In Brewer v. Otter.ai Inc., No. 5:25-cv-06911 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2025), the complaint alleges that Otter automatically joins Google Meet, Zoom, and Microsoft Teams meetings and records, accesses, reads, and learns the contents of conversations involving non-users without their consent [...] According to the allegations, Otter transmits call content to its servers in real time, uses participant conversations to train its machine-learning models, retains recordings indefinitely, and provides no meaningful disclosure to non-Otter participants.
Curated from natlawreview.com →
An AI notetaker joins a call as a participant, and the person who invited it has an account and agreed to terms. Everybody else on the call has neither. The class action filed in California in August 2025 turns on that gap, under federal and state wiretap law, and the named plaintiff is not an Otter user at all: he says he was recorded because somebody else's tool was in the meeting. Related complaints raise voiceprints under Illinois biometric law. The allegations are untested. They are on this page because the practice they describe is now the default in most companies, and the question of who is supposed to collect consent from the other eight people on a call has no settled answer.
