Otter.ai faces a longer legal battle over its meeting assistant technology. A U.S. federal judge refused to dismiss central privacy claims against the company.
Judge Eumi K. Lee, from the Northern District of California, issued the order on August 13. The ruling lets claims proceed under federal wiretap law, California privacy law, and Illinois biometric law.
However, the decision does not decide whether Otter.ai broke the law. It only means the plaintiffs presented enough facts to continue the case.
The lawsuit combines four proposed class actions filed in 2025. Plaintiffs claim Otter’s assistant joined Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet calls. They allege it recorded, transcribed, and stored conversations without proper consent.
They also claim Otter created voiceprints through speaker identification features. Voiceprints can help systems recognize who is speaking. Under some laws, that type of data needs clear notice and permission.
Otter argued that it acted as a tool for meeting hosts. The company said it did not operate as an outside interceptor. It also argued that plaintiffs had not shown enough harm for federal court.
Yet the judge allowed the core claims to move forward. The court found the complaint plausibly alleged independent data use by Otter. That includes using conversations to improve products and machine-learning models.
This distinction matters for the collaboration industry. A host may approve a note-taking bot. But vendors may face more scrutiny if they reuse meeting data.
Otter.ai CEO Sam Liang addressed the lawsuit earlier this year. He told UC Today:
“Lawsuits [are] part of doing business, especially when you are doing something new [or] disrupting a old model – some people are not comfortable, so we’ll just have to deal with that.”
He added:
“But if you think about it, the way we capture meeting notes is no different than Microsoft Copilot or Zoom or Google Meeting notetakers, so we’re not afraid of [the] lawsuit. I think we’re on the right side of history.”
The case also keeps claims under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act alive. BIPA can impose major penalties for improper biometric data handling. Damages can reach $1,000 per negligent violation. They can rise to $5,000 for reckless or intentional violations.
At the same time, Otter narrowed the lawsuit. The judge dismissed claims under some computer fraud laws. She found the complaint lacked enough detail for those allegations.
Some privacy claims were also dismissed for certain plaintiffs. But many dismissals allow amendment. Plaintiffs have a short window to update their complaint.
For enterprises, the message is clear. AI meeting assistants need strong governance. Companies must know when bots join calls. They must also manage notices, approvals, recordings, and retention rules.
The ruling does not ban AI notetakers. It does raise pressure on vendors and IT teams. Meeting data now carries legal, operational, and trust risks.
As discovery approaches, internal policies may become highly relevant. Consent flows, transcript storage, speaker profiles, and training data could face examination. That may shape how AI assistants operate across business communications.
