Kategorie
Swiss government SharePoint breach compromised 200 accounts
New TONTOU CPU attack bypasses Spectre v2 fixes, leaks Linux password hashes
New Zapscape KVM Flaw Could Let Privileged L1 Guest Code Escape to Linux Hosts
Co dělat, když ztratíte mobil na dovolené? Je potřeba znát číslo IMEI a rychle zablokovat karty
Cisco Patches 12 SD-WAN and IOS XE Flaws, Including Three 9.8 CVSS Score Bugs
New Interrupt Injection Attack Can Bypass Spectre v2 Defenses on Intel and AMD CPUs
Meta AI model hacked a company during misconfigured cyber test
ThreatsDay: Odysseus RCE, Samsung One-Click Takeover, iCloud Backdoor Fight + 27 More Stories
Granola lawsuit raises concerns over AI note-taking app privacy
AI note-taking app maker Granola is accused of violating privacy laws by developing software that can record conversations without all participants’ consent, according to a lawsuit filed July 30 in a California federal court.
It follows a similar ongoing case in the same district, filed last year, that involves another note-taking and transcription software vendor, Otter.ai.
AI note-taking apps have proliferated in recent years, with dedicated tools emerging from vendors including Fellow, Fireflies, Otter, and others, some of which claim to have tens of millions of users. These AI assistants record and transcribe meeting conversations, generating automated summaries and follow-up items. Similar note-taking functionality is also built into virtual meeting platforms such as Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom.
However, the use of these AI note-taking tools has raised privacy concerns over the ability of some to record and transcribe conversations without the consent of all participants.
The proposed class action complaint against Granola, filed by Florida resident Tarra Chamberlain in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges the company “purposefully” designed its app to record calls without requiring disclosure to all participants.
While some note-taking tools require a bot to join a video or voice call, Granola captures audio directly from the user’s computer, allowing it to transcribe meetings without appearing as a meeting participant.
The complaint argues that this violates individual privacy rights as well as the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) that requires “all-party” consent when recording calls.
The complaint also alleges that Granola then by default uses transcription data for commercial purposes, including its use in training its AI models, and “actively advertises the hidden nature of its technology as one of its primary advantages.”
Granola did not respond to a request for comment.
According to the company’s website, Granola offers two optional “transparency features” that can be enabled by app users and admins: an automated chat message that alerts participants when transcription begins, and a watermark added to the user’s video feed. The company also promises that data used to train its AI models is anonymized and “never sent to third parties.”
The Granola case bears similarities to a separate lawsuit involving Otter.ai. The class action filed last year alleges that Otter.ai records all users without their consent and uses their voices to train its speech recognition AI tools.
Reporting on the latest developments in the Otter.ai suit, MLex wrote this week that, during a court hearing Monday, the judge overseeing the case expressed skepticism about the company’s argument to dismiss the case. US District Judge Eumi K. Lee did not issue a ruling from the bench, saying a written judgement would follow.
The two cases highlight some of the concerns businesses face when deploying AI note-taking tools.
AI notetaking is “more dangerous than any other type of traditional recording apps and tools,” said Enza Iannopollo, Forrester VP and principal analyst, as it raises additional questions about the use of employees’ conversation data.
“Specifically, is the recorded data used for training models? Is the voice used for training other AI? How do I get ‘forgotten’ after my data and biometrics have been recorded? These concerns apply to AI specifically and must be added to the traditional privacy and confidentiality concerns organizations have for other type of recording apps and tools,” she said.
Before deploying AI note-taking apps, Iannopollo recommends that businesses take appropriate steps to vet the tools and “ensure that all contractual clauses are aligned to the business AI risk appetite and risk management best practices.”
“As these tools record, process, store, and share biometric data, organizations must ensure that they comply with all the relevant requirements,” Iannopollo said, adding that transparency and consent notices should be provided to all parties involved in the use of AI note-taking apps.
How AI Exposed a Browser Security Gap that Enterprises Cannot Ignore
Mak's Weekly Security Roundup: Critical Linux Security Updates Admins Should Know
Kubernetes Maintainers Expand CSI Path Traversal Fixes Beyond Original Vulnerabilities
Over 4,400 Rockwell PLCs Exposed Online, 22 Found in Water Attack Cities
OpenAI’s ‘Rotten to the core’ defense is its weakest play yet
Ancient Greek sophist Protagoras famously said, “There are two sides to every question.” But OpenAI’s latest attempt at reality distortion seems determined to narrow this dispute to just one. In its motion to reject Apple’s complaint, the company does not meaningfully acknowledge the criticisms levelled against it, preferring instead to recast the case as a grievance over talent retention and product-market failure.
The filingIn case you missed the news, OpenAI filed a motion to the court to dismiss Apple’s recent lawsuit against it. In that filing, OpenAI argued that, “Apple should not be permitted to use a baseless and pretextual lawsuit to make up for its shortcomings in the market for talent and retaining its employees, and its failures to integrate AI into its products.”
The company’s dismissal claims Apple’s case was, “plainly filed without adequate investigation and built on selectively excerpted communications and ordinary conduct stripped of context,” adding, in a turn of phrase borrowed from Apple’s own complaint, that it is “rotten to its core.”
The narratives can changeAs ever with litigation, these are allegations and counter-allegations rather than findings of fact. The value of the filings is that they show how each side wants the court, and the public, to understand the same disputed events. At the moment, we don’t yet know how Apple will respond to OpenAI’s response; it follows that company’s failed attempt to woo public opinion earlier in the week when it deployed what some see as a “cookie jar” defense, arguing that Apple’s secrets only slipped out because the figurative jar lid was open.
OpenAI likely hopes for more success with its latest attempt to defend itself against Apple’s claims it engaged in a coordinated attempt to obtain trade secrets through questionable recruitment practices.
Central to the company’s counter-argument are its attempts to recharacterize some of Apple’s claims. For example, Apple alleges that one former staffer, Chang Liu, downloaded confidential files after leaving the company. OpenAI argues that Liu was instead attempting to help ex-colleagues who asked him for assistance. This is a useful example of the Protagorean frame: both companies are trying to extract different meanings from the same event.
What the truth might beThe courts will need to decide which version of events is closer to the truth. What is already clear is that OpenAI has been actively involved in recruiting Apple staff, including the services of former Chief Design Officer Jony Ive, as it develops a product that, to a layman like me, sounds likely to compete with Apple hardware. OpenAI says those recruitments reflect Apple’s failure to retain its staff; Apple argues its competitor is using exfiltrated confidential information to guide its hiring. The court will need to decide that story as well.
Ultimately, I don’t expect OpenAI’s efforts to have the court reject Apple’s lawsuit to succeed. Apple is asking for discovery precisely so it can test whether its reading of this distorted reality is supported by OpenAI’s internal procedures and the available facts. One of OpenAI’s arguments seems to be that Apple has not researched the matter thoroughly enough; Apple is quite literally requesting discovery to do just that.
What happens next?I don’t know what discovery might turn up, but it does amuse me to think Apple could build its own large language model to boost the discovery process and identify communication conduits that might otherwise be obscured in the evidence initially available to it. How high, and in what direction, do OpenAI’s claimed recruitment practices go, and who is implicated in them? That’s something we might find out in the coming months.
OpenAI’s Protagorean defense extends a little further, of course, as the company also said it had “no use, need or desire for Apple’s trade secrets” because it is building “something entirely new.” This may surprise Apple, which has already alleged that OpenAI contacted its manufacturing partners and sought access to secret manufacturing processes Apple developed with them.
Once again, it will be up to the courts to decide whether those events took place, or if OpenAI’s defense has substance. Given that this dispute centers on product design and involves the AI company’s growing army of former Apple design and development staff, I find the denial hard to accept. But courts tend to make their own decisions, for good, or for ill.
Fight or settleWhat happens next? I think this attempt to reject the original litigation will fail, which means the case will enter the discovery process before one of two outcomes becomes more likely: A bitter public battle that lasts for years and might well end up in the Supreme Court, or an out-of-court settlement shaped by which side gains the most compelling evidence.
Like any war, there are really only two options: one side fights until the other can no longer continue, or both sides find a way to settle. The path to settlement may begin by recognizing that two stories can be applied to the same facts, and that the version closest to the truth often sits somewhere between them. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t have insider insight into the practicalities of the case, but based on what has been revealed so far, the most plausible combined story may be that Apple’s own vulnerabilities helped create an environment OpenAI chose to exploit. If so, Apple’s legal team will be searching hard for evidence of intent.
I expect they’ll find it.
You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky, LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core.
CryptoJS Weak RNG Behind $5.7 Million in Drains Affects Five Crypto Wallet Apps
Modré bubliny iMessage i pro Android. Díky této aplikaci už jablíčkáři nepoznají, že nemáte iPhone
Apple iCloud Private Relay Can Expose Real IPs Through WebKit Proxy Bypasses
AI Recommendation Poisoning: How "Ask AI" Buttons Silently Alter LLM Memory
Attackers Compile khunt Inside Oracle to Turn SQL Injection Into Windows SYSTEM Access
AWS, Google, and Vercel Agent Flaws Let Attackers Trigger Tools Without Running the Model
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- …
- následující ›
- poslední »



