Is It Legal to Record a Meeting? One-Party vs All-Party Consent (US, Canada, EU)

One-party consent generally means a participant can authorize recording a conversation. All-party consent means everyone covered by the rule must agree. Neither label answers every question: privacy expectations, location, the type of call, and the recorder’s purpose matter. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), US federal law allows interception with a party’s prior consent, except when done for a criminal or tortious purpose. State law may be stricter. This is general information, not legal advice.

The Reporters Committee’s recording guide identifies California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington as states that primarily require all-party consent. That is a map, not a substitute for the state-by-state chapters or the statute for the place you are recording. Rules can differ between phone and in-person conversations, and some turn on whether a communication is confidential. Justia's 2018 survey lists additional states as clearly or potentially all-party in some circumstances. For example, its older survey and the Reporters Committee disagree on Vermont; check current state law instead of treating either list as a final answer. Sources describe Missouri's rule differently, so check Missouri law directly rather than relying on a chart.

An interstate meeting can touch more than one recording law. The Reporters Committee guidance advises assuming the stricter rule applies. A practical response is to disclose the recording, ask every participant, and document the answer before capture begins. A platform’s permission to start recording is not proof that every participant has consented.

Canada’s Criminal Code section 184 has an exception when the originator or intended recipient of a private communication consents to interception. That criminal-law exception is not the whole answer for a business. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s guidance on customer call recording says organizations should tell callers they are recording, explain why, and obtain consent. Its PIPEDA finding 2007-384 explains why a notice buried in a privacy policy is not enough for that setting.

A recording or transcript that identifies a person is personal-data processing under the GDPR. Article 6 requires a lawful basis; consent is one possible basis, not the only one. Article 13 requires information at collection. Voiceprints used to identify someone can raise Article 9 biometric-data issues. Member states also have their own recording rules. For example, Germany’s Criminal Code § 201 addresses unauthorized recording of another person’s non-public speech. Get local advice for the actual countries involved.

Federal wiretap claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) ask whether a service intercepted a communication without an applicable consent exception. In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, No. 5:25-cv-06911-EKL (N.D. Cal.), a putative class action first filed on 15 August 2025, alleges that Otter's meeting assistant recorded conversations without the consent of all participants and used them to train its AI models. On 13 August 2026 the court dismissed some claims and allowed others, including the federal wiretap (ECPA) claim, to proceed at the pleading stage. No court has found Otter liable.

California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) raises separate questions about intercepting or recording confidential communications. Chamberlain v. Granola, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-07926-EMC (N.D. Cal.), a putative class action filed on 30 July 2026, alleges that Granola's bot-free note taker records other meeting participants without notifying them. As of 12 October 2026 no motion to dismiss has been decided, and no court has found Granola liable. The allegation illustrates why bot-free capture does not remove the person recording’s duty to tell others.

Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) raises questions about notice and consent when speaker recognition allegedly creates voiceprints. The putative class action Fricker v. Fireflies.AI Corp., No. 1:26-cv-02675 (N.D. Ill.), filed on 10 March 2026, alleges voiceprint collection without the written notice and consent BIPA requires; as of 12 October 2026 a motion to dismiss is pending. No court has found Fireflies liable.

Case statuses are as of 12 October 2026 and can change; follow the docket links for the latest. Allegations in a complaint are not findings of fact.

This is general information, not legal advice.

No. A visible bot can cue participants that a service is present, but visibility alone is not consent. A bot-free recorder removes even that cue, so the duty to tell people shifts to the person operating it. Some vendors provide notices: Granola documents optional transparency features, Fathom describes a recording notice, and Fireflies documents bot-free consent prompts. Check the setting before every call. This is general information, not legal advice.