider from police records as a Flock Safety camera (which it describes as one of Flock's AI cameras), that misread the plate and matched it to a stolen-vehicle record","aiProduct":"Flock Safety license plate readers (reported)","aiCompany":"Flock Safety","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"He was stopped at gunpoint, made to lie on his stomach and handcuffed after a misread license-plate alert, and his lawsuit claimed injuries that the officers deny (The Almanac; Business Insider). The town settled for $45,000 while denying wrongdoing.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the driver, stopped at gunpoint and handcuffed (The Almanac; Business Insider). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_settled","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.almanacnews.com/police/2024/02/12/atherton-officer-involved-in-the-arrest-of-m-a-student-also-named-in-lawsuit-over-unreasonable-seizure-and-use-of-excessive-force/","primarySourceLabel":"The Almanac, 12 February 2024: Atherton officer involved in the arrest of M-A student also named in lawsuit over unreasonable seizure","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-04T03:31:59.236805+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-04T03:31:59.236805+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["flock","alpr","license-plate-reader","misread","wrongful-stop","gunpoint","california","atherton","justice","made-claim-about","settlement"]},{"id":"2024-us-otter-notetaker-recorded-non-users-meetings-privacy-suit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'participated in a Zoom meeting in California on February'; '24, 2025, where the Otter Notetaker was used by a meeting participant to transcribe the'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in California in March 2025'; 'used Zoom to communicate with a medical professional, and'; 'Illinois on January 10, 2025 and May 19, 2025 where the Otter Notetaker was used to'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in Washington state in March'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state who'; 'participated in virtual meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their'; 'consent to record, transcribe, and store the contents of their communications.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the'; 'allegations concerning the named Plaintiff’s personal knowledge, experiences, expectations, or'","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'who alleges his privacy was \"severely invaded\" upon realizing Otter was secretly recording a confidential conversation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Seven people who were not Otter account holders allege that, on Zoom or Microsoft Teams calls (six give dates between March 2024 and May 2025), another participant used Otter Notetaker and Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations without their consent; the calls include one with a medical professional and meetings with a financial professional.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs attribute the recording to Otter's product design, which they say lets the notetaker record without every participant's consent; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'other personal information for its own commercial use, including to train its automatic speech'; 'The Illinois Plaintiffs allege that, during their virtual meetings, Otter'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter claims that before the audio of meetings is fed into its machine learning systems to help improve an AI speech recognition feature, it is \"de-identified,\"'","relation":"context","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter keeps their conversational data on its servers and uses it to train its speech-recognition and machine-learning models, and that it captured the Illinois plaintiffs' voiceprints; Otter's policy, as reported by NPR, says it trains on transcripts with users' permission and de-identifies audio.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'felt frustrated, embarrassed, and stressed to learn that his'; 'conversation was recorded without his consent, and his information, voice, and'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One California plaintiff alleges that he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn that his conversation had been recorded without his consent.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs as a consequence of Otter's recording."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ ECPA claim is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ BIPA claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'The motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend as to Count 2'; 'The motion is DENIED in all other respects.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 13 August 2026 the court denied Otter's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, holding that the alleged interception and retention of private conversations was a concrete injury, let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, and dismissed some other claims.","causal_attribution":"Procedural ruling on the pleadings; no finding that Otter recorded anyone unlawfully."}],"effects":[{"label":"the plaintiffs say Otter's notetaker recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations on calls they joined, without their consent, including a medical call and calls with a financial professional","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the plaintiffs say their conversations stay on Otter's servers for training its models and that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"one plaintiff says he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn he had been recorded","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.35.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 35, filed 5 December 2025; RECAP PDF (68 pages) read on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200), plaintiffs' experience sections read in full. Plaintiffs' allegations, not findings.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part, ECF 68, 13 August 2026 (Judge Eumi K. Lee); RECAP PDF read in full on 2026-09-29. Rules on the pleadings and accepts the allegations as true for that purpose; it makes no finding of fact.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.80.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Otter.ai's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 80, 17 September 2026; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29, plaintiff-experience paragraphs and responses read.","independence_group":"otter-answer"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Brewer v. Otter.ai, Inc., original Class Action Complaint, ECF 1, filed 15 August 2025; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.npr.org/2025/08/15/g-s1-83087/otter-ai-transcription-class-action-lawsuit","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"NPR, 15 August 2025, read live on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200). Reports the original complaint and summarises Otter's privacy policy; says neither side responded to requests for comment.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.79.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order, ECF 79, 16 September 2026; read on 2026-09-29. Procedural facts only.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","work","health","finance"],"unknowns":["Whether Otter's product notified the plaintiffs on their calls that the notetaker was present, and what the other participants' Otter settings were.","Whether the plaintiffs' conversations were in fact used to train Otter's models, and in what form.","The exact date of one Illinois plaintiff's meetings, which the complaint places only within the limitations period."],"geography":{"basis":"The consolidated complaint places the plaintiffs' calls in California, in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois, and in Washington state; the order describes the plaintiffs as individuals from California, Illinois and Washington state. The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a bounded series of concrete privacy harms reported by identified people in a pending federal suit: each named plaintiff describes a call on which another participant's AI notetaker recorded and transcribed them without consent. The account rests on the plaintiffs' pleadings and the court's ruling on them; Otter denies the allegations. Plaintiff names are omitted.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-13"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Each plaintiff alleges that another participant's Otter account joined the Otter Notetaker, an AI transcription assistant, to a Zoom or Microsoft Teams call the plaintiff was on, and that the notetaker recorded, transcribed and stored the plaintiff's conversation on Otter's servers without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent (ECF 35, the consolidated complaint; the court's 13 August 2026 order summarises the same allegation). That alleged capture of the plaintiffs' conversations by an AI service is the reported harm. The complaint also alleges that Otter used the recordings to train its speech-recognition models and took voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs. Otter admits it offers an AI meeting assistant called Otter Notetaker but says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' calls and denies the allegations. The capture is alleged, not established, so the status is reported.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"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","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2024-03-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-19","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-08-15","aiSystem":"Otter Notetaker, Otter.ai's AI meeting assistant, joined to Zoom and Microsoft Teams calls by another participant's Otter account","aiProduct":"Otter Notetaker","aiCompany":"Otter.ai, Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter recorded, transcribed and kept their private conversations on calls they joined without their consent, including medical and financial discussions, used them to train its models and took voiceprints, and one plaintiff says learning this left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed (plaintiffs' allegations in a pending suit; Otter denies them).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":7,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The court order says 'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state' who participated in meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their consent; each describes their own call in the consolidated complaint. They were not Otter account holders (one says only that to her knowledge she did not create an account), so they are counted as other people. The proposed class members are not counted. Documented minimum 7.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Order granting motion to dismiss in part, In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, No. 5:25-cv-06911-EKL (N.D. Cal.), 13 August 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:04:08.493618+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:43.76525+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["otter-ai","ai-notetaker","meeting-transcription","privacy","wiretap","bipa","voiceprint","training-data","class-action","non-user"]}]}