Why now

Privacy, balanced with the superpowers of AI.

Transcription gives people superpowers: perfect memory, searchable conversations, evidence, and insight. But today those powers are taken, not granted. We exist to restore the balance, and the timing is checkable: the market leader is in court over how it records, the law now demands proof, and recording devices are about to be everywhere.

$5,000
per violation under California's wiretap statute, counted per person, per meeting
12+
states where recording requires everyone's agreement, not just the host's
2028
when humanoid robots, walking cameras and microphones, begin entering homes
01

The biggest company in our category is being sued over how it records

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · N.D. CAL.
In re Otter.ai Privacy Litigation
No. 5:25-cv-06911 · Consolidated class complaint · December 2025

Otter.ai is the best-known meeting assistant in the world. The consolidated complaint says its product recorded people who never agreed to be recorded, kept voiceprints without written permission, and violated federal and state privacy laws. These are allegations; the court has not decided them. What matters for us is the pattern: read the complaint in any AI recording case and the same three problems appear every time.

APeople did not know they were being recorded
BPeople had no way to stop it
CThe vendor kept far more than it needed

All three come from the same design: record everything first, clean up later. We build the opposite design: decide first, then record only what everyone agreed to.

02

The law now requires what we build

A growing stack of laws says the same thing in different ways: get permission before you record, and be able to prove what you kept and what you destroyed.

CIPA · CaliforniaBIPA · Illinois voiceprintsCUBI · TexasWash. § 9.73.030Attorney-client privilege guidanceEU AI Act · training-data consent

More than a dozen states require everyone in a conversation to agree before it is recorded. Illinois, Texas, and Colorado regulate voiceprints: written permission to create one, and a published schedule for destroying it. Bar associations now tell lawyers to check what AI vendors keep, because a transcript on a vendor's cloud can break privilege. And new AI rules are moving toward proof of consent for training data. Tools that make compliance easier are optional purchases. Infrastructure that keeps you legal is not. That is why our buyer is the general counsel.

03

The cameras and microphones are leaving the conference room

2024–26
Meeting agents. Software bots join calls: one room, one microphone, and a consent problem the category has not solved.
2026–28
Wearables and vehicles. Glasses, body cameras, cabin monitors. The bystander has no account, no app, and no way to object.
2028–32
Humanoid robots in homes. A walking set of cameras and microphones, in bedrooms, hospitals, eldercare, and hotels.

Every one of those devices needs the same thing: a system that decides, in the moment, what may be kept. What works for four people on a video call is what must work for a robot in a family kitchen. We are building it once, at the layer every device can share.