Good morning CIPAWorld, I am back with the latest and greatest!
A California federal court has granted Google’s motion to compel arbitration in a consolidated CIPA class action, holding that Google could enforce arbitration agreements between the plaintiffs and third-party service providers under California’s equitable estoppel doctrine.
In In re Google Cloud Contact Center AI Privacy Litigation, No. 23-cv-05437-RFL, 2026 WL 3169714 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2026), the plaintiffs alleged that Google unlawfully recorded customer service calls through its Cloud Contact Center AI product in violation of Sections 631(a), 632(a), and 637.5 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).
Google moved to compel arbitration of three named plaintiffs’ claims based on their respective agreements with Verizon, Uber, and Discover. And while Google was not a party to those agreements, the Court concluded that California’s equitable estoppel doctrine permitted Google to enforce their arbitration provisions.
Court Finds CIPA Claims Intertwined with Arbitration Agreements
The Court identified two independent grounds supporting equitable estoppel.
First, the plaintiffs’ CIPA claims were intertwined with their agreements with Verizon, Uber, and Discover because determining whether Google unlawfully recorded their calls required examining the privacy policies incorporated into those agreements.
Significantly, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that lack of consent was merely an affirmative defense, holding instead that lack of consent is an element of the CIPA claims at issue. Because the privacy policies addressed customer service calls, the Court found that the plaintiffs’ claims necessarily depended on interpreting agreements containing arbitration provisions.
Second, the Court determined that the plaintiffs alleged substantially interdependent misconduct by Google and the third-party service providers. The complaint alleged that those providers contracted with Google to use its Cloud Contact Center AI product, directly connecting Google’s alleged conduct to the underlying contractual relationships.
What This Means for CIPA Defendants Everywhere
The decision provides another example of how nonsignatory defendants may invoke arbitration agreements in CIPA litigation where the alleged privacy violations are closely connected to contractual relationships between plaintiffs and third parties.
Importantly, the Court’s conclusion that lack of consent is an element of the asserted CIPA claims reinforces the significance of privacy policies and contractual disclosures when evaluating alleged recording violations.
And finally, the Court granted Google’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings for the three affected plaintiffs pending resolution of their arbitration claims.
This felt significant. Until next time, CIPAWorld!..