Friday, April 10, 2026
Patients sue Sutter Health, MemorialCare over alleged AI recordings
Class action claims health care providers recorded doctor-patient conversations without consent using AI tools.
Sutter Health's headquarters in Sacramento. Photo credit: Sutter Health
A putative class action has been filed against health care providers Sutter Health and MemorialCare, accusing them of secretly recording doctor-patient conversations using artificial intelligence without consent.
The complaint, filed Tuesday in the Northern District of California by three patients, alleges that an "ambient AI" tool was used during appointments to capture and process confidential medical discussions, potentially violating state and federal privacy laws.
The plaintiffs' attorney, James M. Treglio of Potter Handy LLP, wrote that software developed by Abridge AI Inc. was used to record conversations between physicians and patients in exam rooms. According to the complaint, the tool transcribes conversations during medical visits and generates clinical notes by sending audio recordings to external servers for processing.
Plaintiffs Christina Washington, Dennis Gueretta and Rebecca Matulic claim they were unaware their visits were being recorded. "Highly sensitive medical communications were intercepted, recorded, and processed without patients' informed consent," Treglio wrote.
Sutter Health said in an email statement Wednesday, "We are aware of the case and are currently reviewing the matter. We take patient privacy seriously and are committed to protecting the security of our patients' information. Technology used in our clinical settings is carefully evaluated and implemented in accordance with applicable laws and regulations."
MemorialCare said it does not comment on pending litigation. Abridge AI did not respond to a request for comment. *Washington et al. v. Sutter Health et al.*, 3:26-cv-03012 (N.D. Cal., filed Apr. 7, 2026).
Attorney Zachary N. Zaharoff of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, who is not involved in the case, said Wednesday that despite the transformative impact of artificial intelligence on businesses, there are risks associated with rapid adoption.
"This lawsuit underscores the importance of ensuring that businesses and professionals take time to understand the risks of AI use before abandoning time-tested methodologies," Zaharoff said. "While we all want doctors to spend more time treating patients and less time writing notes, we cannot throw patient privacy out the window."
The lawsuit alleges that the recordings included detailed personal health information--such as symptoms, diagnoses, medications and treatment discussions--that was transmitted outside the clinical setting for analysis.
The plaintiffs accuse the defendants of violating several laws, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the federal Wiretap Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.
The suit seeks to represent a nationwide class of patients whose medical visits were allegedly recorded using the AI system without consent, as well as a California subclass.
Marc Alexander, a mediator at Alternative Resolution Centers who is not involved in the case, said the lawsuit may present evidentiary, class certification and remedy challenges for both sides.
"There is possibly an evidentiary issue for the defendant to show that they gave meaningful notice that the conversation was going to be recorded and how the information was going to be used," Alexander said.
"It's going to raise the legal issue as to whether you can have nationwide class certification based on California statutes. And then there's another legal issue, which is also factual, the Unfair Competition Law provides a restitution remedy, but any money that you get back through restitution has to be connected to the wrong that was committed. And you know, that might be a hard thing to show."
The complaint also includes a claim for intrusion upon seclusion, alleging that recording private medical consultations without consent would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person."
Technology attorney Anita Taff-Rice of iCommLaw said in an email that patients have a reasonable expectation that their medical information will be handled securely.
"Surely a patient has a reasonable belief that a doctor is not going to put paper records in an unsecure box by the recycling bin while awaiting pickup by a paper storage company. The expectation is not different simply because the confidential information is electronic," she said.
"Recorded conversations are even more troubling because they capture far more details, including both the patient's private thoughts as well as the doctor's responses, than would likely be included in paper documents."
The plaintiffs allege the practice was widespread across clinics affiliated with Sutter Health and MemorialCare and not limited to their own experiences.
They are seeking statutory damages of thousands of dollars per violation, along with injunctive relief requiring the health systems to stop the alleged practices and delete any improperly obtained recordings.
The complaint, filed Tuesday in the Northern District of California by three patients, alleges that an "ambient AI" tool was used during appointments to capture and process confidential medical discussions, potentially violating state and federal privacy laws.
The plaintiffs' attorney, James M. Treglio of Potter Handy LLP, wrote that software developed by Abridge AI Inc. was used to record conversations between physicians and patients in exam rooms. According to the complaint, the tool transcribes conversations during medical visits and generates clinical notes by sending audio recordings to external servers for processing.
Plaintiffs Christina Washington, Dennis Gueretta and Rebecca Matulic claim they were unaware their visits were being recorded. "Highly sensitive medical communications were intercepted, recorded, and processed without patients' informed consent," Treglio wrote.
Sutter Health said in an email statement Wednesday, "We are aware of the case and are currently reviewing the matter. We take patient privacy seriously and are committed to protecting the security of our patients' information. Technology used in our clinical settings is carefully evaluated and implemented in accordance with applicable laws and regulations."
MemorialCare said it does not comment on pending litigation. Abridge AI did not respond to a request for comment. *Washington et al. v. Sutter Health et al.*, 3:26-cv-03012 (N.D. Cal., filed Apr. 7, 2026).
Attorney Zachary N. Zaharoff of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, who is not involved in the case, said Wednesday that despite the transformative impact of artificial intelligence on businesses, there are risks associated with rapid adoption.
"This lawsuit underscores the importance of ensuring that businesses and professionals take time to understand the risks of AI use before abandoning time-tested methodologies," Zaharoff said. "While we all want doctors to spend more time treating patients and less time writing notes, we cannot throw patient privacy out the window."
The lawsuit alleges that the recordings included detailed personal health information--such as symptoms, diagnoses, medications and treatment discussions--that was transmitted outside the clinical setting for analysis.
The plaintiffs accuse the defendants of violating several laws, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the federal Wiretap Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.
The suit seeks to represent a nationwide class of patients whose medical visits were allegedly recorded using the AI system without consent, as well as a California subclass.
Marc Alexander, a mediator at Alternative Resolution Centers who is not involved in the case, said the lawsuit may present evidentiary, class certification and remedy challenges for both sides.
"There is possibly an evidentiary issue for the defendant to show that they gave meaningful notice that the conversation was going to be recorded and how the information was going to be used," Alexander said.
"It's going to raise the legal issue as to whether you can have nationwide class certification based on California statutes. And then there's another legal issue, which is also factual, the Unfair Competition Law provides a restitution remedy, but any money that you get back through restitution has to be connected to the wrong that was committed. And you know, that might be a hard thing to show."
The complaint also includes a claim for intrusion upon seclusion, alleging that recording private medical consultations without consent would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person."
Technology attorney Anita Taff-Rice of iCommLaw said in an email that patients have a reasonable expectation that their medical information will be handled securely.
"Surely a patient has a reasonable belief that a doctor is not going to put paper records in an unsecure box by the recycling bin while awaiting pickup by a paper storage company. The expectation is not different simply because the confidential information is electronic," she said.
"Recorded conversations are even more troubling because they capture far more details, including both the patient's private thoughts as well as the doctor's responses, than would likely be included in paper documents."
The plaintiffs allege the practice was widespread across clinics affiliated with Sutter Health and MemorialCare and not limited to their own experiences.
They are seeking statutory damages of thousands of dollars per violation, along with injunctive relief requiring the health systems to stop the alleged practices and delete any improperly obtained recordings.
