Compliance Stuff

A  recent Illinois federal court decision  shows that when AI listens in on calls, legal questions follow. The putative class action case is  Megan Lisota v. Heartland Dental, LLC, et al . It was brought against two entities: Heartland Dental, LLC and its partner, RingCentral, Inc. Heartland Dental provides administrative and overflow call center services to dental clinics. In providing its services, it contracts with RingCentral. RingCentral is a provider of cloud-based, AI-supported telephone services. According to plaintiff’s complaint, RingCentral's AI software is designed to capture and transcribe real time call details from patient, payer, and provider calls. Heartland used these details, the plaintiffs alleged, to identify and triage callers. It also used them to identify missed opportunities to schedule dental appointments. The plaintiff, a patient, alleged these activities constituted eavesdropping in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act . The court ruled the pl...

  As the privacy litigation landscape continues to take shape, search bars have quietly become a Trojan horse in online data collection, carrying new legal theories into the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) arena. The legal interpretation of what constitutes “contents” of a communication is evolving under CIPA, and this issue has taken on a greater significance for website owners and operators. So, if your business operates a website with a search bar, you should consider reassessing your website data collection and disclosure practices and implementing compliance measures. Otherwise, you may risk exposure to costly litigation. Here's what you need to know about recent developments in this area. How Did We Get Here? In  Heerde v. Learfield Communications ,   the court held that search terms entered into a search bar constitute “contents of a communication” for the purposes of a CIPA claim , and a third party’s interception of those search terms (through website...