Judge skeptical of claims Google AI tool wiretapped customer service calls

The plaintiffs argue businesses such as Home Depot and Discover did not disclose they use AI-powered virtual customer service agents provided by Google.SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Google asked a federal judge Tuesday to dismiss claims it illegally snooped on customer service phone calls with its artificial intelligence tool, arguing that wiretapping laws do not apply because callers consented to Google recording their conversations.“The question of consent is whether or not there was consent to acquire the information,” said Benjamin Berkowitz of Keker Van, representing Google.The class of consumers sued Google in 2023, claiming its Cloud Contact Center AI — a suite of tools designed to improve the efficiency of businesses’ customer service centers — violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which prohibits the unauthorized recording and interception of phone conversations.The product offers companies an AI-powered virtual assistant that supports human customer support agents by transcribing calls in real time, connecting relevant information and offering suggested “smart replies” to save time on support tickets.When a consumer calls one of these AI-powered contact centers, they may first be presented with a virtual agent provided by Google. The plaintiffs say they were not told Google was providing such services to companies including Home Depot, Verizon, Uber and Discover, nor were they aware Google could use their calls to improve its AI models.“The caller does not have a choice here because they don’t get to know what they are consenting to,” plaintiff’s attorney Jeremiah Nixon said. “It’s about the callers’ right under CIPA and their right to know who is on the call.”At Tuesday’s hearing, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin questioned the plaintiffs about whether they consented to Google recording and analyzing calls when they agreed to each company’s privacy policy.“The consent that is required is only consent that a third party may be present and listening in to the call,” the Joe Biden appointee said. “Why are they not in the scope of the consent even though they may use the information later that is not disclosed?”Nixon argued that while plaintiffs may have consented to their call being recorded and possibly shared with third-party service providers working on behalf of each company, Google acts beyond the companies and has the conditional right to use plaintiffs’ communications to train its own AI models.He added that the consumers would never have agreed if they knew Google was listening in and could use the information collected for its own purposes.“Without disclosure, the caller does not get to make that decision,” Nixon said.Berkowitz pushed back, arguing that state wiretapping law only requires the acquisition of the call be consensual and doesn’t cover any subsequent improper use of the information.He noted the plaintiffs concede they were aware their conversations may be recorded and monitored, including by third-party service providers.“For purposes of a 631 or 632 claim, it does not matter. Was the recording disclosed? Here, it was,” he said.Berkowitz argued Google did not willfully intercept the plaintiffs’ communications, as each business signed a contract with Google promising they would get the consumers’ consent before using Google’s product.“It is undisputed Google has entered into contracts with each of these customers that required them to obtain requisite consent prior to using Google’s technology,” he said.Berkowitz further claimed that three of the named plaintiffs signed binding arbitration agreements with Discover, Uber and Verizon, compelling them to individually arbitrate claims. Nixon did not object to the new evidence, but argued the agreements were irrelevant to plaintiffs’ claims against Google.He added that if the court sided with Google, it would be giving businesses the green light to add undisclosed third-party companies into their customer service lines to record conversations for AI training purposes.Lin did not say when she would release a ruling.Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Plaintiff Misael Ambriz filed the class action in October 2023 with claims related to service calls with Verizon. The court dismissed the case in June 2024 with leave to amend. Ambriz repaired the lawsuit and refiled in July 2024, adding additional plaintiffs and claims related to service calls with Hulu, GoDaddy and Home Depot.Lin denied Google’s efforts to dismiss the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint in February 2025, ruling the plaintiffs “adequately alleged that Google ‘has the capability to use the wiretapped data it collects … to improve its AI/ML models.’”Claims related to Hulu, GoDaddy and Verizon were voluntarily dismissed in August 2025. New claims related to Verizon, Uber and Discover were added in April.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads