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...

About eight years ago, toward the end of a panel I was moderating on cybersecurity, I turned to the panelists and asked them to tell me what to expect when quantum computing would come online. I got blank stares. Quantum computing, and its implications for national security and cybersecurity, had not yet made its way into the consciousness of most experts. Today, that has changed and lawyers, particularly those advising on system and data security issues, need to get ahead of the upheaval that is coming. For those unfamiliar, quantum computing is based on the principles of quantum physics, which govern matter and energy at atomic and subatomic levels, where classical physics ceases to apply . Quantum tech has already begun to influence areas like  medical imaging . Once they become commercially viable, quantum computers will launch a sea change in many additional areas of technology. Quantum computers’ use of qubits that can hold multiple values simultaneously will inaugurate an e...

Another class action lawsuit— Cruz v. Fireflies.AI Corp .—puts a spotlight on potential legal risks associated with AI meeting assistants. The complaint alleges that the Fireflies tool records, analyzes, transcribes, and stores voices of meeting participants, including voices of those who are not Fireflies users, without the notice, written consent, and retention safeguards required by Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA” ). It points to Fireflies’ “speaker recognition” functionality and contends the product creates and retains voiceprints—covered under BIPA—while lacking a publicly available retention and destruction policy and failing to inform meeting participants about biometric collection. This case is a useful preview of issues regulators and plaintiffs may raise around AI transcription and summarization . We have previously covered other lawsuits involving these issues  here . Why it matters : AI note‑takers can deliver productivity gains, but they also introd...

Connecticut has revised its privacy law for the third time since it was passed in 2022. With  SB 1295 , the state has mirrored others (like  Colorado  and  Montana ) in making ongoing changes to its law. Many of the changes incorporate either in concept, or wholesale, provisions that exist in other states. C onnecticut makes these changes following  2024  and  2025  AG reports, which reports included recommendations to lawmakers, some of which ended up in SB 1295. Among the changes that will take effect July 1, 2026 are the following: Expanded Scope.  Like  Montana , the threshold will be lowered. Rather than 100,000 consumers, it will be processing information of 35,000 consumers . This lowered threshold aligns with other states such as  Delaware ,  New Hampshire ,  Maryland , and  Rhode Island . The law will also cover entities that process any sensitive consumer data, and expands the definition of that term. It wi...

  On November 15, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas overseeing the ongoing legal challenge to the CFPB’s Section 1071 small business lending rule (previously discussed   here ,   here ,   here , and   here ), issued an   order   denying the plaintiff trade groups’ motion to toll the deadlines of the rule while an appeal moves through the Fifth Circuit. In denying the motion to stay the rule, Judge Crane (who had previously granted the CFPB’s motion for summary judgment) acknowledged the possibility that the rule might be seen as ill-advised, but that alone did not make it unlawful. Since the rule is considered valid, the judge stated that the trade groups failed to show that delaying the compliance date was warranted.  He also pointed out that the Fifth Circuit Court has expedited the appeal process and that the case would likely be resolved before the compliance deadline. The rule requires lenders to provide data on small...