The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to automatically record and/or transcribe virtual meetings has become increasingly common in the modern workplace. While these AI-powered meeting assistant technologies offer significant benefits for documentation and accessibility, they also navigate a complex landscape of legal and privacy regulations. The legality of using an AI recorder or transcriber is not a simple “yes” or “no” – it depends on compliance with consent, data privacy, and disclosure laws.

The core issue: Consent to record

Many AI-powered meeting assistants offer the ability to record meetings and/or generate a transcript. Whether a conversation is recorded by a person or an AI-powered platform or tool or automatically captured and transcribed by such a platform or tool, the same fundamental consent obligations apply. Indeed, the law traditionally focuses on the act of recording a private conversation, not the specific technology used.

In the United States, the legal framework for recording is a patchwork of federal and state laws:

• Federal law: The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Wiretap Act operate on a "one-party consent" basis. This means it is legal to record a conversation if at least one person in the conversation is aware of the recording and has consented (provided the recording is not for a criminal purpose).
• State law: The primary legal challenge arises from states that have adopted a stricter "all-party consent" (or "two-party consent") standard. In these jurisdictions, every participant in a private conversation must be notified and must consent before any recording can begin.

As of 2025, the states that generally require all-party consent for recording of remote or telephonic conversations are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (though the law on this is unsettled), Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

When participants in a digital meeting are in different states, the most conservative approach is recommended. If even one participant is located in an all-party consent state (e.g., California), the meeting organizer must obtain consent from everyone involved to be compliant.

Added complexities of AI: Data, privacy, and biometrics

The use of AI also introduces data governance concerns that extend beyond traditional recording. Employers must be transparent not only about the act of recording, but also about what the AI does with the data.

Comprehensive privacy statutes, such as those in California (California Consumer Privacy Act or California Privacy Rights Act) or the European Union (General Data Protection Regulation), regulate the processing of personal data. A voice recording and its transcript are considered personal data. Employers must therefore provide a clear "Notice at Collection" that specifies what information is being captured, the purpose of its use (e.g., transcription, analysis, AI training), who can access it, and how long the recording will be retained.

Many AI transcription tools also create "voiceprints" or other voice identifiers to distinguish between speakers. This practice can trigger specific biometric privacy laws, such as Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, which requires written consent before collecting biometric data. These laws have stringent requirements, often mandating explicit written consent from individuals before their biometric identifiers can be collected, stored, or used.

Recommended compliance practices

To legally deploy AI recording and transcription tools for virtual meetings, employers should adopt a policy centered on transparency and active consent.

1. Provide advance written notice: Include a clear, standard notification in meeting invitations that the session will be recorded and/or transcribed by an automated tool.
2. Use active consent prompts: Utilize the built-in features of conferencing platforms that display a visual, pop-up notification requiring participants to consent before the recording begins.
3. Make a verbal announcement: If possible, the meeting host should make a verbal announcement at the start of the meeting (which is itself captured by the recording) stating that the session is being recorded and/or transcribed.
4. Control access and vendors: Restrict access to recordings and transcripts to authorized personnel. Ensure any third-party AI vendor is bound by a written data-protection agreement that prohibits use of the data for unauthorized purposes, such as training their own AI models.

By staying up to date and informed, employers can navigate the complex issues under relevant laws. If you have any questions about workplace compliance with AI-powered tools, Reed Smith’s experienced attorneys are available to help.