That’s the problem though, getting the email with a copy of the recording may be the unwitting participants first indication that the call was recorded without their knowledge or consent.

Otters defense is that it’s up to their users to inform other participants and get their consent where necessary, the claim of the lawsuit is that Otter is deliberately making a product which does not make it obvious that the call is being recorded, and by default does not send a pre-meeting notice that it will be joining and recording.

▲

athenot 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I remember being on sensitive zoom calls and seeing Otter.ai join. Had to track down which person was using it, and even they were clueless as to how it got there, and the client kept rejoining despite the user trying to stop it.

I've never used this service so I don't know if the user was being particularly clueless or if some dark pattern was at play; I suspect it's probably a little bit of both.

	▲	brendang_sd 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		You knew what to look for, and were presumably logged into a device which showed you participants... now imagine if you were on the go, or not very technical so joined from a phone using a phone # and a meeting code... you'd never see it or be aware. I contend Otter knows exactly what they are doing and hopefully this lawsuit gets them to get a bit more transparent and law abiding.

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

protonbob 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If it is just a tool then a tape recorder company should be liable as well. It doesn't do any sort of notice or make it obvious that someone is being recorded.

	▲	brendang_sd 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		If the tape recorder were to automatically start recording whenever a meeting started and silently add itself to physical rooms unexpectedly... you might have a point. The tape recorder manufacturer also doesn’t claim the right to permanently own anything it’s users record, with or without permission.