As businesses increasingly deploy AI-powered call centers to streamline customer service, plaintiffs have turned to decades-old wiretapping laws to challenge these tools. In a recent decision, however, an Illinois federal district court held that use of an AI call analysis platform without caller consent does not violate the federal Wiretap Act because it falls within the statute’s ordinary course of business exception. Lisota v. Heartland Dental, LLC, 2026 WL 91667, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 13, 2026).

In Lisota, the plaintiff alleged that her dentist’s office used Heartland, an administrative services provider that answered incoming calls which, in turn, engaged an AI call analysis service. Because the plaintiff allegedly was neither notified of nor consented to the AI tool’s involvement, she claimed that the tool unlawfully intercepted her calls in violation of the Wiretap Act and that Heartland was liable for procuring the interception.

The Wiretap Act prohibits certain call interception, but it exempts interceptions made “by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 2510(5)(a)(ii). The parties agreed that the AI tool qualified as an electronic communication service, but they disputed whether its recording and analysis occurred in the ordinary course of business. The court held that it did, and further concluded that Heartland was not liable for simply using the AI service.

Deeming the AI tool’s automated call analysis features “critical to its pitch,” the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the tool served impermissible independent purposes. Lisota, 2026 WL 91667, at *5. Generating more dental appointments, for example, was the tool “integrat[ing] listening and analysis into its phone service.” Id. at *6. Refining its AI with call data was “at minimum incidental” to providing the service. Id. (cleaned up).

Heartland additionally argued that it was exempt under the Wiretap Act’s “party exception,” which permits a party to a call to record the conversation. Although the court did not decide this issue because its ruling on the ordinary-course exception resolved the case, it noted that identifying who qualifies as a “party” can become complex in such multi-step call-routing scenarios.