Otter.ai Must Face Voiceprint Claims Under Illinois Biometric Law

A federal judge has allowed claims under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act to proceed against Otter.ai, finding that plaintiffs plausibly alleged the transcription service captured voiceprints capable of identifying them during virtual meetings.

Judge Eumi K. Lee of the US District Court for the Northern District of California granted Otter’s motion to dismiss in part on August 13, while letting claims under federal wiretap law, the California Invasion of Privacy Act and BIPA move forward. The order does not decide whether the company broke the law, only that the claims are adequately pleaded.

The Illinois plaintiffs allege Otter captured their voiceprints during Zoom and Microsoft Teams calls. The company argued they had not alleged the voiceprints could identify anyone. The court pointed to allegations that the Otter Notetaker tags speakers in real time using Zoom participant names or data clients enter manually, building a speaker identification profile so it can recognize the same person in later conversations. Microsoft Teams separately faces an Illinois class action over voiceprints tied to its transcription features.

Otter also argued that BIPA does not apply outside Illinois. The court found allegations that the plaintiffs were Illinois residents taking part in meetings from Illinois sufficient at this stage, even though the complaint does not say where the voice data was created, processed or stored. Other BIPA cases have turned on what a company actually holds: a federal appeals court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Samsung after finding the plaintiffs had not shown it possessed face templates generated on users’ devices.

BIPA allows statutory damages of $1,000 for a negligent violation and $5,000 for an intentional or reckless one, though the Seventh Circuit has held that a 2024 amendment curbing per-scan damages applies retroactively.

The case, In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, consolidates four proposed class actions filed between August and September 2025. Plaintiffs say the assistant joined Zoom, Teams and Google Meet calls and recorded, transcribed and retained conversations without consent, then used the material to train machine-learning models. The court let the wiretap claim proceed on the ground that a party to a conversation loses the statute’s protection when the interception serves a tortious purpose. It also found Otter adequately alleged to be a third-party eavesdropper under California law rather than a tool operating for the meeting host.

The judge dismissed counts under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, finding no adequately alleged computer access or statutory loss. A Washington Privacy Act claim fell for lack of detail about the conversations. Plaintiffs withdrew six other counts, including conversion and trespass to chattels. They have 14 days to amend, and Otter 21 days to respond. A company spokesperson declined to comment.

Sources: CourtListener, UC Today

–

By the ID Tech Editorial Team