A San Francisco Airbnb host is suing The Bot Company, the $2 billion robotics startup founded by ex-Cruise CEO Kyle Vogt, for allegedly using his home as a secret robot testing lab. Sean Donovan claims workers booked his Portola neighbourhood property under false pretences in April, posing as remote workers from Thailand. He is seeking $12,383 in damages.

What Donovan found was not a group of digital nomads. Using his outdoor Ring camera, he counted more than 30 people entering and leaving the house over 11 nights. He overheard some of them discussing their “shifts,” he told SFGate.

When Donovan stopped by to take out the trash, he found bundles of wires leading inside. He followed them and discovered a six-foot robot he described as looking like a “borg” from Star Trek, or a giant “Roomba with treads.” The Bot Company builds household chore robots but has shared almost nothing about its prototypes publicly.

The damage was extensive. A 70-year-old family dining table was scratched and water-marked. A Franciscan pottery set went missing. A bathroom tile was chipped, a coffee table banged up, and a broken mug had its handle glued back on. An entire shoe rack disappeared. “They came in and put everything back in a new place,” Donovan told SFGate. “Silverware in a new drawer or a different room.”

Vogt co-founded The Bot Company in 2024 with Paril Jain, the former head of Tesla’s AI division. The startup has raised more than $300 million, including a $150 million round led by Greenoaks. It is valued at approximately $2 billion, despite having revealed almost nothing about what it is building.

Vogt’s previous venture did not end well. He was CEO of Cruise, GM’s robotaxi division, which was shut down in 2024 after a series of safety incidents. GM absorbed the technical team and redirected autonomous driving work toward personal vehicles.

There is a legitimate reason to test household robots in real homes rather than sanitised labs. Domestic environments are cluttered, unpredictable, and full of objects that break. But doing it without the property owner’s consent, under a false identity, crosses a line. The lawsuit alleges unauthorised commercial R&D activity, including robotic prototype testing and filming for commercial purposes.

Other robotics companies testing in real-world environments have faced similar scrutiny. Robotaxi operators have been criticised for using public roads as de facto test tracks. The Bot Company appears to have applied the same logic to someone’s living room, and the result was a trashed house and a rare, accidental glimpse at a prototype the company would rather have kept secret.

mazon was sued on Monday over the facial-recognition feature it recently added to its Ring doorbells, in a complaint that turns on a familiar asymmetry: the person who buys the camera consents to it, and the person walking past the camera does not.

Charles Sigwalt, a Virginia resident, filed the proposed class action in federal court in Seattle, alleging that Ring’s “Familiar Faces” feature captures and stores images of passersby without their permission. He is seeking at least $5m in damages on behalf of the class, according to Reuters.

Familiar Faces is an optional setting that uses AI to recognise people a camera has seen before, so that a notification can say who is at the door rather than simply that someone is. Ring rolled it out late last year as part of a broader AI refresh of its cameras, with users able to label recognised people and the system cataloguing a set number of faces over time.

For the homeowner who switches it on, that is the convenience. For the delivery driver, the neighbour, or the stranger cutting across the lawn, the suit argues, it means having a faceprint taken and retained with no say in the matter, and no practical way to opt out of a camera they do not own.

That objection is not new, and Amazon’s own conduct suggests it anticipated the legal exposure. The company has said Familiar Faces is not available in Illinois or Texas, the two US states with the strictest biometric-privacy laws.

Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act requires written consent before a company captures someone’s face geometry and allows damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional one, a structure that has made it the most expensive law in the country to fall foul of.

Keeping the feature out of those two states reads, to critics, less like caution than like an answer to a question nobody had to ask out loud.

The Sigwalt complaint sits in a longer line of trouble for Ring. The unit has drawn scrutiny for its facial-recognition ambitions for years, as well as for its data-sharing arrangements with police and a 2023 settlement with the US Federal Trade Commission over employee access to customers’ video.

Amazon, which bought Ring for about $1bn in 2018, has tended to frame the cameras as neighbourhood safety tools. The plaintiffs frame them as a privately owned surveillance network that happens to point at the street.

What happens next is procedural. The court has to decide whether the case proceeds as a class action, and Amazon has not yet filed a response to the specific allegations.

An earlier biometric suit against Ring survived a motion to dismiss in 2022, which gives the new claim a precedent to lean on, though not a result. For now there is a filing, a damages figure, and a feature that keeps scanning faces while the lawyers argue over whose consent it needed.