We have all become accustomed to seeing pop-up notices on our video calls saying that an AI-powered technology is recording us. Sometimes the AI service even appears as a participant. Notwithstanding how commonplace these features have become, a recent decision from a federal court in California may signal that such call transcription services present a risk of class action lawsuits.
In August 2026, a judge in the Northern District of California allowed several claims to proceed in a class action lawsuit against Otter.ai, an AI-powered video call recording and transcription service.[1] Plaintiffs alleged that the company’s “Otter Notetaker” tool joins virtual meetings automatically, records and transcribes participants’ speech without obtaining consent, and retains the content of communications, voiceprints, and other personal information for its own commercial purposes. Plaintiffs alleged that these practices violate the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and other state and federal privacy laws.
BIPA regulates the collection and processing of “biometric identifiers” and “biometric information” of Illinois residents. The law requires companies who collect such information to (among other requirements) provide notice and obtain written consent before such collection or processing, and to establish a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying such information. Plaintiffs alleged that Otter.ai violated both of these requirements. The law provides a private right of action and statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent violation, $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation, or actual damages, whichever is greater.
BIPA’s definition of “biometric identifiers” includes voiceprints, which Otter.ai allegedly collects in order to provide its transcription services. The court found that Otter.ai’s speaker-tagging features plausibly involve capturing voiceprints when the company builds speaker profiles. The court did not decide on the merits whether Otter.ai did in fact violate BIPA, but the court did reject Otter.ai’s motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and failure to state a claim, stating that “Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Otter violated section 15(b) by capturing their voiceprints during virtual meetings.”
This case should serve as a warning to companies that either provide or utilize AI meeting recording and transcription tools. Though this class action targeted the AI service itself, it is not clear that companies utilizing such services are immune from BIPA liability. After all, interested plaintiffs’ attorneys might be likely to bring claims against anyone in the vicinity of a potential BIPA action. Given the risk of potential statutory damages and class action lawsuits, companies would be well advised to perform due diligence on call recordation vendors and to engage legal counsel to review the applicability of and compliance with BIPA and other relevant laws.
Taft will continue to monitor BIPA caselaw for updates and new developments. If you have questions about this regulation, or about privacy laws more broadly, Taft’s Privacy, Security, & AI attorneys are available to assist. As always, please sign up to receive emails of our latest posts here on Privacy and Data Security Insights, and follow us on LinkedIn for the latest in privacy, security, and artificial intelligence legal news.
[1] See In re Otter.ai Privacy Litig., No. 5:25-cv-06911 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2026).