AI note-taking applications are increasingly used by workers to record meetings, generate conversation summaries and suggest post-meeting action items.
Along with the promised productivity benefits — enabling users to focus on meetings rather than actively taking notes — the emergence of these AI tools has raised privacy questions, particularly around obtaining prior consent by meeting participants for their use. Those concerns, in turn, have prompted a spate of lawsuits against software vendors that sell AI notetaking tools.
In some ways, the underlying questions are not new: It’s long been possible to record a phone call with a dictaphone, and laws around surreptitious recording have been around for decades. Yet widespread access to AI notetakers via desktop or smartphone apps means that it’s easier than ever to record a conversation for future reference.
Among the thorny questions arising from the technology’s use: what happens to conversation data sent to a software vendor’s servers for processing? Are the recording and transcript used to train those vendors’ AI models, for example, or create biometric voiceprints? Those practices are among the issues being considered in US courts.
Otter, which claims to have 35 million users, was subject to a class-action complaint in a federal court in California last year. That complaint accused Otter of recording individuals without consent and using their voices to train its speech recognition AI tools. Last month, a judge rejected Otter’s attempt to dismiss the main claims, though the scope of the case was narrowed.
A lawsuit filed against another vendor, Fireflies, in an Illinois court late last year, alleges the company collects and stores biometric voiceprints without user consent, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Fireflies claims to have more than 20 million individuals and 1 million organizations as customers.
Earlier this year, a class-action complaint in a Washington court claimed that a live transcription feature in Microsoft’s Teams collaboration application also violates BIPA by collecting biometric data without consent.
And most recently, a complaint alleged that Granola, a well-funded startup, designed its product to be used without the knowledge of all meeting participants, in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). That complaint also claims Granola trains its AI models on conversation data without consent.
None of these cases has yet been resolved, and it’s unclear whether any of the vendors broke the law in the design and delivery of their products and services. But the lawsuits highlight considerations for businesses that allow the use of AI notetakers, both in terms of prior consent for recordings and understanding how conversation data is handled.
More broadly, the lawsuits raise questions about how existing privacy and consent rules apply to new technologies that make it easier to record others, whether through AI note-taking apps, smartglasses, or other recording devices.
Computerworld spoke with Brian McGinnis, partner at law firm Barnes & Thornburg and a founding member and co-chair of the firm’s Data Security and Privacy Law practice group, about the focus of the lawsuits, potential outcomes, and how businesses can deploy AI notetaking apps safely.
**Several cases have already been brought against popular AI note-taking apps. What are some of the main commonalities between these? Which laws are the vendors accused of breaching? “**The common allegation is that these companies capture communications of people who did not agree to the recording or receive adequate notice. Some of the lawsuits also allege that meeting data is used to train AI models and that consent cannot meaningfully be withdrawn once the data has been processed.
“There are various federal and state claims. You’ve got the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a federal wiretapping statute. As a general matter, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act permits an interception when one party consents, subject to statutory exceptions and questions about whether the technology constitutes an unlawful interception or third-party eavesdropping. In other words, if you, as the user, provide consent, you can be on a meeting with 20 other people and it’s deemed to be sufficient; you don’t necessarily need to get the consent of other people.
“But California and a minority of other states are what we call ‘two-party consent’ states, meaning each individual on the call has to give consent; it’s not sufficient for you as the person who turns the notetaker on to provide the consent — you also have to get the consent of others that are being recorded. There are state laws around that.
“There’s a law called CIPA, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, that’s being utilized in this context. We see a lot of suits being brought under that law — it’s a wiretapping statute designed for telephone wiretapping that’s now being applied to the internet.”
What about the use of biometric data? “ A growing number of states regulate biometric data, with Illinois’ BIPA being particularly prominent because it provides a private right of action. This means an individual can sue a company for violation of the law.
“That law covers biometric information. With an audio recording or recording of ‘dumb’ video that isn’t running any algorithms, you’re not necessarily collecting any biometrics. But when you start identifying people, you’re recording things like faceprints or voiceprints, which are in the definition of biometric information within the statute. Now you’re not only collecting personal information, but also biometric information, which is considered very sensitive and much more highly regulated.
“Then you’ve got the private right of action that goes against it. Part of the argument here is that recordings taken by the AI notetakers can be used to produce some form of biometric information, such as a voiceprint.
“We’ve seen a lot of cases, and a lot of changes in industry as a result of this law. Shutterfly had a famous case about scanning for people’s faces and things like that in Illinois that changed the photo storage and processing industry a little bit.
“A lot of companies stay out of Illinois to avoid this law specifically. But a customer organization might not know exactly who’s in a meeting and where a person is located at the time of the meeting. So, you need to either follow that law and get individual consent, or stay out of states with biometric laws if you want to use some of these tools.
“It’s just a further challenge for these applications if the goal is to be used as much as possible with as little detection as possible.”
What are some of the potential outcomes for these cases? “ I think it’d be unlikely to get an outright ban, absent passing some kind of new law that says these tools are per se illegal for use. It’s much more likely the outcome will require some changes and controls over the way that they get used. The clearest case would be some kind of a pop-up notice: ‘Hey, this meeting’s being recorded, here’s who it is, here’s their privacy policy, here’s their terms of service – do you consent to it?’ And getting opt-in consent from anybody who wants to be recorded.
“The notion that only one person in the meeting has to say it’s okay and you can just automatically record everybody else, I think that’s probably at risk, and could potentially be replaced with a standard that requires everybody to consent before it’s considered legal.
“But the newer —and more interesting — wave of these is the Granola case, where part of its marketing is that people aren’t aware that it’s there. The Granola complaint alleges that the product was designed to operate without alerting other participants. It’s possible that kind of activity could result in a decision that would ultimately ban it outright. In other words, that it’s illegal to utilize these tools if you aren’t providing notice to everybody and/or aren’t getting consent from everyone on the call. That’s a possible outcome that we could see.
“To me, that’s interesting when you think beyond AI note-taking and into the broader world, with conversations around, like, Meta Glasses, or any of these kinds of AI wearables. Granola in particular has an Apple Watch app, and there are other wearable or physical devices — there’s one [Plaud Note] that sticks on the back of your phone and is essentially an always-on recording device.
“With these devices, you’re going from an online meeting where you can provide notice and there’s a structure to obtain consent, to walking down the sidewalk and recording people and casual conversations. Maybe it’s somebody you’re having a conversation with, maybe it’s somebody at the table next to you in the coffee shop that you have no relationship with whatsoever — what are the laws around consent and notice in those cases, where there’s no digital interface to put that up in front of people? Do you have to go around with a pad of paper and a pen and get people to sign consent to use these things? Do you have to physically tell them?
“Those are the more interesting conversations that this line of cases is just at the beginning of helping us get some answers on. In other words; how do you get consent? How do you provide notice in a world where we don’t have documents or screens in front of us to easily handle that? Those are interesting questions that the law will have to figure out here.”
These tools are increasingly used in the workplace. How can businesses be sure they deploy the technologies safely? “ We’re getting a lot of questions from our clients about this topic, because they’re really unsure and uncertain of how to handle these tools.
“Obviously, there’s a push for broad use of AI within their companies, for productivity increases within their company. People like the tools; they want to be able to use them. But then we also hear a lot of stories about ‘I jumped on a meeting; I didn’t even know it was being recorded, then I got an email afterward with a transcript of it,’ and ‘half of what it recorded wasn’t actually what I said, or it was interpreted incorrectly’ — things like that. So there’s a lot of consternation amongst our clients about the people within their organizations using it.
“I can’t tell clients definitively that they’re legal as they are; there are ways to use this legally and safely that aren’t going to get your organization sued, but you probably have to do some things that are beyond what’s provided ‘out of the box’ by the software providers.
“With Granola, for example, my understanding is that certain notice features may not be enabled by default. You can turn on video or audio watermarking, and you can turn on the notice that pops up in these things, but I think it ships without those features enabled. That puts the responsibility on the individual user to determine and then implement their own legal privacy and legal compliance mechanisms using their settings.
“You really have to play to the most stringent state’s law. I would advise a company that, to decrease your chances of getting in trouble for use of these tools, you need to obtain consent of all parties on the call. You can do that verbally, as well; written is even better.
“Then it’s about having an internal AI note-taking policy. Think of a BYOD policy, which all these companies have, or an AI usage policy — this could be part of that policy, or a standalone policy: ‘Here’s how our organization thinks about these tools: you can only use these approved tools and, if you’re going to use them, you have to turn on these features. You have to get consent from everyone. Here are limits on what you can do with the output of those transcripts or recordings.’
“If you set all that up and do the compliance and governance work, I think you can use these tools and most likely stay on the right side of the law. Certainly, the law doesn’t prevent consenting adults from consenting to the use of these kinds of tools.
“But the further you get away from that written consent standard, the more problematic it becomes. If you just want to go to a notice standard and not obtain actual opt-in consent, or, even worse, if you want to try and do this without anybody knowing, that potentially could get challenged.”