View source for In re OtterAI Privacy Litigation

<!-- AILawWiki case sidebar v1 -->
<div class="ailaw-case-layout" style="display:flex;flex-direction:row-reverse;flex-wrap:wrap;gap:1.5em;align-items:flex-start;">
<div class="ailaw-case-sidebar" style="flex:0 1 22em;max-width:100%;min-width:0;">

{| class="wikitable ailaw-case-info" style="width:100%;margin:0;"
|+ style="font-size:125%;font-weight:bold;padding:0.5em;" | Case Information
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Case name
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation<ref name="order">[https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-n-d-cal/322025.html U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, No.25-cv-06911-EKL, order granting motion to dismiss in part, August 13, 2026, reproduced by FindLaw, sections I, III and IV.]</ref>
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Court
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California<ref name="order" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Docket
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | 5:25-cv-06911-EKL<ref name="order" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Filed
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | August 15, 2025 (original Brewer action).<ref name="original-complaint">[https://www.fisherphillips.com/a/web/x27EBgcvus2uFdfXMJiyCk/aAQ5CP/brewer-v-otterai.pdf Brewer v. Otter.ai, Inc., original complaint, ECF 1, filed August 15, 2025, p. 1 (stamped court copy).]</ref>
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Judge(s)
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Eumi K. Lee<ref name="order" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Plaintiffs
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Justin Brewer, Chaka Theus, Emily Ryan, Jasper Walker, Michael Walker, Nadine Winston and Riley Dolan<ref name="order" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Defendants
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Otter.ai Inc.<ref name="order" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Case type
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Proposed privacy class action<ref name="order" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Claims / issues
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Meeting recording, consent, voiceprints and use of conversational data for model training<ref name="order" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Status
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | August 13, 2026: motion to dismiss granted in part, with leave to amend specified claims; other claims survive.<ref name="order" />
|}

</div>
<div class="ailaw-case-article" style="flex:1 1 28em;min-width:0;overflow-wrap:anywhere;">

'''In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation''' concerns allegations that Otter.ai's meeting assistant records and retains participants' conversations without consent and uses the information for its own commercial purposes, including model training.<ref name="order" />

== August 13, 2026 ruling ==
Judge Eumi K. Lee rejected the challenge to Article III standing and allowed claims under federal wiretap law, California's Invasion of Privacy Act and the [[Illinois AI Law|Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act]] to proceed at the pleading stage.<ref name="order" />

The alleged retention and use of conversations for Otter's own commercial purposes supported treating it as a third-party interceptor under California Penal Code section 631. The court dismissed the computer-access claims under the CFAA and CDAFA, the Washington Privacy Act claim and specified individual privacy claims with leave to amend. Withdrawn claims were dismissed without prejudice, with repleading subject to good cause.<ref name="order" />

== Procedural scope ==
The order allowed an amended complaint within 14 days and a responsive pleading within 21 days thereafter. This account is verified through the August 13 order; later pleadings and scheduling require a further docket check.<ref name="order" />

== Related coverage ==
* [[Cases#Privacy Cases|Privacy cases]]

== References ==
<references />

</div>
</div>
<!-- /AILawWiki case sidebar v1 -->

[[Category:Cases]]