The consent duty for AI in meetings is being litigated right now. This tracker follows the active matters; it describes allegations, not outcomes.
Consolidated putative class action alleging that AI meeting transcription recorded participants without the consent required by state wiretap laws. Otter's defense has argued the account holder, not the vendor, bears the consent responsibility — the posture that makes every notetaker customer the party holding the bag.
Putative class action alleging recording and AI processing of meeting audio without all-party consent under state law.
Second putative class action against the same vendor on overlapping recording-consent theories.
Putative class action alleging AI meeting features processed participant communications without adequate consent.
Putative class action alleging AI note-taking features captured meeting content without the consent state law requires.
Vendors argue the consent duty belongs to the account holder — the organization running the meeting. Whatever the outcomes, the organizations that can produce a consent record for every meeting are the ones with nothing to prove in discovery.
Litigation is one driver — the statutory one is the EU AI Act. Read the Article 50 guide.
Allegations are just that — allegations. This tracker summarizes public filings for general information and takes no position on any matter's merits.