Illinois BIPA Suit Targets AI Note-Takers: Practical Lessons for Meeting Transcription
Another class action lawsuit—Cruz v. Fireflies.AI Corp.—puts a spotlight on potential legal risks associated with AI meeting assistants. The complaint alleges that the Fireflies tool records, analyzes, transcribes, and stores voices of meeting participants, including voices of those who are not Fireflies users, without the notice, written consent, and retention safeguards required by Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA“).
The lawsuit points to Fireflies’ speaker recognition functionality and contends that the product creates and retains voiceprints—covered under BIPA—while lacking a publicly available retention and destruction policy and failing to inform meeting participants about biometric collection. This case serves as a useful preview of issues regulators and plaintiffs may raise around AI transcription and summarization.
Why It Matters
AI note-takers can deliver productivity gains, but they also introduce a host of potential legal and operational risks:
- More data to turn over in litigation: Recordings and summaries can become discoverable.
- Sensitive or privileged conversations: These may be saved and shared when they otherwise would not be.
- AI can make mistakes: Misidentifying speakers or oversimplifying what was said can lead to confusion.
- Notice and consent rules vary: This is especially true for outside guests or cross-border participants.
- Retention must align with legal holds: Routine deletion should not be viewed as destroying evidence.
- Improper use of recordings: If the AI tool provider uses recordings for its own purposes without the proper notice and consent, this can violate wiretapping and similar laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).
Putting It into Practice
This case is a reminder that deploying AI transcription and summarization tools requires more than merely turning on a feature. Consider the following practical steps:
- Conduct vendor due diligence: Ensure that the tool provider complies with legal requirements.
- Avoid using the tool in sensitive meetings: Be aware of the potential risks.
- Clearly notify participants: Obtain consent at the start of the meeting.
- Consider human review: Access restrictions may be appropriate.
- Set clear retention periods: Ensure these align with legal holds.
To help ensure your employees are aware of the range of issues with AI note-takers, it is important to address this in your AI policy. For more information on these issues, refer to “Listen Up” if Your AI Policy Does Not Cover AI Recording Issues – Another Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Third Party AI Recording Service.
