AI startups and established tech companies are facing lawsuits because they allegedly failed to properly obtain the proper consent of users and the general public for the specific use being featured. These lawsuits highlight the importance of effective legal consultation for startups, as it is all too easy to violate wiretapping, intellectual property, and surveillance laws. As various sources note, the stakes are incredibly high, potentially leading to billions of dollars in settlements or damages for tech companies that mistakenly engage in this type of misconduct, and irreparable reputational damage. Even if you have a slight suspicion that your AI startup might violate people’s consent, consider speaking with an experienced technology lawyer in the United States to learn more about the legal implications.

Granola Faces Lawsuit for Failing to Obtain Consent During AI-Powered Note-Taking

In August of 2026, Computer World highlighted the major implications of a lawsuit involving a note-taking app called Granola. Like many other similar apps, Granola uses AI to take notes during work-related conversations, allowing users and companies to easily create transcripts they can refer back to.

The only problem, according to a lawsuit filed in late July, is that the app does not properly obtain consent from the users it is “recording.” The plaintiff claims that the app effectively records users without ever announcing itself or giving them the choice to opt in, which could be a violation of basic privacy laws and wiretapping statutes.

Ask any lawyer, and they will tell you that violating wiretapping laws is deceptively easy, especially in certain states. Since this lawsuit was filed in California, the Golden State’s “all-party consent” laws apply. As the term suggests, this law only allows recording if all parties consent.

For example, one user might use a note-taking app to record a conversation with a client. Perhaps they want to refer back to these notes later to ensure their products or services match the client’s requests. If the client does not consent to the use of this note-taking app, this is a de facto violation of California’s wiretapping laws.

Going one step further, the plaintiff in this lawsuit accuses Granola of using its transcripts to train its own AI models without first obtaining consent from the participants; generally training your AI model on customer data should be disclosed and authorized. Finally, the lawsuit implies that the app had marketed its wiretapping violations as a feature, implying that the company’s hierarchy was completely unaware of the legal implications. According to the app’s own website, there is an option to switch on an “alert” that notifies participants of the transcription process. However, this option is disabled by default.

This is just one of many note-taking apps facing similar legal issues. Another suit involves a company called Otter.ai, although this company may have a stronger legal standing because its “bot” visibly joins a meeting in order to begin the transcription process. In contrast, Granola actively markets itself as “bot-free,” giving participants no way to detect the recording in progress.

Despite this slightly stronger legal position, a court in California rejected Otter’s motion to dismiss, suggesting that AI companies may need more transparency and an active consent-seeking process in order to avoid legal action. If these two note-taking companies lose their lawsuits, they may face crushing damages.

Doorbell Apps Are Facing Serious Legal Penalties for Collecting Biometric Facial Data Without Permission

Along with note-taking apps, doorbell apps represent some of the most ubiquitous real-world uses of AI. Some of the newest versions of this technology allow users to biometrically scan faces of approaching visitors before saving the data for future reference. The idea is to create a library of “approved individuals” who can approach the home without triggering alerts.

Again, the people who created this feature seem to have overlooked basic privacy and surveillance laws. One of the companies currently facing legal action is Amazon, the company behind the popular “Ring” doorbell technology. A plaintiff in Virginia claims that the app’s “friendly faces” feature violates various state laws, including a prohibition against using a person’s likeness for trade purposes without written consent. Similar laws exist in many other states.

How is Amazon using this facial biometric data for trade purposes? The widespread concern among the courts and the general public is that these tech companies are building a library of recognized faces for their own commercial gain; so displaying the image for the Customer’s approval might be OK, but collecting, storing and creating a ID library for further use with others requires greater transparency. Consider a future where tech oligarchs could easily track where you go, where you shop, who you meet, and everything else you do in public.

While tech companies are in the private sector, there is not much stopping them from selling the data to government agencies, who may not always have the people’s best interests in mind. One might argue that tech companies and the government already have the ability to track people in this manner, but the collection of facial biometric data has struck a chord with many concerned members of the public.

Google and Amazon are already backtracking, with both companies facing lawsuits that could be financially ruinous. If they lose, they could face billions of dollars in damages. While these companies are scrambling to disable data collection features in states with strict surveillance laws, it may already be too late to undo the damage.

Twitch and Amazon Sued for Using Twitch Content for AI Training

Amazon is also facing another consent-related lawsuit alongside Twitch for allegedly using creator content to train AI models without consent. One streamer claims that Twitch allowed Amazon to access his streamed content for AI training purposes, even though this was not part of the original agreement he signed with Twitch. This lawsuit makes it clear that even accessing public recordings of creators may violate consent laws.

Contact John P. O’Brien, Technology Lawyer

While the most buzzworthy AI lawsuits of the past have focused on issues like illegally accessing copyrighted works, consent is another key legal issue that could seriously affect the business models of numerous startups and established tech companies. Something as simple as a note-taking app could violate wiretapping laws by recording individuals without their express consent. Scanning and saving biometric facial data could have even more severe legal implications, especially because this is one of the most innovative and high-potential applications of AI. Legal consultation services for AI startups are often essential for those who want to avoid lawsuits in the future. Discuss your unique concerns and gain a greater understanding of these implications by contacting John P. O’Brien, Technology Lawyer.