Amazon Risks Legal Gray Area by Indefinitely Holding Alexa Recordings
Customers may think they are deleting a recording on their Alexa, but Amazon confirmed in a letter to a U.S. senator that the recording's transcripts and other "underlying data" aren't truly scrubbed from the cloud or third parties.
July 15, 2019 at 12:00 PM
4 minute read
In a letter to a U.S. senator earlier this month, Amazon confirmed that when Alexa is spoken to, it's all ears. Specifically, the company said its smart speaker doesn't always delete transcripts of conversations, even if users manually delete the recording.
To be sure, Alexa gives users notice of its collection of recordings and the opportunity to change those settings, meaning its practice clears most privacy law hurdles in the U.S., lawyers said. But should Alexa collect medical information and background conversations, it may put the transcripts under the scope of various state laws.
Alexa's deletion habits made news earlier this month when U.S. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, released Amazon.com Inc.'s response to the senator's letter requesting details about the smart speaker's data privacy and security practices. The letter stemmed from a CNET article claiming Amazon doesn't delete transcripts after users manually delete recordings.
In Amazon's response letter, the tech company wrote it retains customers' voice recordings and transcripts until the customer deletes them, with a few exceptions. The company confirmed a "skill developer," akin to an app creator whose voice-driven app appears on Alexa, may also retain records of the interaction. Amazon also said the "underlying data" from a spoken request setting a recurring action isn't deleted. It did not specify the nature of such data.
While some may be concerned that deleted information on Alexa isn't actually erased, the process does not break most privacy laws in the U.S.
"With regard to privacy, an analysis typically begins with a determination of whether a user's expectation of privacy is reasonable," said Duane Morris partner Sandra Jeskie. "In connection with the Alexa device, a user's expectation of privacy is defined by the privacy policy set by Amazon for the device."
Jeskie noted that Amazon's lack of deleting data regarding repeated actions is also consistent with other privacy policies because such engagements "requires a longer-term retention."
But Sara Jodka, a member at Dickinson Wright, highlighted that because Alexa doesn't anonymize user identity or other information in its transcripts, Amazon could face potential legal issues if it retains information that includes protected health information (PHI) or the side conversations of people who did not agree to their terms of service.
"That opens you to categories of information and state law protections about how that information needs to be captured and stored," she said.
While Alexa's ability to record a background conversation while a question is directed to Alexa may seem harmless, not all states allow one-party consent to be recorded.
If Amazon is recording and storing background conversations in two-party consent states without prior authorization, the company could face "potential liability," Jodka said.
To be sure, Amazon said that it doesn't anonymize data in an effort to promote customer transparency to review records and improve the machine learning powering Alexa's actions.
Jodka noted that Amazon does have a business and operational need to retain certain information to improve its technology.
"The more human conversations it collects its technology continues to learn and become almost human in nature," Jodka said. "I think the information they [Amazon] collect for Alexa is going to be used to make those other platforms more functional to know the consumer DNA of the people who use Alexa and Amazon in general."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250