Otter.ai Notetaker Allegedly Recorded Meetings Without Informed Consent
Otter.ai is facing a class action lawsuit alleging that its Notetaker tool records non-subscriber meeting participants without informed consent and uses their voice data to train AI models. A California court allowed the lawsuit to proceed on claims under federal wiretap law, California privacy law, and Illinois biometric privacy law.
What happened
Otter.ai's AI notetaker tool joins virtual meetings on Google Meet, Zoom, and Microsoft Teams to record and transcribe participants' speech in real time, regardless of whether they are Otter users or subscribers.
According to a class action complaint filed in California district court on behalf of plaintiff Justin Brewer, Otter keeps the meeting data and uses participants' voices to train its AI models without getting consent from non-subscribers.
Reported impact
The complaint alleges that Otter records all users without their consent, which is required in California and other states, and violates privacy rights of non-users who are not asked for permission.
Index analysis
A California court allowed privacy claims against Otter to proceed, finding that the company's notetaker involves capturing voiceprints that constitute biometric identifiers under Illinois biometric privacy law (BIPA). The court rejected Otter's argument that its bot was an authorized meeting participant, distinguishing the case from prior precedent because Otter uses the notetaker for its own commercial purpose of training AI.
The court allowed claims to proceed under California's wiretapping law (CIPA), the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and Illinois's BIPA. The court dismissed some privacy claims where plaintiffs simply called conversations 'private' without alleging specific facts, but allowed claims to proceed when conversations involved sensitive topics such as medical discussions.
Governance controls
Otter's privacy policy and privacy and security FAQs state that the company uses meeting participants' voices to train its models. The court found that Otter failed to provide notice or obtain consent for capturing voiceprints and did not have a written data retention policy as required under BIPA.
Classification
Sources and evidence
This record was researched and written by the Index, based on the following original reporting.