Judge sides with Google in AI wiretapping customer service calls case

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A federal judge has dismissed three people’s claims that Google illegally recorded customer service calls and used them to train its artificial intelligence.

In a related move, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin sent three other plaintiffs in the purported class action to arbitration, staying their cases until it is resolved.

The case centers on claims that companies including Home Depot and Discover use Google Cloud Customer Center AI as a virtual agent to assist callers. Callers aren’t told Google provides the agent, and Google keeps listening even when calls are transferred to a human. Google can also use recordings to train its AI models.

Three plaintiffs who claimed Google violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act by listening to their Home Depot calls had their claims dismissed with the chance to amend.

Consent is key to the supposed violation. In her Thursday ruling, the Joe Biden appointee found that two plaintiffs, James Fox and Peter Samish, failed to sufficiently argue they had not consented, and dismissed their claims.

“Here, the accountholder plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged lack of consent because they agreed to a privacy policy that discloses that Google has access to their calls,” Lin wrote. “Fox and Samish allege that they are Home Depot accountholders, which means they had to agree to Home Depot’s account terms and conditions, which incorporated Home Depot’s privacy and security statement.”

The judge added that claims Google exceeded the scope of consent were undermined by the privacy and security statement, which said service call recordings could be shared with service providers.

“When pressed at oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel could not identify any reason the privacy policy does not give consent to Google to listen to calls as a service provider for Home Depot, and the complaint affirmatively alleges that Google does use the calls to provide services to Home Depot,” Lin wrote.

The judge found the third plaintiff, Christopher Barulich, sufficiently argued lack of consent. Barulich is not a Home Depot account holder, and Google had no evidence he agreed to or knew about the privacy policy.

However, like the other two plaintiffs, he failed to sufficiently argue that Google intended to violate the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

“While it is obvious from the complaint that Google intentionally listened to the calls — that is what the Cloud Customer Center AI product is built to do — there are no factual allegations about whether Google intended to do so without plaintiffs’ consent,” Lin wrote. “Instead, plaintiffs simply allege conclusory statements that Google ‘intentionally tapped’ their calls and ‘willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication’ recorded the calls.”

Lin added that the plaintiffs could potentially show Google knew Home Depot wasn’t obtaining customer consent or intended to listen to calls without it. She gave the three plaintiffs a chance to amend their complaint.

On the separate but related issue, Lin again sided with Google, ordering Paolo Roméo Samaco, Chelsea Marquez and India Price’s claims to arbitration.

“There is no dispute that Samaco, Marquez and Price formed valid and binding arbitration agreements with non-parties Verizon, Uber and Discover, respectively,” Lin wrote.

Plaintiff Misael Ambriz filed the class action in October 2023 over service calls with Verizon. The court dismissed the case with leave to amend in June 2024.

Ambriz amended and refiled the lawsuit the following month, adding plaintiffs and claims involving service calls with Hulu, GoDaddy and Home Depot.

Neither side could be reached for comment.