Callers whose customer service calls with Home Depot, Verizon, Uber and Discover were handled by Google’s Contact Center AI had their wiretap class action against Google dismissed or sent to arbitration on October 22, 2026. The Home Depot callers may file an amended complaint by November 12, 2026; there is no settlement and nothing to claim.
Claims Dismissed · May Be Amended
This article describes court rulings in a proposed class action. The claims against Google are unproven allegations; the court dismissed the remaining claims with leave to amend and sent others to arbitration. Google has not been found liable, no class has been certified, and there is nothing to claim. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
On October 22, 2026, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin issued two orders in In re Google Cloud Contact Center AI Privacy Litigation, No. 3:23-cv-05437, in federal court in San Francisco. The consolidated case, which began in 2023 as Ambriz v. Google LLC, alleges that Google violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act when its AI product listened to and recorded customer service calls that consumers placed to companies using it.One order dismissed the claims of the three remaining callers, all of whom had called Home Depot, because they did not plead facts showing Google intended to listen without their consent. The dismissal is with leave to amend by November 12, 2026. The other order sent three callers whose calls were with Verizon, Uber and Discover to individual arbitration.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What the Lawsuit Says Google’s AI Does
As the court summarized the complaint, a company that uses Google Cloud Contact Center AI routes its customer service line through a Google “virtual agent” that answers the call and tries to resolve the caller’s questions, without saying it is provided by Google. If the caller asks for a person, the virtual agent transfers the call, with a transcript, to a human agent at the company.The complaint alleges that Google keeps listening after the handoff, giving the company’s agent a real-time transcript, suggested articles and AI-generated “smart replies,” and that Google has the capability to use call recordings to improve its own AI models. The callers claimed this made Google an unauthorized third-party eavesdropper under Section 631(a) of California’s wiretap statute, and the broader complaint also raised claims under Sections 632(a) and 637.5. Google disputes the claims.
Earlier, on February 10, 2025, Judge Lin denied Google’s motion to dismiss the original complaint, reasoning that Google’s alleged capability to use the call data for its own purposes was enough at that stage to treat it as a third party rather than a mere tool of the businesses. The October 2026 rulings turn on different questions: consent and intent.
Why the Home Depot Claims Were Dismissed
The court held that lack of consent is an element a plaintiff must plead under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, not a defense Google must prove. Two of the Home Depot callers had Home Depot accounts, which meant agreeing to Home Depot’s account terms and its Privacy and Security Statement. That statement disclosed that Home Depot collects recordings of customer care calls and may disclose them to service providers that process information on its behalf, a category the court said plainly includes Google. Using the calls for Google’s own purposes, such as training AI, did not change the result, the court said, because the initial collection was within the scope of that consent.The third Home Depot caller did not have an account, and the court found he had plausibly alleged he did not consent. But all three claims failed on intent: the statute requires that the defendant act intentionally or willfully, and the court found the complaint offered only conclusory statements, with no facts showing Google meant to listen to the calls without consent. Google argued that its contract required Home Depot to obtain callers’ consent; the court said that instruction is relevant but does not automatically defeat liability, and left room for an amended complaint alleging, for example, that Google knew Home Depot was not getting consent.
Verizon, Uber and Discover Callers Sent to Arbitration
In the second order, the court granted Google’s motion to compel arbitration for the three callers whose calls were with Verizon, Uber and Discover. Each had agreed to that company’s customer terms, which contain an arbitration clause and incorporate the company’s privacy policy. Although Google did not sign those agreements, the court allowed it to enforce them under California’s equitable estoppel doctrine, because whether the callers consented to Google’s recording depends on reading those privacy policies, and because the complaint alleges the companies contracted with Google to listen to the calls.The case is stayed as to those three callers while their individual arbitrations proceed, and the parties must report on the arbitrations to the court every 180 days.
What Happens Next
The Home Depot callers have until November 12, 2026 to file an amended complaint that addresses the problems the court identified, without adding new claims or parties unless the court or Google agrees. The court remarked that it seems unlikely the two account holders can bring claims given the language of Home Depot’s privacy statement, but allowed them to try. If no amended complaint is filed by the deadline, the claims will remain dismissed with prejudice.The ruling adds to a growing body of litigation over AI tools that listen to phone calls and meetings, including a suit alleging Pegasystems’ voice AI listened in on U.S. Bank customer calls and the Otter.ai recording privacy class action. Each turns on its own facts and agreements.
Questions
What is Google’s Contact Center AI?
According to the complaint as summarized by the court, it is a Google Cloud product that businesses such as Home Depot use on their customer service lines. A Google “virtual agent” answers the call first without saying it is provided by Google, and if the caller asks for a person, it transfers the caller to a human agent while continuing to listen and giving that agent a live transcript, suggested articles and suggested replies generated with AI.
Why did the judge dismiss the Google Contact Center AI lawsuit?
Judge Rita F. Lin ruled on October 22, 2026 that the two callers with Home Depot accounts had agreed to a Home Depot privacy statement disclosing that customer care call recordings could go to service providers, which included Google. A third Home Depot caller without an account did plausibly allege he did not consent, but none of the callers alleged facts showing Google intended to listen without consent, which California’s wiretap law requires.
What happened to the Verizon, Uber and Discover callers?
In a separate October 22, 2026 order, the court granted Google’s motion to compel arbitration for the three callers whose calls were with Verizon, Uber and Discover. Each had agreed to an arbitration clause with that company, and the court allowed Google to enforce those clauses because the claims depend on the companies’ privacy policies. Their claims are paused in court while the arbitrations proceed.
Is the Google Contact Center AI case over?
Not necessarily. The dismissal was with leave to amend, and the Home Depot callers have until November 12, 2026 to file an amended complaint that fixes the problems the court identified. If no amended complaint is filed by then, their claims stay dismissed with prejudice. No class has been certified and there is no settlement or claim process.
Sources
• Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, In re Google Cloud Contact Center AI Privacy Litigation, No. 3:23-cv-05437-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 141 (October 22, 2026)• Order Granting Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dkt. 140 (October 22, 2026)
• Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, Ambriz v. Google LLC (February 10, 2025), via Courthouse News
• MediaPost coverage of the October 22, 2026 ruling
