In re Google Cloud Contact Center AI Privacy Litigation
AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.
In re Google Cloud Contact Center AI Privacy Litigation consolidates proposed class actions alleging that Google recorded customer-service calls through its contact-center AI service without consent. On October 22, 2026, Judge Rita F. Lin dismissed three Home Depot callers’ claims with leave to amend, while separately compelling arbitration and staying the claims of three other plaintiffs. These orders address pleading sufficiency and arbitration, rather than resolving liability for every alleged use of call data.[2][3]
Allegations and claims
As recounted in the dismissal order, the operative complaint alleges that a caller first interacts with Google’s virtual agent and may then be transferred to a human customer-service agent, while Google continues providing transcripts and suggested replies. The complaint alleges a capability to use recordings to improve Google’s models. The court recounts these allegations for the motion; it does not establish that every alleged training use occurred.[2]
October 22, 2026 dismissal with leave to amend
The remaining Home Depot callers, James Fox, Peter Samish and Christopher Barulich, assert a claim under California Penal Code section 631(a). The court held that lack of consent is an element of that claim. Fox and Samish, as accountholders, had not plausibly alleged that Google’s initial collection exceeded the consent reflected in Home Depot’s incorporated privacy statement. Without a predicate unlawful collection, their allegations about subsequent use also failed to state a claim under section 631(a)(3).[2]
Barulich’s allegations were different: Google had not shown that he assented to or knew of the policy, and he adequately alleged lack of consent. Nevertheless, all three plaintiffs failed to plead facts plausibly showing that Google intended to listen without their consent. The court rejected the proposition that a contractual requirement for Home Depot to obtain consent would invariably defeat liability as a matter of law.[2]
The court allowed amendment by November 12, 2026 and restricted new claims or parties absent leave or stipulation. The order states that the claims will remain dismissed with prejudice if no qualifying amended complaint is filed by that date. That future condition is not a finding that amendment has already been missed.[2]
Separate arbitration order
In ECF 140, the court compelled Paolo Roméo Samaco, Chelsea Marquez and India Price to arbitrate under their respective agreements with Verizon, Uber and Discover. Applying California equitable-estoppel principles, it permitted Google, a nonsignatory, to enforce the clauses because the privacy claims were intertwined with those agreements and alleged concerted conduct. It stayed these three plaintiffs’ claims pending arbitration and required status reports every 180 days and within 14 days after arbitration ends. The stay does not extend to the entire consolidated action.[3]
Related coverage
References
- ↑ Justia public docket listing, original complaint ECF 1; listing identifies October 23, 2023 filing.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 N.D. Cal., ECF 141, order granting dismissal with leave to amend, October 22, 2026, pp. 1–9 (court document via Justia).
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 N.D. Cal., ECF 140, order compelling arbitration, October 22, 2026, pp. 1–5 (court document via Justia).