# Recording a meeting or call: consent rules by country

> One-party and all-party rules for recording calls and meetings in the US by state, Canada, the UK, and Australia as of November 2026, and what AI tools change.

Whether you can **record a conversation without consent** depends on where each participant is. US federal law, Texas, Canada's Criminal Code, the UK, Victoria, and Queensland let a participant record. California and eight other US states set all-party rules, some only for secret recordings, and four Australian jurisdictions require every main party's consent, with exceptions. Businesses in Canada and the UK must also tell callers why they record.

**Key takeaways**

1. US federal law lets a participant record a call or conversation, but California's Penal Code requires the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, in person or by phone.
2. Canada's privacy commissioner says, in guidance updated on October 8, 2026, that a business must tell customers it is recording a call, state the purpose, and obtain consent.
3. In August 2026, a federal judge in California let privacy claims against Otter.ai proceed, including the claim that it acts as a third-party eavesdropper; no ruling on the merits had been made by November 11, 2026.


## Recording consent rules for meetings and calls

An AI note taker records first and summarizes second, so every tool covered in [recording and summarizing meetings](/guides/ai-at-work/meeting-notes/) runs into the law on recording conversations. This page summarizes that law in the US, Canada, the UK, and Australia, from the texts on official sites read on November 11, 2026, starting with the federal rule in [18 U.S.C. § 2511](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t18/s2511/). It is not legal advice, and the rules differ more than most summaries suggest.

The safe habit works everywhere: say at the start, so that it is on the recording, who is recording, with what tool, and why, and ask whether everyone agrees. If someone objects, stop. That is our recommendation, and it matches what Otter, Fathom, and Australia's privacy regulator advise.

### Can a participant record without telling the others?

| Where | Answer | Details |
|---|---|---|
| US, federal law | Yes | Not for a criminal or tortious purpose; state law can be stricter |
| California | No | All parties to a confidential communication, in person or by phone |
| Florida, Maryland, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington | No | All parties; in Washington, an announcement that is itself recorded counts as consent |
| Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana | Not secretly | The rules target secret or hidden recording |
| Oregon | Calls: yes; in person and video calls: no | Everyone must be told; video meetings count as conversations since 2021 |
| Connecticut | Calls: no; in person: yes | Calls need consent, a recorded announcement, or a beep |
| Texas | Yes | Not for an unlawful purpose |
| Canada | Yes | Criminal Code; businesses must also inform and get consent |
| UK | Yes | A participant does not “intercept” under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 |
| Victoria, Queensland, Northern Territory | Yes | Sharing the recording with others is restricted |
| Western Australia, South Australia | No | All main parties, unless reasonably necessary to protect your lawful interests |
| Tasmania, ACT | No | All main parties, unless needed for lawful interests or not made to be shared |

Three US states are less clear: Delaware has two texts in tension, Michigan's rule for participants rests on a 1982 court decision, and Nevada's on a 1998 one. We could not read New South Wales's Surveillance Devices Act 2007 or Nevada's statute on their official sites, so check them before relying on any summary.

### Calls that cross a border

California's Supreme Court ruled in *Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney* in 2006 that its all-party rule applies to businesses in other states that record calls with people in California. When you do not know where everyone is, the practical answer is to follow the strictest rule that could apply and tell everyone, as Otter's own help center suggests.

### What businesses must do on top

- **Canada:** the Office of the Privacy Commissioner's [guidance on recording customer calls](https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/surveillance/02_05_d_14/), updated on October 8, 2026, says a business must inform the customer, state the purpose as narrowly as possible, and obtain consent. Consent is usually implied if the customer stays on the line knowing why; voiceprints may need express consent. In Quebec, the Civil Code lists intercepting private communications as a possible invasion of privacy.
- **UK:** under regulations made in 2018, a business that records calls on its own system, for purposes such as evidence or quality, must make all reasonable efforts to inform the people who use it. The data protection regulator says to [tell callers you are recording and why](https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/employment/monitoring-workers/specific-data-protection-considerations-for-different-ways-or-methods-of-monitoring-workers/), calls a recorded message good practice, and says this guidance is under review.
- **Australia:** the privacy regulator's [guidance on AI products](https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-guidance-for-organisations-and-government-agencies/guidance-on-privacy-and-the-use-of-commercially-available-ai-products) answers the question directly: AI meeting minutes need participants' consent when sensitive information is collected, and seeking consent is best practice in any case.
- **EU:** if you offer services to people in the EU, the GDPR applies to recording them, and EU law forbids anyone other than the participants from listening in without consent.

### Why AI note takers raise new questions

A tool that keeps and reuses conversations may count as a third party, not just your recorder. In *In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation*, filed in federal court in California on August 15, 2025, plaintiffs allege that Otter's assistant joined meetings as a silent participant and used conversations and voiceprints to train its models. On August 13, 2026, the judge let claims under federal wiretap law, California's eavesdropping statute, and Illinois's biometric privacy law go forward. These are allegations: no class had been certified and no ruling on the merits made by November 11, 2026.

Voiceprints carry their own risk. Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act requires written notice and a written release before collecting one, with damages of $1,000 or $5,000 per violation; Fireflies faces lawsuits under it, one withdrawn, one paused, and one awaiting a ruling. Sharing is the third issue: in several Australian states and territories, even a lawful recording cannot freely be passed to people who were not in the conversation, which is worth remembering before a tool emails a transcript to every invitee.

### A script to open any recorded meeting

```
Before we start: I'm using [tool] to record and transcribe this call,
so I can send everyone the notes afterward. The recording is kept for
[period]. Is everyone OK with that? If not, I'll switch it off and take
notes by hand.
```

Leave the answer on the recording. With participants in Illinois, turn off speaker identification by voice unless you have their written consent.

### What each tool shows participants

Teams, Google Meet, and Zoom all display a notice when AI is at work, which helps but may not be enough on its own. See [what the built-in note takers show](/guides/ai-at-work/meeting-notes/built-in-notes/).

### Recording around a table

An in-person recording follows the same laws: California requires everyone's consent, Oregon requires everyone to be told, and several Australian states require all main parties to agree. See [AI notes for in-person meetings](/guides/ai-at-work/meeting-notes/in-person-meetings/).