New York AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)

New York is one of the most consequential states for AI meeting recording law, and the legal landscape is shifting. Under the current one-party consent framework established by N.Y. Penal Law 250.00, a conversation participant may record without telling anyone else. That framework has made AI meeting tools like Otter.ai, Fireflies, and Microsoft Copilot technically legal for participants to use in New York. But several converging developments are challenging this status quo.

Senate Bill S5077, introduced in February 2025, would fundamentally change New York's consent standard from one-party to all-party, requiring everyone in a conversation to agree before any recording begins. NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2025-6, issued in December 2025, has established new ethical guardrails for attorneys using AI recording tools that go far beyond what the criminal statute requires. And NYC's existing regulation of automated employment decision tools under Local Law 144 has created a regulatory precedent that could expand to AI meeting recorders.

Whether you are a business deploying AI meeting tools, an attorney navigating new ethical obligations, or an employee being recorded by a colleague's AI assistant, New York's AI meeting recording rules demand close attention.

New York's Current Recording Consent Framework

N.Y. Penal Law 250.00: Definitions

New York's wiretapping and eavesdropping laws are codified in Article 250 of the Penal Law, titled "Offenses Against the Right to Privacy." The framework begins with Section 250.00, which defines key terms.

Under Section 250.00(1), "wiretapping" means the intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver. The critical word is "either." Because the statute requires only the consent of either party, not both, New York operates as a one-party consent state.

Section 250.00(2) defines "mechanical overhearing of a conversation" as the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion without the consent of at least one party, by a person not present, through the use of a device. This definition similarly follows a one-party consent model for in-person conversations.

How One-Party Consent Works in Practice

Under the current framework, a person who is a party to a conversation may record it without telling the other participants. The consent requirement is satisfied by the recording party's own participation. This applies to telephone calls, in-person conversations, and electronic communications.

For AI meeting tools, this means a meeting participant who activates a recording tool like Otter.ai is providing the necessary consent through their own participation. No notification to other attendees is required under the criminal statute.

However, New York's one-party consent rule applies to the person doing the recording, not to third-party tools acting independently. If an AI tool joins and records a meeting without any participant activating it or consenting to its presence, the one-party consent exception may not apply. The tool itself is not a "party" to the conversation.

Criminal Penalties for Unlawful Recording

Eavesdropping: Class E Felony (Penal Law 250.05)

A person is guilty of eavesdropping when they unlawfully engage in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing an electronic communication. Under N.Y. Penal Law 250.05, eavesdropping is a Class E felony.

A Class E felony in New York carries a maximum sentence of four years in state prison and fines up to $5,000. For first-time offenders without a prior record, courts may impose probation or a conditional discharge instead of incarceration, but the felony classification means a conviction carries lasting consequences including loss of certain civil rights and professional licensing implications.

Possession of Eavesdropping Devices: Class A Misdemeanor (Penal Law 250.10)

Under Section 250.10, a person is guilty of possession of eavesdropping devices when they possess any instrument, device, or equipment designed for, adapted to, or commonly used in wiretapping or mechanical overhearing of a conversation, under circumstances evincing an intent to use or permit its use in violation of Section 250.05.

This is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine. The statute could theoretically apply to AI meeting recording software configured to record without authorization, though no published New York decision has applied Section 250.10 to AI recording tools.

Failure to Report Wiretapping (Penal Law 250.15)

Section 250.15 makes it a Class B misdemeanor to fail to report wiretapping. A telephone or telegraph employee who learns that wiretapping equipment has been connected to any line and fails to report it to the police or district attorney faces up to three months in jail.

Civil Consequences: CPLR 4506 and Federal Remedies

New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 4506 provides that evidence obtained through illegal eavesdropping is generally inadmissible in any trial, hearing, or proceeding. This exclusionary rule applies in both criminal and civil cases, meaning recordings obtained in violation of Article 250 cannot be used as evidence regardless of their relevance.

New York state law does not provide a statutory private cause of action with fixed damages for eavesdropping violations. However, victims may pursue common law claims for invasion of privacy or seek remedies under the federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2520), which authorizes civil damages equal to the greater of actual damages and profits, or statutory damages of $100 per day for each day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater. The prevailing party may also recover reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs under federal law.

Senate Bill S5077: The Push for All-Party Consent

What the Bill Would Change

Senate Bill S5077, introduced on February 18, 2025, by Senator Joseph Griffo, would amend the definition of "wiretapping" in Penal Law 250.00 to require the consent of both the sender and receiver for a recording to be lawful. The bill would change the word "either" to "both the sender and receiver," transforming New York from a one-party consent state to an all-party consent state.

If enacted, S5077 would make New York the 14th all-party consent state in the country, joining California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

Impact on AI Meeting Recorders

The shift to all-party consent would fundamentally change how AI meeting tools operate in New York. Under the current framework, a single participant's activation of an AI recorder satisfies the consent requirement. Under S5077, every participant in the meeting would need to consent before the recording could begin.

This would require AI meeting tools to implement explicit consent mechanisms, such as pop-up notifications that require affirmative opt-in from each participant before recording starts. Tools that record by default or that rely on passive notification (like a small recording indicator icon) would likely not satisfy the all-party consent standard.

For organizations that routinely record meetings, S5077 would create significant operational changes. Any participant who declines to consent would prevent the recording from proceeding, effectively giving each participant a veto over AI recording tools.

Legislative History and Prospects

Senator Griffo has introduced versions of this bill across multiple legislative sessions: the 2017-18, 2019-20, 2021-22, 2023-24, and now the 2025-26 session. The bill has not advanced out of committee in any previous session.

A companion bill, S5070, introduced the same day, would require anyone recording a conversation where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy to state their intentions to use a recording device so all parties know the device is being used. S5070 would add a disclosure requirement without changing the underlying consent standard.

As of early 2026, both bills remain in the Senate Committee on Codes. While the bills have not gained traction in past sessions, the rapid proliferation of AI meeting recording tools may create new legislative momentum. Organizations should monitor these bills and prepare compliance plans in case the consent standard changes.

NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2025-6: AI Recording Ethics for Attorneys

Overview

On December 22, 2025, the New York City Bar Association's Committee on Professional Ethics issued Formal Opinion 2025-6, titled "Ethical Issues Affecting Use of AI to Record, Transcribe, and Summarize Conversations with Clients." The opinion addresses how the New York Rules of Professional Conduct apply when attorneys or their clients use AI tools to record, transcribe, and summarize legal conversations.

This opinion is significant because it establishes a consent standard for attorneys that is stricter than what the criminal statute requires. While New York's one-party consent law allows recording without notification, the ethics rules effectively prohibit attorneys from secretly recording their clients.

Client Consent Requirement

The opinion states that attorneys should obtain client consent before recording calls with AI tools. The basis for this requirement is Rule 8.4 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The NYC Bar's position is that secretly recording a client conversation, even though legally permitted under the one-party consent statute, constitutes deceptive conduct that violates an attorney's duty of loyalty.

This creates a two-tier system in New York: the criminal law allows one-party consent recording, but professional ethics rules require attorneys to obtain client permission before using AI recording tools.

Confidentiality and Privilege Under Rule 1.6

Formal Opinion 2025-6 instructs attorneys to treat AI recorders and speech-to-text transcription services as third-party vendors receiving client confidential information. Under Rule 1.6, attorneys must make "reasonable efforts" to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client information, including implementing strong contractual and technical protections.

The opinion identifies specific factors attorneys must evaluate when selecting AI recording tools: where data will be stored and for how long, how data might be retrievable through discovery, whether the tool uses conversation data for model training, whether there is a right to data deletion, and what privacy and security safeguards protect the data.

Competence Under Rule 1.1

The opinion also invokes Rule 1.1's competence requirement. Attorneys must understand how their AI recording tools work, including the tool's limitations and risks. The opinion specifically warns against relying on raw AI transcripts or summaries without independent verification, noting that AI-generated transcripts may contain errors that could affect legal analysis.

When Clients Record Their Attorneys

The opinion addresses the reverse scenario: clients who use AI tools to record their attorneys. When an attorney knows that a client is recording with an AI tool, the opinion recommends that the attorney advise the client about the disadvantages of doing so, including risks to confidentiality and privilege.

The opinion suggests that attorneys include provisions in retainer agreements that bar clients from recording without advance notice and warn clients about the confidentiality and privilege risks of using their own AI recording tools.

Broader Implications

While Formal Opinion 2025-6 applies directly only to attorneys, its analysis of AI recording risks is relevant to any professional subject to ethical or regulatory obligations. Healthcare providers subject to HIPAA, financial advisors governed by SEC regulations, and other professionals who handle confidential information face similar concerns when AI meeting tools transmit sensitive conversations to third-party servers.

NYC Local Law 144: AI Regulation Precedent

Automated Employment Decision Tools

New York City's Local Law 144, effective July 5, 2023, regulates automated employment decision tools (AEDT) used in hiring and promotion decisions. The law requires employers to conduct annual bias audits of AEDT tools, publicly disclose audit results, and notify candidates at least ten business days before using an AEDT.

The NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) enforces the law and can impose civil penalties of $500 to $1,500 per day for violations.

Relevance to AI Meeting Recorders

While Local Law 144 applies specifically to automated employment decision tools, it establishes a regulatory framework that could extend to AI meeting recorders. If AI meeting tools are used to evaluate employee performance, assess job candidates during interviews, or generate metrics that influence employment decisions, they may already fall within Local Law 144's scope.

More broadly, Local Law 144 demonstrates New York City's willingness to regulate AI tools through transparency and accountability requirements. Organizations using AI meeting recorders in New York City should anticipate that similar regulatory frameworks could be applied to meeting recording tools in the future.

Attorney-Client Privilege and AI Meeting Tools

The Privilege Risk

Attorney-client privilege protects communications made in confidence between an attorney and client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. The privilege can be waived if the communication is disclosed to a third party.

AI meeting recording tools that transmit conversation data to external servers create a potential waiver risk. If the AI tool's provider can access the content of attorney-client communications, a court could find that the privilege has been waived because the communication was voluntarily disclosed to a third party.

Minimizing Privilege Risk

To preserve attorney-client privilege when using AI meeting tools, attorneys in New York should select tools that process data locally rather than transmitting it to external servers when possible, review the tool's privacy policy and data handling practices to confirm that the provider cannot access conversation content, negotiate contractual provisions that restrict the tool's provider from accessing, using, or disclosing conversation data, implement technical safeguards such as encryption in transit and at rest, and document their due diligence process to demonstrate reasonable efforts under Rule 1.6.

The Open Question

No New York court has ruled on whether using a specific AI meeting recording tool waives attorney-client privilege. The answer will likely depend on the specific tool's data handling practices, the contractual relationship between the attorney and the tool provider, and whether the attorney took reasonable steps to protect confidentiality.

The Otter.ai Litigation and NY Context

Brewer v. Otter.ai

The August 2025 class action against Otter.ai (Brewer v. Otter.ai, N.D. Cal., No. 5:25-cv-06911) alleged that the company's AI meeting tools recorded conversations of non-users without proper consent and used conversation data to train machine learning models. The plaintiff, who was not an Otter.ai user, claimed his conversations were captured during meetings because another participant's Otter tool was running.

The case was filed under California law, but its core allegations resonate in New York. Under New York's current one-party consent framework, Otter's recording practices would likely be lawful from a consent perspective if activated by a meeting participant. But the allegations about using conversation data for model training raise separate concerns about data processing that go beyond the recording consent question.

The Ambriz "Capability Test"

The February 2025 decision in Ambriz v. Google established that a company's technical capability to use intercepted communications data for AI training can state a privacy claim, regardless of whether the company actually uses the data that way. While decided under California law, this reasoning could influence New York courts evaluating similar claims about AI meeting tools.

Federal Law and Cross-State Issues

Federal Wiretap Act Alignment

The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2511) follows one-party consent, aligning with New York's current framework. If S5077 passes and New York shifts to all-party consent, New York's standard would become stricter than the federal baseline, meaning that a recording lawful under federal law could still violate New York state law.

Cross-State Calls

When AI meeting tools record conversations involving participants in multiple states, the most restrictive consent standard among all represented states generally applies. New York's current one-party consent framework means New York participants do not add a consent burden to multi-state calls. If S5077 passes, New York participants would require all-party consent, potentially complicating recordings for organizations with distributed teams.

Organizations should maintain policies that account for the consent requirements of all states where meeting participants may be located, regardless of where the recording is initiated.

More New York Laws

• [New York Data Privacy Laws](/us-laws/data-privacy-laws/new-york-data-privacy-laws/data-breach-notification)
• New York Data Privacy Laws
• New York Whistleblower Laws
• New York Recording Laws
• New York Recording Laws
• New York Recording Laws
• New York Recording Laws
• New York Recording Laws

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. New York's recording laws and AI regulations are actively evolving, with pending legislation that could change the consent framework. Consult an attorney licensed in New York for advice specific to your situation. Information is current as of April 2026.