Key Takeaways
- Recording laws vary by jurisdiction. The simplest universally-defensible rule is to ask every attendee for consent at the start of every meeting.
- The script: "I am transcribing this call. Audio is captured locally and used only to create a transcript. Please let me know if you do not approve of this." Said before the substance of the meeting starts.
- If anyone objects, turn the AI off for that call or let the dissenting participant leave before recording begins. Do not record over a stated objection.
- Kai records audio locally, transcribes via a streaming provider, and does not retain audio after the session ends.
Current as of April 30, 2026. For Kai's authoritative data-handling specifics, the Kai privacy notice is the source of record. For up-to-date jurisdiction-specific recording laws, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press maintains a state-by-state tracker.
Why this is one rule, not a flowchart
Recording laws vary by jurisdiction. United States federal law allows one-party consent (the person doing the recording can consent on their own behalf), but several US states and the European Union require every participant to consent before recording. The exact list of states and the specifics of what counts as valid consent change over time.
For up-to-date jurisdiction-specific rules, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press maintains the canonical state-by-state tracker. Kai is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of third-party resources linked from this guide; verify current law for your jurisdiction with the relevant authority or your own counsel.
Rather than reasoning about each rule case by case, the simplest universally-defensible approach is to ask every attendee for consent at the start of every meeting. This works in every jurisdiction this guide considers, and removes the need to remember which rules apply where.
The 4 things real meeting consent requires
Each of the four points below is a precondition for relying on the verbal ask. Missing any of them weakens the consent posture, even if the rest of the procedure is followed.
-
Asked before the substance of the meeting begins, not buried in the calendar invite. The point is to give participants a real opportunity to opt out before sensitive material has been recorded. A line in the agenda body that participants accepted without reading is, in practice, less protective than a five-second verbal ask at the top of the call.
-
An opportunity for each participant to object. Some jurisdictions treat silence as consent; others do not. The universally-safe default is to give every participant a real moment to object before recording begins. A pause for response after the verbal notice is the load-bearing part.
-
A clean opt-out path that does not punish the dissenter. If a participant declines, the meeting still has to be able to proceed. Two workable options: turn the AI off for that call, or let the dissenting participant leave the call before recording begins. A path that requires the dissenter to leave the conversation entirely is rarely the correct default.
-
Truthful disclosure of what happens to the audio. Consent without context is not informed consent. Participants who ask "what does it do with the recording?" are entitled to a short, accurate answer about who processes the audio, how long the audio and transcript are retained, and whether the data is used to train AI models. The "How Kai handles your meeting audio" section below provides the relevant facts for Kai users.
A real workflow, step by step
The three steps below are the verbal procedure for the working case. They are written to be read by a person about to start a meeting in the next minute, not by a compliance reviewer.
Step 1: State the notice before the substance starts
Open the meeting with the line, before any work-related sentence has been said:
"I am transcribing this call. Audio is captured locally and used only to create a transcript. Please let me know if you do not approve of this."
Pause for a couple of seconds. If anyone objects, see Step 2. If no one objects, proceed. The pause is the load-bearing part. Stating the notice and immediately moving on is procedurally a yes-by-default, which is the posture stricter consent rules are designed to reject.
Step 2: Handle a "no" without abandoning the meeting
A participant declining the AI is the case the procedure exists to support, not an edge case. Two workable responses:
- Turn the AI off for that call. The meeting proceeds; the notes are taken by hand. The downside of one untranscribed meeting is small. The downside of recording a participant against their stated wishes is large.
- Let the dissenting participant leave the call before recording begins. This option is appropriate when the meeting is large, the dissenting participant is optional, and no one in the room treats their departure as a reprisal.
What is generally not workable is recording over a clear "no." The simplest universal rule (ask every meeting, honor objections) sidesteps the question of whose statute applies. Recording over a stated objection puts the recorder at legal risk in any jurisdiction that requires participant consent, regardless of which jurisdiction's rules turn out to apply.
Step 3: Answer the "what happens to the audio" question accurately
If a participant asks where the audio actually goes, the short, accurate answer for Kai users is:
"Audio stays on my device. It goes to a streaming transcription provider for the live transcript. Audio is not retained after the call. Transcript stays in my workspace."
How Kai handles your meeting audio
Kai is an on-device recorder. The audio capture pipeline runs locally. The audio is sent to a streaming transcription provider for the duration of the session, and the transcript is saved with the meeting notes inside Kai. Audio is not retained after the session ends; there is no audio playback feature, by design.
At the start of every recording, Kai surfaces a consent reminder in the meeting workspace with a "Learn more" link pointing to the most current version of this guide.
Sub-processors that have access to audio in flight or transcripts at rest are listed in the Kai privacy notice. Transcripts are not used to train AI models without explicit user opt-in. Deletion from inside Kai removes the transcript from the user's workspace and from backend storage on the next sync cycle.
Where this guide stops
This is general guidance, not legal advice. The three-step workflow above covers the working case. The cases below sit outside the scope of this guide and warrant a real conversation with counsel:
- Recording calls with patients, clients in privileged relationships (legal, medical, financial advisory), or any other regulated industry context.
- Recording any meeting where one or more participants is a minor.
- Recording calls with participants outside your own jurisdiction, especially with EU participants in the absence of a current data processing agreement.
- Building a workflow where AI-generated transcripts become part of an HR investigation, a legal hold, a regulatory submission, or a litigation discovery response.
For up-to-date jurisdiction-specific recording laws, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press publishes a tracker covering US states. For Kai's authoritative data-handling specifics, the Kai privacy notice is the source of record. The Kai trust center covers compliance posture for specific frameworks. Kai is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of third-party resources linked from this guide.
FAQs
Does transcription without retained audio still count as recording for consent purposes?
In most jurisdictions, real-time transcription is treated the same as recording for consent purposes. The triggering event is generally the capture of someone's words by a system, not whether the audio file persists. The in-app notice in Kai uses the word "transcribing" rather than "recording" for accuracy; both activities require the same consent posture.
If a participant agreed in the calendar invite, is a verbal notice at the top of the call still required?
The conservative answer is yes, both as a courtesy and as a hedge. Participants frequently accept calendar invites without reading the body. The verbal step also gives participants who joined late an opportunity to object before they are recorded. Layered notice (written and verbal) is generally more defensible than written-only.
What happens if a participant only gives consent partway through the meeting?
Recording can begin at the point of consent. The portion of the meeting that occurred before consent was given may not have been lawfully recorded with respect to that participant in jurisdictions that require participant consent. Practical options: edit the prior portion out of the transcript, delete the meeting entirely if the prior portion is material, or have an out-of-band conversation with the participant about how to handle it. The right move depends on the room.
Is the verbal notice sufficient for recurring or contractual meetings, especially with EU participants?
Generally not on its own. Stricter regulatory regimes (GDPR is the main example) impose specific quality requirements on consent: it has to be informed, specific, freely given, and revocable. For one-off external calls, the verbal notice may be defensible. For recurring or contractual meeting arrangements, especially with EU participants, a data processing agreement is generally the correct instrument. Verify the rules for your jurisdiction with current authoritative sources.
Does Kai sell, share, or train on meeting transcripts?
No. Transcripts are stored in the user's workspace and shared only with people the user explicitly adds. Sub-processors with access (transcription provider, cloud storage, analytics) are listed in the privacy notice. Transcripts are not used for advertising, third-party data sales, or AI model training without explicit user opt-in.
This guidance was last reviewed on April 30, 2026. The legal landscape evolves; this guide is updated when material changes occur. For Kai's current data-handling specifics, the Kai privacy notice is the authoritative source. This is general guidance, not legal advice; consult counsel for your specific situation. Kai is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of third-party resources linked from this guide.