The market has expanded as defunct and struggling companies look to monetize their internal archives, including employee emails, Slack messages and private workplace communications [4][5].
Employees whose communications make up the data may receive no share of the proceeds and may not be informed of the transactions, according to the reports [1][6]. The arrangements have raised questions about consent, privacy law and who profits from workplace records that workers often assume are confidential [1][6].
Brokers approach businesses with archives and offer to buy them, remove sensitive information and license the remaining data to AI developers [2][3].
The size of offers can depend on the volume of information, its exclusivity and the industry involved, according to the report [2][7]. AI companies are buying workplace data including Slack messages, emails, internal documents and tickets to train better models, with payments ranging from $100,000 to $2 million [7].
Google said it was not seeking personal information and that such data would be excluded or de-identified by an independent third party, according to the reports [2].
Ifeoma Ajunwa, a law professor at Emory University, described the question of whether employee consent extends to subsequent sale of data as an "ethically gray area" [2]. The dispute highlights the unresolved question of whether consent to workplace data collection extends to its sale or licensing for AI training [2][6].
Nick Heiner, who works on AI training environments at Surge AI, told Business Insider that someone approached him offering a large company's codebase for millions of dollars; he concluded the group did not have the rights to sell it [2]. The account illustrates the legal uncertainty surrounding data provenance in the emerging market [2][6].
Meta faced internal backlash over plans to collect employees' keystrokes and mouse movements for AI training, according to reports [2]. Data intended to be anonymised became accessible more widely within Meta than intended, and the material reportedly included employees' private conversations and performance records [2].
Meta suspended the project following the incident, according to the reports [2]. The episode has been cited by critics as evidence that technical safeguards intended to protect employee data can fail during large-scale AI training efforts [2][6].
Alex Rosenblat, a sociologist and former Uber policy executive, said growing use of employee records to train AI could intensify calls for stronger privacy protections [2].
The dispute over the Spirit Airlines archive highlights the unresolved question of whether consent to workplace data collection extends to its sale or licensing for AI training [2][6]. As spending on AI data continues to rise, according to Gartner's forecast, the legal and ethical framework governing workplace communications remains unsettled [2].