Iowa
Iowa AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Iowa follows one-party consent under Iowa Code Section 808B.2, so a meeting participant can legally activate an AI recorder without notifying anyone else. The person who enables the tool must be a party to the conversation to satisfy the consent requirement.
Iowa's Consent Framework for Recording
Iowa is a one-party consent state for recording conversations. Under Iowa Code Section 808B.2, it is lawful to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when at least one party to the conversation has given prior consent to the recording. The person consenting can be the one doing the recording or authorizing a device to record on their behalf.
This means a meeting participant in Iowa can legally record a conversation without telling the other participants, as long as that person is actively part of the discussion. The statute does not require notification or announcement before recording begins.
Iowa also has a separate eavesdropping statute under Iowa Code Section 727.8 that addresses in-person surveillance. Section 727.8(2) makes it a serious misdemeanor for a person "having no right or authority to do so" to listen to, record, or otherwise intercept a conversation by electronic or mechanical means. Section 727.8(3)(a) then exempts "the recording by a sender or recipient of a message or one who is openly present and participating in or listening to a communication." Being openly present is not by itself the test; the person must also be a sender or recipient of the message, or be participating in or listening to the communication. Together, these two statutes form the legal foundation for how recording technology, including AI-powered tools, operates within the state.
What Counts as an Interception
Iowa Code Section 808B.1(6) defines "intercept" as "the aural acquisition of the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communication through the use of an electronic, mechanical, or other device." Iowa's wording is narrower than the federal definition at 18 U.S.C. Section 2510(4), which reaches the "aural or other acquisition" of contents. Iowa's definition still covers traditional recording equipment as well as AI transcription and notetaking software that captures the audio of a conversation.
Section 808B.1(4) defines "electronic communication" as "any transfer of signals, signs, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature" transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system. Virtual meeting platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet all fall within this scope.
The One-Party Consent Exception
Under Section 808B.2(2)(c), it is not unlawful for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a communication if that person is a party to it, or if one of the parties has given prior consent. Two limitations attach. The interception cannot be made "for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state," and it cannot be made "for the purpose of committing any other injurious act." That second clause has no counterpart in the federal Wiretap Act, so Iowa's one-party exception is narrower than the federal one. A person recording a business meeting to capture action items or document a conversation operates well within this exception. Someone recording with the intent to blackmail or defraud would not.
How Iowa Law Applies to AI Meeting Recorders
AI meeting assistants represent a relatively new application of decades-old wiretapping statutes. As of April 2026, no Iowa court has directly addressed whether an AI notetaker constitutes a "party" to a conversation or merely a recording device operated by a party. However, the statutory framework provides useful guidance.
The Tool-as-Extension Principle
Under Iowa's one-party consent framework, the AI tool itself does not need to be a "party" to the conversation. Instead, the human participant who activates the AI recorder serves as the consenting party. When an employee joins a Zoom call and enables Otter.ai or another transcription service, that employee's consent satisfies the one-party requirement under Section 808B.2(2)(c).
This reading follows from the statutory text rather than from any Iowa decision on point: Section 808B.2(2)(c) asks whether a party to the communication consented, not whether the device did. A tape recorder does not consent to recording; the person pressing the record button does. AI notetakers function similarly, even though they operate with greater autonomy once activated.
Where It Gets Complicated
The analysis becomes less straightforward when AI tools join meetings autonomously. Some platforms, such as Otter.ai's OtterPilot feature, can automatically join scheduled meetings and begin recording without the host taking any action during the meeting itself. The Brewer v. Otter.ai class action, filed in August 2025, specifically challenges this practice under federal and state wiretapping laws.
The central question for Iowa courts evaluating such tools would likely be whether the initial setup and authorization of the AI assistant constitutes "prior consent" by a party to each subsequent meeting. If the account holder configured the tool but is not actively present when it joins and records, the one-party consent argument weakens significantly.
The Ambriz v. Google Factor
In Ambriz v. Google, a February 2025 California federal court ruling, the judge found that Google's mere technical "capability" to use recorded call data for AI model training was sufficient to state a wiretapping claim. While this case was decided under California law (a two-party consent state), it signals a broader judicial willingness to scrutinize how AI platforms handle intercepted communications, including potential secondary uses for machine learning.
Iowa businesses using AI transcription tools should consider whether their vendors' data practices could create additional legal exposure, even if the initial recording itself was lawful under one-party consent.
Popular AI Meeting Tools and Iowa Compliance
Understanding how specific AI platforms handle consent helps Iowa users evaluate their legal obligations. The following overview reflects these tools' general features as of early 2026, though vendors frequently update their compliance settings.
Zoom AI Companion
Zoom's built-in AI Companion provides meeting summaries and transcription. The platform displays a visible notification banner to all participants when recording or AI features are active. Meeting hosts can enable or disable the feature, and participants receive an on-screen indicator. This notification approach provides evidence that participants were informed, though under Iowa's one-party consent framework, notification is not legally required.
Otter.ai
Otter.ai offers real-time transcription through its OtterPilot feature, which can join meetings automatically. The platform has a setting to enforce pre-meeting recording notifications, but this feature must be manually enabled by account administrators. Under default settings, non-host participants may not receive clear notice that Otter is recording, which has been the central allegation in the Brewer v. Otter.ai litigation.
Microsoft Teams
Microsoft Teams includes built-in transcription and recording features with the Copilot AI assistant. When recording starts, all participants see a notification banner and hear an audio cue. The platform requires the recording initiator to be a meeting participant, which aligns naturally with one-party consent requirements.
Google Meet
Google Meet provides transcription capabilities that display a notification icon to all participants. Google Workspace administrators can control transcription availability at the organizational level. The built-in approach ties the recording function directly to a meeting participant's account.
Third-Party Notetakers (Fireflies.ai, Fathom, etc.)
Third-party AI notetakers typically join meetings as a visible "bot" participant. Most display a name like "Fireflies Notetaker" or "Fathom" in the participant list. While this visibility provides informal notice, these tools generally rely on the account holder's consent as the legal basis for recording rather than obtaining affirmative consent from each participant.
Criminal and Civil Penalties in Iowa
Iowa imposes both criminal and civil consequences for unlawful interception of communications.
Criminal Penalties
Under Iowa Code Section 808B.2, willfully intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication without proper consent is a class D felony. As of 2026, Iowa classifies class D felonies with the following maximum penalties:
| Penalty | Amount |
|---|---|
| Maximum imprisonment | 5 years |
| Fine range | $1,025 to $10,245 |
A separate eavesdropping charge under Iowa Code Section 727.8 is a serious misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in jail and fines between $430 and $2,560.
Civil Remedies
Iowa Code Section 808B.8 provides a private right of action for anyone whose communications were unlawfully intercepted. Victims may recover:
- Actual damages, with a floor of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater
- Punitive damages for willful, malicious, or reckless violations
- Reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs
- Injunctive relief (temporary or permanent) against ongoing violations
A good-faith reliance on a court order constitutes a complete defense to both civil and criminal liability under the statute.
Federal Overlay
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. Section 2511) also applies to recordings made in Iowa. Federal law follows a one-party consent standard, creating no additional burden for Iowa residents. However, the federal statute provides its own civil remedies, and plaintiffs may bring claims under both state and federal law simultaneously.
Employer and Workplace Considerations
Iowa employers increasingly use AI meeting tools for training documentation, compliance monitoring, and productivity tracking. These workplace applications raise distinct legal questions beyond basic consent.
Employer Recording Policies
While Iowa's one-party consent law permits an employer or employee to record workplace meetings without announcing the recording, practical and ethical considerations often favor transparency. Employment law experts recommend that employers develop clear AI recording policies covering which tools are approved for use, how recorded data is stored and retained, who has access to transcriptions, and when recordings will be deleted.
An employer who records employee conversations may satisfy the one-party consent requirement if the employer's representative (such as a manager) is a participant in the meeting. Recording conversations to which the employer is not a party, such as private employee-to-employee discussions, would not fall within the one-party consent exception.
Employee Notification Practices
Iowa does not require employers to notify employees about recording, but the National Labor Relations Act may limit an employer's ability to record union-related conversations. Additionally, company policies that require employees to consent to AI monitoring as a condition of employment should be reviewed by legal counsel to ensure they do not conflict with federal labor protections.
Data Retention and AI Training
The Brewer v. Otter.ai complaint raises concerns that go beyond the initial recording. The lawsuit alleges that Otter.ai uses recorded conversations to train its machine learning models, potentially exposing confidential business information. Iowa employers should review their AI vendors' privacy policies and data processing agreements to understand how meeting data may be used after transcription.
Multi-State Meeting Compliance
Iowa businesses frequently conduct virtual meetings with participants in other states. When participants join from two-party (all-party) consent states like California, Florida, Illinois, or Washington, the strictest consent standard typically applies. The safest approach for multi-state meetings is to obtain consent from all participants, regardless of Iowa's more permissive one-party rule.
Iowa's Evolving AI Regulatory Landscape
As of April 2026, Iowa has not enacted legislation specifically addressing AI meeting recording. However, the state's broader approach to AI regulation provides context for how these tools may be governed in the future.
The Iowa legislature's 2026 session has considered several AI-related bills, including Senate File 2417 addressing chatbot safety for minors and proposals regulating AI in healthcare and elections. The state has also issued an enterprise AI policy governing how state agencies use generative AI tools.
While none of these measures directly target AI meeting recording, they indicate growing legislative attention to AI privacy issues. Businesses operating in Iowa should monitor these developments, as future legislation could impose additional consent or disclosure requirements for AI-powered workplace tools.
This article provides general legal information about Iowa's recording and AI meeting laws as of April 2026. Laws change frequently, and the application of wiretapping statutes to AI technology remains an evolving area. Consult an attorney for advice specific to your situation.
More Iowa Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to use an AI notetaker in meetings in Iowa?
Under Iowa Code Section 808B.2, a meeting participant can legally use an AI notetaker without notifying other participants, as long as the person activating the tool is a party to the conversation. Iowa's one-party consent framework treats the AI tool as an extension of the consenting participant, similar to a traditional recording device.
Do I need to tell people I'm recording a meeting in Iowa?
No. Iowa's one-party consent law does not require you to announce or disclose that you are recording. However, many employers adopt notification policies as a best practice, and platforms like Zoom and Microsoft Teams display recording indicators automatically.
What happens if someone in my Iowa meeting is in a two-party consent state?
When participants join from states like California, Florida, or Illinois that require all-party consent, the stricter standard generally applies. The safest approach is to obtain consent from all participants in multi-state meetings, either through a verbal announcement or a platform-generated notification that participants acknowledge.
Can my employer record work meetings with AI tools without telling me in Iowa?
Legally, yes, as long as the employer or a representative is a party to the meeting. Iowa's one-party consent law permits this. However, employers should consider implementing clear recording policies, and federal labor laws may restrict recording of certain union-related activities.
What are the penalties for illegally recording a meeting in Iowa?
Unlawful interception under Iowa Code Section 808B.2 is a class D felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and fines up to $10,245. Victims can also pursue civil damages of at least $100 per day or $1,000 (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages and attorney fees under Section 808B.8.
Updates
Corrected the quoted text of Iowa Code sections 808B.1 and 727.8 and restored the full "other injurious act" limitation on Iowa’s one-party consent exception in section 808B.2(2)(c), all verified against the current Iowa Code.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected two factual errors in the criminal-penalties section: Iowa Code section 902.9 currently sets the class D felony fine range for unlawful interception under section 808B.2 at $1,025 to $10,245, not the outdated $750 to $7,500 figures used in the prior version (superseded by a 2020 statutory update). Iowa Code section 903.1 currently sets the serious misdemeanor fine range for eavesdropping under section 727.8 at $430 to $2,560, not the outdated $315 to $1,875 figures. Verified directly against the current Iowa Code at legis.iowa.gov. The class D felony and serious misdemeanor classifications and maximum prison terms (5 years and 1 year) were already correct and left unchanged. Updated the KeyTakeaways, penalty table, penalty-section prose, and FAQ answer to reflect the correct current fine amounts.
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Iowa Code, Chapter 808B: INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS
§ 808B.2Unlawful acts — penalty.In forcecited in 19 of our articles
1. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, a person who does any of the following commits a class “D” felony: a. Willfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, a wire, oral, or electronic communication. b. Willfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use an electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when either of the following applies: (1) The device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication. (2) The device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of radio communications. c. Willfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection. d.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2017
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Iowa courts have applied 808B.2 to covert recordings by private parties. State v. Spencer (2007) read its one-party consent exception to include vicarious consent, but only where a parent has a good faith, objectively reasonable basis for consenting for a minor child. Papillon v. Jones (2017) applied it to a hidden home recorder.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Supreme Court of Iowa 2017)✓A man left a hidden voice-activated recorder in his ex-girlfriend's home and captured her private phone calls, then used them in their custody case; the court affirmed liability under Section 808B.2 but held punitive damages require proof he knew he was violating the chapter.
- Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, University of Iowa (Supreme Court of Iowa 2009, 763 N.W.2d 250)✓A nonmember hid a recorder in a fraternity's private meeting room and gave the tape to university officials who used it to discipline the chapter; the court held the tape was a protected oral communication and read "willfully" in Section 808B.2 to mean purposeful conduct.
- State v. Spencer (Supreme Court of Iowa 2007, 737 N.W.2d 124)✓A father secretly taped his 13-year-old daughter's calls with her teacher after suspecting sexual abuse; the court read Section 808B.2(2)(c)'s consent exception to include vicarious consent, letting a parent consent for a minor on a good-faith, objectively reasonable basis.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 808B.8Civil damages authorized — civil and criminal immunity — injunctive relief.In forcecited in 12 of our articles
1. A person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall: a. Have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use such communications. b. Be entitled to recover from any such person all of the following: (1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation, or one thousand dollars, whichever is higher. (2) Punitive damages upon a finding of a willful, malicious, or reckless violation of this chapter. (3) A reasonable attorney fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. 2. A good faith reliance on a court order shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter. 3. A person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter may seek an injunction, either temporary or permanent, against any person who violates this chapter.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, University of Iowa (Supreme Court of Iowa 2009, 763 N.W.2d 250)“…of an intercepted electronic communication in violation of Iowa Code section 808B.8 (2001). Because the fraternity is the r…”
- Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Supreme Court of Iowa 2017)“…ict court awarded Papillon attorney fees of $16,008. See Iowa Code § 808B.8(1)(b)(3) (allowing award of attorney f…”
- Marcus Darrell Eugene Luthi v. Client Neis, in his official and individual capacities, and Wapello County, Iowa (Court of Appeals of Iowa 2021)“…apillon v. Jones, 892 N.W.2d 763, 770 (Iowa 2017) (quoting Iowa Code § 808B.8). Iowa Code chapter 808B is “intended…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Iowa Code, Chapter 727: HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE
§ 727.8Electronic and mechanical eavesdropping.In forcecited in 16 of our articles
1. “Monitoring device” means a digital video or audio streaming or recording device that records, listens to, or otherwise intercepts video or audio communications in order to provide proof of or prevent criminal activity that is placed outside of a person’s dwelling or other structure that is not in a shared hallway and is on real property owned or leased by the person. 2. Any person, having no right or authority to do so, who taps into or connects a listening or recording device to any telephone or other communication wire, or who by any electronic or mechanical means listens to, records, or otherwise intercepts a conversation or communication of any kind, commits a serious misdemeanor. 3. This section does not apply to any of the following: a. The recording by a sender or recipient of a message or one who is openly present and participating in or listening to a communication from recording such message or communication. b. The use of any radio or television receiver to receive any communication transmitted by radio or wireless signal. c. The use of a monitoring device.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Reid (1986) read the section's exception to let a sender, recipient, or person openly present and participating record a conversation without all-party consent or a court order. State v. Philpott (2005) affirmed a conviction for leaving a voice-activated recorder running in an office during the defendant's absence.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Philpott (Supreme Court of Iowa 2005, 702 N.W.2d 500)✓A court clerk left a voice-activated recorder running on her desk while at lunch, capturing coworkers; the court affirmed her section 727.8 conviction, holding a jury could find she intended to record conversations that took place during her absence.
- State v. Reid (Supreme Court of Iowa 1986, 394 N.W.2d 399)✓Police had a ten-year-old girl call the defendant and taped the call, then videotaped his station interview without telling him; the court held both recordings fell within section 727.8's exception for a participant, so no court order or all-party consent was needed.
- State v. Fox (Supreme Court of Iowa 1992, 493 N.W.2d 829)✓A deputy monitored a county jail inmate's outgoing phone call, and what she said led to a cell search that turned up marijuana; the court held the right or authority to monitor under section 727.8 comes from chapter 808B, whose law-enforcement exception covered him.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 137 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Iowa Code, Chapter 808B: INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS § 808B.1 (Definitions.)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Iowa Code Section 808B.2 - Unlawful Acts and Penalty(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Iowa Code Chapter 808B - Interception of Communications(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Iowa Code Section 727.8 - Electronic and Mechanical Eavesdropping(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- Brewer v. Otter.ai Class Action Coverage (NPR)(npr.org)
- Iowa Reporters Recording Guide (RCFP)(rcfp.org)
- AI Transcription Technologies: Employer Considerations (Littler)(littler.com)
- Iowa AI Legislative Developments (Cedar Rapids Gazette)(thegazette.com)
- Ambriz v. Google AI Wiretapping Ruling(courthousenews.com)
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2510(4) - Definition of "Intercept" (Federal Wiretap Act)(law.cornell.edu)