(And Yes—They Do Need to Ask)
By Scott Hall
AI-powered meeting tools have made it incredibly easy to record, transcribe, and summarize conversations. But ease of use shouldn’t override legal obligations or sound data governance. As these tools become more common, it’s important for businesses to ask a fundamental question: Do we really need a record of every meeting?
Whether for internal meetings or external calls, AI notetaking tools come with real legal and privacy risks. In many cases, the better choice may be to opt out of recording altogether—and never assume silence means consent.
Consent Still Comes First
Recording laws haven’t changed just because AI has entered the room. Under federal law, “one-party consent” may be enough, but over a dozen states—including California, Florida, and Pennsylvania—require all parties to consent before a conversation can be recorded. That includes AI tools that silently transcribe, summarize, or analyze conversations.
If your meeting involves participants in one of these state, or in multiple states, the safest approach is to apply the strictest rule. And if you’re using a tool that silently joins a call, records the conversation, and spits out an AI summary—without every participant clearly agreeing to it—you could be violating state and federal law. Simply put: if you’re using an AI notetaker or transcript tool, you need to tell people—and get their permission.
AI Creates More Than Just Notes—It Creates Risk
Many organizations adopt AI notetaking simply to avoid the time-consuming work of manual documentation. But this can backfire. Transcripts often include stray comments, speculation, internal debates, or even sensitive information that a human notetaker would leave out. And AI tools can completely miss or misunderstand the context in which statements are made, including sarcasm, jokes, or simply the tone or inflection with which certain statements are said, which can alter the meaning of those statements, in addition to hallucinating content. Moreover, these materials—accurate or inaccurate—can become discoverable in litigation or investigations—even if they were only meant for internal use.
AI records can also:
- Conflict with formal meeting minutes, undermining credibility;
- Waive attorney-client privilege if legal conversations are transcribed by third-party services;
- Create inconsistent records across versions (raw transcript, AI summary, follow-up notes);
- Increase data exposure if stored indefinitely or shared with vendors using it to train AI models
When businesses reflexively record everything “just in case,” they often end up storing conversations they never needed—and wish they didn’t have.
Manual Notes Still Have a Place
Not every meeting needs to be transcribed. AI tools are often marketed as efficiency boosters, but businesses should resist the urge to capture everything simply to avoid notetaking. Typed notes remain a valuable, lower-risk alternative—especially when discussions involve sensitive strategy, personnel, or legal matters.
Ask yourself: If this meeting were the subject of a lawsuit or investigation, would we want a full transcript of everything that was said? If not, don’t create one in the first place.
If You Do Use AI Tools, Govern Them Carefully
If your organization is using—or considering—AI meeting assistants, take these governance steps:
- Be Intentional
Don’t record by default. Choose transcription only for meetings where it clearly adds value.
- Get Explicit Consent
Use verbal notices, written policies, or meeting pop-ups to inform all participants and log their consent.
- Vet Your Vendors
Review AI tool settings and terms. Turn off features you don’t need, and block vendor use of your data for model training.
- Update Yor Privacy Policies and Employee Handbooks
Clearly disclose when and how AI transcription or recording tools are used—and whether third parties are involved.
- Limit Access and Retention
Keep transcripts only as long as necessary. Restrict access to relevant personnel.
- Establish Internal Guidelines
Create policies that define when AI notetaking is appropriate for your organization and when it’s not. Train employees to use these tools thoughtfully and sparingly.
If You Join a Meeting That’s Being Recorded, Don’t Be Afraid to Say No
It’s common to feel awkward asking a host to turn off an AI notetaker or to pause a recording—especially in professional settings. But your discomfort shouldn’t override your privacy preferences. If you didn’t consent to being recorded, you have every right to speak up, ask for the tool to be disabled, or leave the meeting if needed. Respectful pushback is not unprofessional—it’s prudent. At a minimum, you should request a transcript of the notes or a copy of the recording after the meeting and review it for accuracy.
Conclusion
AI offers powerful tools—but recording everything is not a compliance strategy. It’s a shortcut that many companies are taking without thinking through the potential long-term problems.
Saying no to AI notetaking isn’t being anti-tech—it’s being pro-accountability. It reflects good governance, legal awareness, and respect for privacy. Sometimes, not hitting “record” is the most prudent decision your team can make.
