Did Otter.ai lose its lawsuit?

No. On 13 August 2026 a federal judge ruled only that the case may proceed, dismissing some claims and allowing others — the federal Wiretap Act, California’s CIPA and two Illinois biometric claims. The allegations remain unproven, Otter is contesting them, and the court has not ruled on the merits.

Is it legal to record a meeting with an AI notetaker?

It depends where the participants are. Some US states and many countries require every participant to consent, not just one. The safest approach, regardless of jurisdiction, is to announce the recording at the start of the call and get explicit agreement. This is general information, not legal advice.

Which AI note taker is best for privacy?

Granola is the strongest option on paper: it never joins as a bot, captures device audio, deletes audio after transcription on every plan, is SOC 2 Type II certified and lets users opt out of model training. tl;dv is a good alternative if EU data residency matters, since it is hosted in the EU and states it never trains on recordings.

Do bot-free note takers avoid the consent problem?

No — they move it onto you. A visible bot at least signals to everyone that recording is happening. A bot-free tool can record without anyone noticing, so the duty to disclose falls on the person running it. Granola’s optional start-of-meeting notice helps, but announce it out loud either way.

Guide

AI Note Takers and Consent: What the Otter Ruling Means for You

Best AI Tools Editorial·Updated November 7, 2026·6 min read

Best AI Tools · The Blog№ 02

Guide

AI Note Takers and Consent: What the Otter Ruling Means for You

The short answer

A federal judge ruled on 13 August 2026 that the core privacy claims against Otter.ai can proceed, including Wiretap Act and California CIPA claims, though nothing is decided on the merits. The practical lesson: whoever brings a notetaker into a meeting owns the consent problem. Granola is the strongest privacy pick but joins without a bot, so announce it. Always get explicit consent first.

How we chose

—How the tool captures audio
—Whether other participants can see it
—Published training and retention terms
—Compliance claims (SOC 2, GDPR, HIPAA)
—Entry price

Checked: The court order, vendor pricing and product pages, and legal reporting on related suits Not done: No hands-on testing. We did not record meetings with these tools for this article, and this is not legal advice.

Facts as of November 7, 2026 · Nobody paid to be included

What the court actually decided

On 13 August 2026, Judge Eumi K. Lee of the Northern District of California granted Otter.ai’s motion to dismiss only in part. The claims that survived are the significant ones: the federal Wiretap Act (ECPA), California’s CIPA, and two Illinois biometric privacy (BIPA) claims. Claims under the CFAA, California’s CDAFA and the Washington Privacy Act were dismissed with leave to amend. The court found that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged Otter acts as a third-party eavesdropper rather than simply as the meeting host’s tool.

Important context

This was a ruling on whether the case can proceed, not on whether Otter did anything wrong. The allegations are unproven, Otter is contesting them, and no damages have been awarded. The order gave plaintiffs 14 days to file an amended complaint, so the claims in play may still change.

This article is general information, not legal advice. If you record meetings as part of a regulated business, ask a lawyer about your jurisdiction.

Why this matters even if you do not use Otter

The uncomfortable part of the ruling is that the mechanism it describes is not unique to one vendor. Most AI notetakers work by joining a call as a participant and recording everyone in it, and the question of whether a third party is listening without all participants’ consent applies to any tool built that way. Otter is not the only vendor in court: Fireflies.ai faces a putative class action, filed in December 2025 in the Central District of Illinois, alleging that its speaker-recognition feature collects voiceprints without the written consent BIPA requires.

The liability also tends to land on the person who brought the tool. Your notetaker is in the meeting because you invited it, which makes the consent conversation yours to have.

Bot or no bot: the choice that matters most

Tool	How it captures	Visible to others?	From	Best for
Granola	Your device audio	No bot; optional start-of-meeting notice	Free; $14/user/mo	Discreet notes with strong privacy terms
Otter	Joins as a bot	Yes	Free; $8.33/user/mo annual	Cheap transcription, big free allowance
Fireflies	Bot by default, or a Chrome extension	Yes, unless using the extension	Free tier available	A written no-training promise
tl;dv	Joins meetings	Yes	Free; from EUR 18/seat/mo annual	EU data residency

A visible bot is not a legal defence, but it is an honest signal. Everyone in the room can see that something is recording, which makes consent easy to establish. A bot-free tool is more discreet and more pleasant to use, and shifts the burden of disclosure onto you.

Granola

Granola captures your computer’s audio directly, so nothing joins the call and no participant sees a notetaker appear. On the privacy specifics its pricing page is unusually clear: audio is deleted after transcription on every plan, every plan is SOC 2 Type II certified, users can opt out of model training (Enterprise turns training off by default), and Enterprise adds workspace-wide retention policies and HIPAA-compliant workspaces. Basic is free with 30 days of meeting history, Business is $14 per user per month, Enterprise is $35.

The catch is the mirror image of the benefit. Because nothing visible joins the call, disclosure is on you. Granola offers a per-user setting to let people know you are using it — its FAQ describes an automated message at the start of each meeting — and an org-wide notification on Enterprise is still labelled a pilot. Use the notice, but say it out loud as well; a message in the chat is easy to miss.

Fireflies

Fireflies has the clearest written data promise of the bot-based tools: its pricing page states that your data is never used for AI training or any purpose outside your direct business needs, alongside SOC 2 Type II and GDPR claims, with a HIPAA BAA available on Enterprise with private storage. It joins as a visible bot by default, though it offers recording through a Chrome extension without the bot. It is also the defendant in the Illinois BIPA suit mentioned above.

tl;dv

tl;dv is the one to look at if EU data residency matters to you: it says data is hosted and stored in the EU in ISO 27001-certified data centres, and that recordings and transcripts are never used to train AI. Pricing is in euros — Pro at EUR 29 per seat per month, or EUR 18 billed annually, and Business at EUR 39, or EUR 29 annually, with a free tier below that. There is no native mobile app yet.

Otter

Otter remains capable and cheap, with a generous free allowance of 300 transcription minutes per user per month. Pro is $16.99 a month, or $8.33 billed annually, and Business is $19.99 per user per month billed annually ($30 monthly). The litigation is a reason to read its data-use terms carefully rather than an automatic reason to abandon it — but if you record conversations with clients or patients, the uncertainty is itself a cost.

How to record meetings without creating a problem

01Say it out loud at the start of the call, and get an audible yes. A calendar-invite footnote is weak evidence of consent.
02Know your participants’ locations. Several US states require all parties to consent, and that is determined by where people are, not where you are.
03Turn recording off for the sensitive part of a call rather than deleting it afterwards.
04Check whether your tool trains on your data, and opt out. Granola, Fireflies and tl;dv all publish explicit positions here.
05Set a retention period. Transcripts you no longer need are pure liability.
06In regulated work — health, legal, finance — confirm the vendor will sign a DPA or BAA before you record anything.

Sources

Update log

November 7, 2026Added sources, including the court order, and a How we chose box. Corrected Granola: it offers an optional start-of-meeting notice, so saying nothing announces it was out of date. Added the Fireflies BIPA suit, tl;dv Business pricing and a Best for column. Removed unverified claims that the case consolidates four suits, that no trial date is set, and that Otter has the largest install base.
October 19, 2026First published.

Spotted an error? Email us. Fixes are listed on our corrections page.

Frequently asked

Did Otter.ai lose its lawsuit?: No. On 13 August 2026 a federal judge ruled only that the case may proceed, dismissing some claims and allowing others — the federal Wiretap Act, California’s CIPA and two Illinois biometric claims. The allegations remain unproven, Otter is contesting them, and the court has not ruled on the merits.
Is it legal to record a meeting with an AI notetaker?: It depends where the participants are. Some US states and many countries require every participant to consent, not just one. The safest approach, regardless of jurisdiction, is to announce the recording at the start of the call and get explicit agreement. This is general information, not legal advice.
Which AI note taker is best for privacy?: Granola is the strongest option on paper: it never joins as a bot, captures device audio, deletes audio after transcription on every plan, is SOC 2 Type II certified and lets users opt out of model training. tl;dv is a good alternative if EU data residency matters, since it is hosted in the EU and states it never trains on recordings.
Do bot-free note takers avoid the consent problem?: No — they move it onto you. A visible bot at least signals to everyone that recording is happening. A bot-free tool can record without anyone noticing, so the duty to disclose falls on the person running it. Granola’s optional start-of-meeting notice helps, but announce it out loud either way.

Compare head-to-head

otter ai vs fireflies ↗

Browse the full index ↗