Interception

How interception works in the law

The US Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2510) has three parts:

1. A communication. A call, a chat, an email or any transfer of “data”.
2. Its contents. The “meaning” of the communication, not only the fact of the call.
3. A device. “Any electronic, mechanical, or other device”.

The capture must also be without consent. The consent rules are the primary difference between laws.

Why interception matters for AI

AI note takers, chatbots and voice agents capture the contents of conversations. Under CIPA section 631, a party cannot eavesdrop on its own conversation (Ninth Circuit, Thomas v. Papa John’s, 2025). Thus courts ask if the AI vendor is a third party.

Courts in California use two tests:

• Extension test. The vendor is not a third party if it acts only as “an extension” of the business.
• Capability test. The vendor is a third party if it can use the data for its own benefit, “regardless of whether or not it actually did so”.

In practice

Consent and penalties in three laws

Law	Consent of	Penalty
US Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511, § 2520)	One party	Maximum 5 years in prison. Civil: $100 a day or $10,000, the larger
California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code § 631, § 637.2)	All parties	Fine of maximum $2,500. Civil: $5,000 for each violation, or 3x actual damages
EU ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC, Article 5)	“the users concerned”	Not set in Article 5

The US federal one-party rule has a limit. Consent does not help if the purpose is “committing any criminal or tortious act”.

California gives $5,000 for each violation. Thus a contact centre with many calls can face a large class action. Epstein Becker Green (August 2026) counts “roughly two dozen other states” with statutes like CIPA.

Five AI interception cases

Case	AI tool	Result to date
Ambriz v. Google (N.D. Cal., 10 Feb 2025)	Google Cloud Contact Center AI	Motion to dismiss denied, with the capability test
Taylor v. ConverseNow (N.D. Cal., 11 Aug 2025)	AI assistant on calls to Domino’s	Motion to dismiss denied. The vendor allegedly used caller data “to enhance its own services”
Lisota v. Heartland Dental (N.D. Ill., 13 Jan 2026)	RingCentral AI software	Win for the defendants, under the “ordinary course of business” rule of the Wiretap Act
In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation (N.D. Cal., 13 Aug 2026)	Otter.ai meeting note taker	Wiretap, CIPA and Illinois biometric claims continue. Computer fraud claims dismissed
Chamberlain v. Granola (N.D. Cal., filed 30 Jul 2026)	Granola meeting note taker	Allegations only. No answer from Granola on the merits at this time

The Otter complaint alleges that recordings train the Otter speech recognition and AI models. It also alleges that Otter gives its customers the task to get consent from “co-workers, friends or other third parties”.

Four checks for an AI tool that hears calls or meetings

1. Training. Find out if the vendor trains on the content, and if the contract can stop it.
2. Consent. Give notice to all participants and get their consent, not only the consent of the account owner.
3. Area. Find the state and country laws that apply to each participant.
4. Unknown tools. Find note takers that enter meetings without approval, a form of shadow AI.

Where definitions disagree

Legal sense and security sense. In law, interception needs contents, a device and no consent. In security, interception frequently means any capture of traffic in transit, as by a router in the middle. A capture can be lawful and also be a privacy risk.

Extension and capability. Epstein Becker Green (August 2026) says courts are divided on when each test applies. The same AI product can be a tool in one court and a third party in another.

The rulings in Ambriz, ConverseNow and Otter deny motions to dismiss, in full or in part. The Otter ruling does not decide if Otter broke the law.

Questions and answers

Is an AI meeting note taker a wiretap?

A court can find that it is. In August 2026 a US federal court let wiretap claims against Otter.ai continue. The plaintiffs say Otter trained its own models on meeting recordings. The court has not decided that Otter broke the law.

Is the consent of one participant sufficient for AI call recording?

Under the US Wiretap Act, yes, if the purpose is not a crime or a tort. California needs the consent of all parties. The EU ePrivacy Directive needs the consent of the users concerned.