Lawsuit accuses Google AI of unauthorized call recording
CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES — A new class action lawsuit filed in California federal court alleges that Google’s Cloud Contact Center AI software unlawfully records and analyzes private conversations between consumers and customer service representatives without consent.
The lawsuit, filed by Misael Ambriz, claims that Google provides its artificial intelligence-powered Cloud Contact Center software to companies to monitor customer support calls. The AI software identifies customer intent, provides real-time guidance to human agents, and transcribes conversations for later analysis, according to the complaint.
However, the lawsuit argues that Google fails to inform consumers that the AI is listening in and recording their conversations with customer service agents. The plaintiff claims he called Verizon’s support line multiple times, first interacting with a virtual agent before speaking to a human representative. Unbeknownst to him, Google’s AI continued monitoring his call even after he was transferred to the human agent.
The complaint accuses Google of violating California’s Invasion of Privacy Act and seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each violation on behalf of every customer nationwide whose call was recorded by the AI software without consent.
Legal experts say this case underscores the need for clear policies around AI call monitoring and disclosures so consumers understand when an AI is involved in their interactions. Companies deploying AI must ensure proper consent to avoid legal issues.
Attorney and outsourcing advisor John Walter advised other AI vendors providing any call analytics or agent assist technology to talk to a lawyer about whether they should provide consumers with additional notices of what they are doing on the call.
While AI promises efficiency gains for call centers, this lawsuit highlights the privacy issues that can arise when AI systems learn from customer conversations without transparent disclosures and consent. The suit argues that Google had a responsibility to inform consumers that the AI would remain on the line after they were transferred to a human representative.
This case could have significant implications for Google and the broader AI industry, potentially leading to more stringent regulations and disclosures around AI call monitoring.
