Google faces lawsuit over alleged secret AI surveillance of Gmail, Chat and Meet users

11/20/2025 / By Kevin Hughes

Google allegedly activated Gemini AI tracking by default in Gmail, Chat and Meet without user consent, scanning private communications—including financial, medical, religious and political data—despite previously requiring opt-in agreements.
The lawsuit claims Google misled users with prompts stating, “When you turn this setting on, you agree,” while Gemini was already enabled, creating a false illusion of consent.
Plaintiffs cite multiple privacy laws, including California’s Invasion of Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act, arguing Google’s AI-enabled data harvesting breaches “reasonable expectations of confidentiality.”
The case highlights concerns over AI-driven corporate surveillance, lack of transparency in data collection and the normalization of mass privacy violations under the guise of “smart features.”
If certified as a class action, Google could face regulatory penalties, forced changes to default settings and financial damages. Privacy experts recommend disabling Gemini AI, switching to encrypted email providers and supporting stronger digital privacy legislation.

A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in federal court accuses Google of secretly activating its Gemini AI assistant across Gmail, Chat and Meet, allegedly scanning users’ private communications without consent—a move plaintiffs claim violates privacy laws and defies “reasonable expectations of confidentiality.”

The lawsuit, filed by plaintiffs Thomas Thele and Melo Porter, alleges that Google “surreptitiously turned on” Gemini AI tracking in October without informing users, granting the system access to “literally every email and attachment sent and received” in Gmail, along with Chat messages and Meet conversations.

According to the complaint, Google previously required users to opt in to Gemini’s data processing features. However, in early October, the company allegedly “turned it on for everyone by default,” effectively mining private communications—including financial records, medical information, religious and political affiliations and even personal habits—without explicit permission.

The lawsuit argues that the tech giant’s settings interface was deliberately misleading, displaying a prompt stating, “When you turn this setting on, you agree,” despite the feature already being enabled. This, plaintiffs claim, created an “illusion of consent” where none existed.

Potential privacy violations

The complaint warns that Gemini’s capabilities allow Google to “cross-reference and conduct unlimited analysis toward unmerited, improper and monetizable insights” into users’ private lives. This includes intimate details such as:

Financial and employment records
Religious and political affiliations
Medical history and healthcare data
Social, shopping and exercise habits
Family relationships and children’s activities

The lawsuit invokes multiple privacy statutes, including:

The California Invasion of Privacy Act
The California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act
The Stored Communications Act
California’s constitutional right to privacy

Google’s history of privacy concerns

This lawsuit arrives amid heightened scrutiny of Google’s data practices. The company has faced multiple high-profile privacy cases in recent years, including allegations of unlawful geofence tracking and covert data collection.

Plaintiffs argue that while Google has long profited from user data, this latest alleged breach crosses ethical boundaries by exploiting AI to harvest deeply personal information without transparency or consent.

A Pew Research study cited in the complaint found that 93% of adults consider controlling who accesses their information “important,” while 90% believe they should have authority over collected data—suggesting widespread public concern over corporate surveillance.

Brighteon.AI‘s Enoch notes that the tech company has faced numerous legal challenges and investigations globally due to its data privacy practices. Some of the most significant cases are: European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Fines (2019), U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Fine (2012), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Lawsuit (2020), U.S. State Attorneys General Lawsuits (2020-Present), European Commission Antitrust Investigations (2019-Present) and U.S. Student Privacy Lawsuit (2016). These cases highlight the ongoing concerns and scrutiny surrounding Google’s data privacy practices.

Legal and financial consequences

If certified as a class action, the lawsuit could expand rapidly given Google’s massive user base. Potential repercussions for the tech giant include: regulatory penalties under wiretapping and privacy laws, mandated changes to default AI settings and financial damages for affected users.

Google has yet to publicly respond to the lawsuit. However, legal experts anticipate the company will argue that users were adequately notified and retained control over privacy settings—a claim that plaintiffs dispute.

What users can do

For those concerned about privacy, experts recommend:

Disabling Gemini AI in Google account settings
Switching to encrypted email providers (e.g., ProtonMail, Tutanota)
Avoiding Google’s ecosystem for sensitive communications
Supporting legislative efforts to strengthen digital privacy rights

The lawsuit represents a critical challenge to Google’s data practices, testing whether tech giants can deploy AI surveillance tools without explicit user approval. As AI becomes increasingly embedded in daily life, this case may set a precedent for how privacy laws adapt to emerging technologies.

For now, millions of Gmail, Chat and Meet users may unknowingly be part of an AI experiment—one that plaintiffs argue was never theirs to consent to in the first place.

Stay updated on this developing story as Google prepares its legal response.

Watch the video below about Google being the largest surveillance apparatus in human history, according to Dr. Robert Epstein.

This video is from The Big Logic channel on Brighteon.com.

Sources include:

Submit a correction >>