Google AI Wiretapping Lawsuit: Judge Lin Tosses Home Depot Claims, Sends Three Callers to Arbitration

A federal judge in San Francisco has dismissed the Home Depot branch of the Google AI wiretapping lawsuit and sent three other named plaintiffs into individual arbitration, even though the arbitration agreements they signed were with Verizon, Uber and Discover rather than with Google. In a ruling reported on Oct. 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin held that two Home Depot accountholders consented to Google's access to their calls through Home Depot's privacy statement, that a third Home Depot caller had not alleged an intentional interception, and that the remaining three callers must arbitrate their California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) claims, with their court cases stayed in the meantime.

The ruling is a significant setback for the putative class, which had survived a motion to dismiss in February 2025 on a theory that put AI call-center vendors squarely in CIPA's path. It is not the end of the case: the Home Depot dismissal came with leave to amend. But the arbitration half of the order is the part with reach beyond Google. It lets a technology vendor that sits behind a consumer-facing brand route wiretap claims into the brand's own arbitration program, which changes the economics of a statute that carries $5,000 in statutory damages per violation and has become a staple of individual and mass arbitration demand campaigns.

What did the judge decide in the Google AI wiretapping lawsuit?

Judge Lin granted Google's motion to dismiss as to three plaintiffs and its motion to compel arbitration as to three others. The case is captioned In re Google Cloud Contact Center AI Privacy Litigation, No. 3:23-cv-05437, in the Northern District of California, the consolidated successor to Ambriz v. Google LLC. The docket shows Google's Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. 117) was briefed through a reply filed Sept. 10, 2026 and set for hearing on Oct. 13, 2026; Courthouse News, Law360 and MLex reported the ruling on Oct. 23.

The order splits the six named plaintiffs into three groups:

Plaintiff(s)	Company called	Theory Google pressed	Outcome
James Fox, Peter Samish	Home Depot (accountholders)	Consent via Home Depot account terms and privacy and security statement	Dismissed, leave to amend
Christopher Barulich	Home Depot (no account alleged)	No plausible allegation of intentional interception	Dismissed, leave to amend
Samaco	Verizon	Arbitration agreement with Verizon	Compelled to arbitration; claim stayed
Marquez	Uber	Arbitration agreement with Uber	Compelled to arbitration; claim stayed
Price	Discover	Arbitration agreement with Discover	Compelled to arbitration; claim stayed

Press coverage quotes the order on the arbitration point: "There is no dispute that Samaco, Marquez and Price formed valid and binding arbitration agreements with non-parties Verizon, Uber and Discover, respectively." Reports also describe Lin as granting dismissal of the privacy claims against the companies more broadly, and Law360 framed the decision as tossing the proposed class claims that Google trained its AI tools on calls handled through the customer service software it provided to Home Depot.

What Google Cloud Contact Center AI does, and what the plaintiffs alleged

Google Cloud Contact Center AI (often shortened to CCAI) is a business product. Companies deploy it on their customer service lines, where it can act as a virtual agent that answers callers, transcribe and analyze conversations in real time, and suggest replies to the human agent on the other end. The plaintiffs' theory was that Google, by running that software, was not merely a tool in the deploying company's hands but a separate listener on the line: a third party that read or learned the contents of calls while they were in transit without the callers' consent, in violation of Penal Code section 631(a). They also alleged that Google used call content to train and improve its own AI models.

The deploying companies named across the complaints include Verizon, Home Depot, Uber, Discover, Hulu and GoDaddy. Misael Ambriz filed the first complaint on Oct. 23, 2023 over a call to Verizon. Christopher Barulich filed a separate suit against Home Depot and Google on Feb. 14, 2024 over calls he placed to Home Depot, describing a flow in which callers first speak to an automated agent and the system then transcribes the call and feeds suggested responses to a live representative.

Why were the Home Depot callers' claims dismissed?

The Home Depot claims failed for two different reasons, depending on whether the caller had a Home Depot account.

Consent through the deploying company's privacy statement

Fox and Samish alleged that they were Home Depot accountholders. That allegation cut against them. Opening an account meant agreeing to Home Depot's account terms and conditions, which incorporated Home Depot's privacy and security statement, and that statement disclosed that Google had access to customer service calls. Lin concluded that "the accountholder plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged lack of consent," as Courthouse News quoted the order. Because CIPA section 631(a) is a consent-based statute, a plausible allegation that the caller did not consent is an element of the claim, not an affirmative defense Google had to prove.

That reasoning matches the skepticism Lin expressed at the October hearing, where Bloomberg Law and Courthouse News reported she questioned whether CIPA reached the alleged recording at all, and pressed plaintiffs on whether the consent they gave in each company's privacy policy extended to Google. Google's position throughout was that callers consented when they accepted the deploying company's terms.

Intent for the caller with no account

Barulich did not allege that he had a Home Depot account, so the consent analysis did not apply to him, and Lin did not suggest he had consented. His claim failed on a different element. According to MediaPost and Courthouse News, Lin found that even taking his allegations as true, they would not show that Google intentionally violated the wiretap law. Section 631(a) reaches a person who "intentionally taps" a line or makes an unauthorized connection, or who "willfully and without the consent of all parties" reads or attempts to learn the contents of a communication in transit. A vendor that provides software at a client's direction, under a client's disclosures, is not obviously acting with the purpose the statute targets, and the order treats the complaint as falling short of that line.

All three dismissals were with leave to amend, so the Home Depot plaintiffs can try again with new allegations about consent and intent.

Why were some plaintiffs sent to arbitration if Google did not sign their agreements?

This is the question no published account of the ruling fully answers, and the answer matters more than any other part of the order for practitioners.

What the reports establish is narrow. Google argued that the Verizon, Uber and Discover claims belonged in arbitration because those companies require their customers to arbitrate disputes. Lin found it undisputed that the three plaintiffs formed valid and binding arbitration agreements with those companies, which the order calls "non-parties" to the lawsuit. She compelled arbitration and stayed the three claims. Coverage does not say which doctrine let Google, a stranger to those contracts, enforce them.

Three routes are available in principle, and each has different consequences:

• The contract's own language. Many consumer arbitration clauses extend to claims against the company's "agents," "service providers," "vendors" or "affiliates." If the Verizon, Uber and Discover clauses reach a service provider handling customer calls, Google can enforce them as a party the contract itself covers, or as a third-party beneficiary. That is the most durable route because it rests on the text the consumer accepted.
• Equitable estoppel. Under California law, a nonsignatory can sometimes compel arbitration when the plaintiff's claims against it are intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract. That route is now harder in the Ninth Circuit after Olson v. FCA US, LLC, in which the court held in 2026 that Chrysler's parent could not use a Jeep dealer's lease to compel arbitration through equitable estoppel, and the Supreme Court declined review on Oct. 13, 2026.
• A delegation clause. If the agreements incorporate provider rules or expressly delegate arbitrability, a court may send even the threshold question of whether a nonsignatory can enforce the clause to the arbitrator. That question, whether a delegation clause in a signatory's contract can be invoked by a nonsignatory, is the circuit split the Court left open in Olson.

The phrase "no dispute" suggests the plaintiffs contested whether the agreements applied to claims against Google rather than whether the agreements existed. At the hearing, plaintiffs' counsel acknowledged that the three plaintiffs signed binding agreements with Discover, Uber and Verizon but argued they were irrelevant to claims against Google. Lin rejected that position. Until the written order is available, the safest reading is that the order turns on the reach of these particular clauses rather than on a broad rule that any vendor can borrow any client's arbitration agreement.

What "stayed pending arbitration" means

Because Google asked for a stay, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) required one rather than dismissal; the Supreme Court held as much in Smith v. Spizzirri in 2024. The three claims remain on Lin's docket, frozen, while the plaintiffs decide whether to file individual demands under the Verizon, Uber and Discover programs. An order compelling arbitration and staying the case is generally not immediately appealable under 9 U.S.C. section 16(b), so the plaintiffs' path to the Ninth Circuit on the arbitration question runs through a final judgment or a discretionary certification.

How the case got here

The October order reverses the direction of the case's best moment for plaintiffs.

Date	Event
Oct. 23, 2023	Misael Ambriz sues Google in the Northern District of California over a Verizon customer service call, alleging a CIPA section 631(a) violation
Feb. 14, 2024	Christopher Barulich files a separate CIPA suit against Home Depot and Google over Home Depot calls
June 20, 2024	Lin dismisses Ambriz's complaint with leave to amend, finding Google acted as an agent of a telephone company, and calling it "doubtful" the defects could be cured
Feb. 10, 2025	Lin denies Google's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, adopting the "capability test"
Aug. 26, 2025	Ninth Circuit decides Popa v. Microsoft, finding no Article III standing for a session-replay plaintiff alleging only a statutory violation
Sept. 10, 2026	Google files reply in support of motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss
Oct. 13, 2026	Motions set for hearing before Lin
Oct. 23, 2026	Ruling reported: three Home Depot claims dismissed with leave to amend; three callers compelled to arbitration and stayed

What is the capability test under CIPA?

The capability test asks whether a software vendor has the ability to use intercepted communications for its own purposes; if so, the vendor can be treated as a third-party eavesdropper rather than an extension of the business it serves. The competing "extension" test asks whether the vendor actually used the data for itself. In February 2025, Lin chose the capability test, following Javier v. Assurance IQ, and held that Google's terms allowing it to use customer data for its own purposes with the client's permission supported a plausible inference of capability. That ruling made Ambriz one of the most cited decisions for plaintiffs pursuing AI vendors under CIPA.

The October order does not disturb the capability holding. It decides the case on consent, intent and arbitration instead. But the ground has shifted since 2025: in Popa v. Microsoft, the Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff alleging only a bare statutory privacy violation from session-replay software lacked a concrete injury for Article III standing, and commentators have read Popa as a threat to capability-based claims in federal court.

How much can a CIPA wiretapping claim be worth?

CIPA section 637.2(a) allows a plaintiff to recover the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, and does not require proof of actual damages. That is why a single customer service call can support a claim worth $5,000, and why a nationwide class of callers to a large deploying company represents an exposure figure that can run into the billions on paper.

Those numbers are also why CIPA has migrated into arbitration. When a class action waiver and an arbitration clause apply, claimant firms can file hundreds or thousands of individual demands, each carrying a $5,000 statutory claim and each triggering provider fees the business must pay. The Google order means that, for callers to companies whose consumer agreements cover a vendor like Google, that is now the only forum available. Whether that helps or hurts Google depends on volume: one-off demands are cheap to defend, while a coordinated filing could produce the fee pressure that Mass Arbitration was built to exploit.

California's legislature has narrowed some CIPA exposure but not this one. SB 690, signed Sept. 30, 2026, leaves private pen register and trap-and-trace claims over websites and apps to the Attorney General from Jan. 1, 2027, but it does not touch section 631 wiretap claims or section 632 recording claims, the theories pleaded here.

Does the ruling affect other AI customer service lawsuits?

It is persuasive authority, not binding precedent, but three of its moves are portable.

First, the consent holding gives every business that uses AI on its phone lines a reason to put the vendor's name, or at least the vendor's access, in its privacy statement and to tie that statement to account terms. A plaintiff who accepted those terms will have difficulty alleging lack of consent.

Second, the intent holding gives vendors an argument that operating software under a client's instructions is not the willful interception CIPA punishes. Plaintiffs suing AI vendors will need concrete facts about what the vendor itself did with call content, which links back to the capability-versus-extension debate.

Third, and most important for forum, the arbitration holding lets a vendor ride on its clients' arbitration programs. Plaintiffs who choose class representatives will screen for callers with no arbitration agreement with the deploying company, and for deploying companies whose clauses do not reach service providers.

What it means for AI vendors, deploying businesses and claimants' counsel

For AI vendors. The order shows the value of being named, by category or by function, in clients' consumer arbitration clauses. Vendor contracts can require clients to maintain clauses that cover service providers and to disclose the vendor's access in privacy statements. Without that language, a vendor is left with equitable estoppel, which Olson has made unreliable under California law in the Ninth Circuit.

For businesses deploying AI on phone lines. The consent holding rests on disclosure that is incorporated into account terms. Businesses whose callers do not have accounts, like Barulich, cannot rely on that path and should review how disclosures are given at the start of a call. Drafters should also check whether their Arbitration Clause and Class Action Waiver expressly reach claims against vendors acting on the business's behalf, and whether a Delegation Clause sends that question to the arbitrator.

For claimants' counsel. The Home Depot amendment will need allegations of non-consent that survive the incorporated privacy statement and facts showing Google's own purposeful conduct. For the arbitration track, counsel for the Verizon, Uber and Discover callers must decide whether to pursue individual demands, which carry the same $5,000 statutory claim per violation, or to keep fighting the forum. Firms evaluating a coordinated arbitration campaign will look first at the deploying company's provider, fee schedule and Mass Arbitration Protocol, since those rules, not CIPA, will set the pace and cost.

For class strategy. With three representatives stayed and three dismissed, none of the six named plaintiffs identified in coverage of the order has a claim moving forward in court today. Any amended complaint will likely add or reshape representatives, and Google will argue at Class Certification that arbitration agreements across the class defeat predominance.

What happens next in the Google AI wiretapping lawsuit

The Home Depot plaintiffs can file an amended complaint within the time the order allows. If they do, Google will move to dismiss again on consent and intent. The three compelled plaintiffs can file individual arbitration demands; their stayed claims remain on the docket for confirmation or vacatur of any award. Neither part of the order is likely to reach the Ninth Circuit soon, because stay orders compelling arbitration are not immediately appealable and the dismissal is not final while leave to amend is pending.

FAQ

Did Google win the Google AI wiretapping lawsuit?

Google won this round, not the case. Judge Lin dismissed three Home Depot callers' CIPA claims with leave to amend and sent three other callers to individual arbitration, staying their court claims.

Why were the Verizon, Uber and Discover callers sent to arbitration?

Lin found it undisputed that each had a valid, binding arbitration agreement with Verizon, Uber or Discover, and compelled arbitration of their claims against Google. Published coverage does not identify the precise doctrine that let Google, a nonsignatory, enforce those agreements.

Is Google allowed to record customer service calls with AI?

Under this ruling, a caller who accepted a company's account terms that disclose Google's access to calls has not plausibly alleged lack of consent under CIPA section 631. The ruling does not decide whether Google may record callers who received no disclosure at all.

Can the Home Depot plaintiffs refile?

Yes. The dismissals were with leave to amend, so the plaintiffs can file an amended complaint adding facts about non-consent and Google's intent.

How much is a CIPA violation worth?

CIPA section 637.2 provides $5,000 per violation, or three times actual damages if greater, without proof of actual harm.

Does SB 690 end these lawsuits?

No. SB 690 shifts website pen register and trap-and-trace claims to the Attorney General from Jan. 1, 2027, but it leaves section 631 wiretap claims like these in place.