Kansas
Kansas 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. · 2 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Kansas follows a one-party consent rule under K.S.A. 21-6101, so any meeting participant can lawfully activate an AI recorder without notifying or obtaining permission from other attendees. The Kansas Supreme Court applied that standard in State v. Roudybush, which construed the predecessor breach of privacy statute recodified in 2010 as K.S.A. 21-6101, making AI-assisted meeting transcription legal for participants throughout the state.
Kansas Consent Framework for Recording
Kansas operates under a one-party consent standard for recording conversations. Kan. Stat. Ann. Section 21-6101 makes it a breach of privacy to knowingly and without lawful authority engage in "intercepting, without the consent of the sender or receiver, a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of private communication." Because a participant in a conversation is a sender or receiver, that participant's own consent satisfies the statute. The Kansas Supreme Court read the predecessor version of this provision to require only one party's consent for a recording to be lawful.
The ruling in State v. Roudybush, 235 Kan. 834, 686 P.2d 100 (1984), held that once one party to a conversation provides consent, the other participants lose their standing to challenge the recording. Roudybush construed K.S.A. 21-4002, the predecessor breach of privacy statute that the legislature recodified as 21-6101 in 2010, and its reasoning carries forward. This means a meeting participant in Kansas can legally record a discussion, including through AI-powered tools, without informing or obtaining permission from other attendees.
Kansas structures its privacy protections under the broader "breach of privacy" framework rather than a standalone wiretapping statute. Section 21-6101 addresses eight categories of prohibited conduct, ranging from intercepting telephone communications to installing hidden recording devices in private places.
What the Statute Prohibits
KSA 21-6101(a) defines breach of privacy as "knowingly and without lawful authority" engaging in specific acts. The provisions most relevant to AI meeting recording include:
- Subsection (a)(1): "Intercepting, without the consent of the sender or receiver, a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of private communication"
- Subsection (a)(2): "divulging, without the consent of the sender or receiver, the existence or contents of such message" where the person knows it was illegally intercepted
- Subsection (a)(4): "installing or using outside or inside a private place any device for hearing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds originating in such place, which sounds would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible without the use of such device, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy therein"
The qualifier in (a)(4) is load-bearing. The subsection targets bugging and amplification equipment that picks up sounds a person could not otherwise hear, not an ordinary recorder capturing a conversation the operator is already listening to.
The statute also defines "private place" as "a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from uninvited intrusion or surveillance." A home office or closed conference room would typically qualify; a public coffee shop would not.
How One-Party Consent Works in Practice
Under the Roudybush interpretation, a Kansas meeting participant who activates an AI recording tool satisfies the consent requirement. The participant is the "consenting party," and the AI tool operates as an extension of that person's recording capability. No announcement, disclosure, or additional permissions are legally required under state law.
This rule applies equally to in-person conversations, phone calls, and virtual meetings conducted through platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, or Google Meet.
How Kansas Law Applies to AI Meeting Recorders
AI-powered meeting assistants present novel questions under Kansas's breach of privacy statute. As of April 2026, no Kansas court has ruled on whether AI notetakers raise unique legal concerns beyond traditional recording devices. The existing statutory framework, however, provides a workable analytical structure.
AI Tools as Recording Devices
The operative provision for a meeting recording is (a)(1), which turns on consent: intercepting a private communication is unlawful only "without the consent of the sender or receiver." A participant who turns on an AI notetaker is a sender or receiver and has consented, so the recording is lawful in Kansas. The key question is not whether the tool qualifies as a device, but whether a party to the conversation authorized its use.
Subsection (a)(4), the device provision, reaches a narrower category. It applies to a device that captures sounds "which sounds would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible without the use of such device." An AI assistant transcribing a meeting its user is attending and hearing normally is very likely outside (a)(4) altogether, because the audio is already audible to that user. A device planted to pick up a conversation the operator could not otherwise hear is what (a)(4) is aimed at.
When a Kansas employee activates Otter.ai, Fireflies.ai, or a similar tool before or during a meeting, that employee's participation in the conversation and authorization of the recording satisfies the one-party consent standard. The AI tool does not independently need to be a "party" to the conversation.
Autonomous AI Recording Challenges
The legal analysis becomes more uncertain when AI tools operate without active human involvement. Otter.ai's OtterPilot feature, for example, can be configured to join scheduled meetings automatically and begin recording before the account holder takes any action during the meeting.
The Brewer v. Otter.ai class action, filed in August 2025 in the Northern District of California, alleges that this autonomous operation violates federal and state wiretapping laws. While the case was brought under California and federal law, the underlying concern applies equally in Kansas: if the AI tool records a conversation in which the account holder is not actively participating, the one-party consent exception may not apply.
Data Use Beyond Transcription
The Ambriz v. Google ruling from February 2025 introduced another dimension of potential liability. A California federal court found that Google's technical "capability" to use recorded customer call data for AI model training was sufficient to state a wiretapping claim, regardless of whether Google actually exploited that data.
For Kansas users, this means that even if the initial recording is lawful under one-party consent, an AI vendor's secondary use of meeting data for machine learning purposes could create separate legal exposure. Kansas businesses should examine their vendors' terms of service and data processing agreements carefully.
Popular AI Meeting Tools and Kansas Compliance
The following assessment of major AI meeting platforms reflects their general features as of early 2026. Platform capabilities and compliance settings change frequently, so users should verify current configurations directly.
Zoom AI Companion
Zoom's AI Companion notifies all meeting participants through a visible banner when recording or AI features are active. In Kansas, where one-party consent governs, this notification exceeds the legal minimum. The host controls whether AI features are enabled, and the host's participation satisfies the consent requirement.
Otter.ai
Otter.ai provides an option to enforce pre-meeting recording notifications, though this setting is not enabled by default. In Kansas, the account holder's consent as a meeting participant provides the legal basis for recording. However, the OtterPilot autonomous join feature warrants caution, particularly for meetings the account holder may not personally attend.
Microsoft Teams
Microsoft Teams displays a recording notification to all participants and requires the initiator to be a meeting participant. The Copilot AI assistant integrates directly with the meeting participant's account, maintaining a clear link between the consenting party and the recording tool.
Google Meet
Google Meet shows a transcription indicator to all participants and ties recording capabilities to the meeting organizer's Google Workspace account. Administrator-level controls determine whether transcription features are available across the organization.
Third-Party Notetakers
Tools like Fireflies.ai and Fathom typically join meetings as visible bot participants. Their presence in the participant list provides informal notice, though Kansas law does not require it. The account holder who invited the bot serves as the consenting party under one-party consent.
Penalties for Unlawful Recording in Kansas
Kansas imposes criminal penalties for breach of privacy violations, and a separate statute supplies civil damages for unlawful interceptions under the state's authorized-interception act.
Criminal Penalties
The penalty structure under KSA 21-6101 varies by the type of violation:
| Violation Type | Classification | Potential Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| Intercepting communications (a)(1)-(a)(5) | Class A nonperson misdemeanor | Up to 1 year jail, up to $2,500 fine |
| Recording a person nude or in a state of undress (a)(6); disseminating intimate images (a)(8) | Severity level 8 person felony | 7 to 23 months prison |
| Second offense within 5 years (a)(6) or (a)(8) | Severity level 5 person felony | Enhanced sentence |
| Disseminating images obtained in violation of (a)(6) | Severity level 5 person felony | Enhanced sentence |
For most AI meeting recording scenarios, the relevant penalty category is the class A nonperson misdemeanor under subsections (a)(1) through (a)(5). The felony-level penalties target the recording and dissemination of intimate imagery, including AI-altered images.
Civil Remedies
Kan. Stat. Ann. Section 22-2518 creates a civil cause of action for a person whose "wire, oral or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this act," with damages including:
- Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater
- Punitive damages in appropriate cases
- Attorney fees and litigation costs
Read that limitation carefully. "This act" is the Kansas authorized-interception act at K.S.A. 22-2514 et seq., which is "part of and supplemental to the code of criminal procedure" and governs court-authorized interceptions. On its face, 22-2518 does not supply a civil remedy for a breach of privacy under 21-6101, and no Kansas appellate decision we located extends it that way. Anyone considering a civil suit over an unlawful recording should get advice on which cause of action, state or federal, actually applies.
Federal Law
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. Section 2511) applies alongside Kansas state law. Since both follow a one-party consent standard, federal law does not impose additional consent requirements on Kansas residents. The federal statute also provides its own civil remedy, at 18 U.S.C. Section 2520, which is often the clearer route for a private plaintiff.
Employer and Workplace Considerations
Kansas employers deploying AI meeting tools face practical and legal considerations beyond basic consent compliance.
Developing an AI Recording Policy
Employment law practitioners recommend that Kansas employers establish written policies addressing:
- Which AI recording and transcription tools are approved for workplace use
- Whether employees must inform meeting participants about AI recording
- Data storage, access controls, and retention schedules for meeting transcriptions
- Restrictions on recording sensitive conversations (performance reviews, HR investigations, legal consultations)
While Kansas's one-party consent law does not require these policies, they reduce the risk of disputes and demonstrate good-faith compliance efforts.
Recording Without Employee Knowledge
A Kansas employer can legally record workplace meetings through AI tools without informing employees, provided the employer or a representative is a party to the conversation. Recording conversations in which the employer has no participant (such as private employee break room discussions) would not satisfy the one-party consent standard and could constitute breach of privacy under KSA 21-6101.
Multi-State Compliance
Kansas businesses with remote employees or clients in other states must account for varying consent requirements. When a meeting includes participants from two-party consent states such as California, Connecticut, Florida, or Maryland, the most restrictive standard typically governs. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press recommends applying the strictest applicable state law to avoid potential violations.
AI Vendor Data Practices
Kansas employers should scrutinize how AI vendors process and store meeting data. The Brewer v. Otter.ai litigation highlights the risk that vendors may use recorded conversations to train AI models. Contracts with AI transcription providers should include specific provisions governing data use, retention, and deletion.
Kansas's Broader AI Regulatory Direction
Kansas has taken initial steps toward AI regulation, though none directly address meeting recording. In April 2025, the legislature passed HB 2313, prohibiting the use of "artificial intelligence platforms of concern" on state-issued devices and networks. The law targets security risks from foreign AI platforms rather than domestic meeting tools.
The 2025 session also produced Senate Bill 186, which amended KSA 21-6101 to reach AI-generated deepfake intimate images. The bill did not create a new subsection. Subsection (a)(8) already existed, added by a 2016 amendment; SB 186 inserted a sentence extending it to any image "created, in whole or in part, altered or modified by artificial intelligence or any digital means to appear to depict or purport to depict such identifiable person, regardless of whether such identifiable person was involved in the creation of the original image."
The reach of (a)(8) is narrower than it first appears. It penalizes "disseminating" such an image, not creating one, and only where the person depicted is 18 or older, was nude or engaged in sexual activity, had a reasonable expectation of privacy, did not consent to the dissemination, and the sender acted "with the intent to harass, threaten or intimidate" them. Still, the amendment demonstrates the legislature's willingness to adapt existing privacy statutes to address AI-specific threats.
As of April 2026, no pending Kansas legislation specifically targets AI meeting recording or transcription. However, the state's proactive approach to AI deepfake regulation suggests that broader AI privacy measures could emerge in future sessions.
This article provides general legal information about Kansas recording and AI meeting laws as of April 2026. Laws and their application to technology evolve rapidly, and court interpretations of existing statutes may change. Consult an attorney for advice specific to your situation.
More Kansas Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I use an AI meeting recorder legally in Kansas?
Yes. Kansas is a one-party consent state, so a meeting participant can legally use an AI recorder without notifying others. KSA 21-6101(a)(1) bars intercepting a private communication only 'without the consent of the sender or receiver,' and the Kansas Supreme Court applied that one-party rule in State v. Roudybush, which construed the predecessor statute recodified in 2010 as 21-6101. The participant who activates the tool serves as the consenting party.
Does Kansas require me to announce that I'm recording a meeting?
No. Kansas's one-party consent law does not require any announcement or disclosure before recording. However, many meeting platforms like Zoom and Microsoft Teams automatically display recording indicators, and some employers voluntarily adopt notification policies as a workplace best practice.
What if my Kansas meeting includes people from other states?
When participants join from states requiring all-party consent (such as California, Florida, or Illinois), the strictest consent standard typically applies. The safest practice is to notify all participants and obtain consent at the start of any multi-state meeting.
Is it a felony to illegally record someone in Kansas?
Standard recording violations under KSA 21-6101(a)(1) through (a)(5) are class A nonperson misdemeanors, carrying up to 1 year in jail and $2,500 in fines. Disseminating non-consensual intimate images under subsection (a)(8), including images altered by artificial intelligence, is a severity level 8 person felony with potential prison sentences of 7 to 23 months, but only where the statute's other elements are met.
Can my Kansas employer use AI tools to record meetings without telling employees?
Legally, yes, as long as the employer or a company representative participates in the meeting. Kansas's one-party consent law permits this. However, recording conversations where no employer representative is present (such as private employee discussions) would violate the statute. Employers are encouraged to develop clear AI recording policies.
Updates
Corrected the quotation and analysis of K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(4), fixed the legislative history of the 2025 AI deepfake amendment, narrowed the description of subsection (a)(8) to dissemination and its actual elements, and qualified the civil-damages statute.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
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.
Kansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 21: CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
§ 21-6101Breach of privacy.In forcecited in 27 of our articles
(a) Breach of privacy is knowingly and without lawful authority: (1) Intercepting, without the consent of the sender or receiver, a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of private communication; (2) divulging, without the consent of the sender or receiver, the existence or contents of such message if such person knows that the message was illegally intercepted, or if such person illegally learned of the message in the course of employment with an agency in transmitting such message; (3) entering with intent to listen surreptitiously to private conversations in a private place or to observe the personal conduct of any other person or persons entitled to privacy therein; (4) installing or using outside or inside a private place any device for hearing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds originating in such place, which sounds would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible without the use of such device, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy therein; (5) installing or using any device or equipment for the interception of any telephone, telegraph or other wire or wireless communication without the consent of the person in…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Recent Kansas decisions construe the image-dissemination subsection, K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(8), not the interception subsections. State v. Ivy (2025) held a reasonable expectation of privacy under that subsection has a subjective and an objective component. State v. Jamil (2026), unpublished, found disseminating needs no jury definition.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Ivy (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2025)✓Ivy posted on Snapchat a sexual video his ex-girlfriend had recorded and texted him during their relationship; the court applied a subjective and objective two-part test and held a jury could find she kept a reasonable expectation of privacy, affirming the conviction.
- In re Belcher (Supreme Court of Kansas 2024, 552 P.3d 1213)“…deotape, photograph, film or image obtained in violation of K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(6) or (a)(8), and amendments…”
- State v. Jamil (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2026)✓Jamil secretly filmed a woman undressed and unconscious at his home, then sent the videos to her boyfriend; the court held that sharing with a single recipient can be disseminating under K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(8) and that intent to harass could be inferred from his conduct.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kansas Audio Recording Laws, Kansas Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026), Kansas Phone Call Recording Laws
§ 21-4002Repealedcited in 2 of our articles
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2012
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Gilliland (Supreme Court of Kansas 2012, 294 Kan. 519)“…f two criminal statutes, K.S.A. 21-4001 (eavesdropping) and K.S.A. 21-4002 (breach of privacy). The basic p…”
- State v. Roudybush (Supreme Court of Kansas 1984, 235 Kan. 834)“…K.S.A. 21-4001 defines the crime of eavesdropping and K.S.A. 21-4002 defines the crime of breach of privacy.…”
- State v. Brooks (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2011, 46 Kan. App. 2d 601)“…elements of breach of privacy, a misdemeanor, as defined in K.S.A. 21-4002(a)(1). That conviction is, therefore, r…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kansas Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
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.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
Kansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 22: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
§ 22-2514Authorized interception of wire, oral or electronic communications; definitions.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
This act shall be a part of and supplemental to the code of criminal procedure. As used in this act: (1) "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 intrastate, interstate or foreign communications.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 22 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Farha (Supreme Court of Kansas 1975, 218 Kan. 394)“…ne obtained in Sedgwick county pursuant to our present law (K. S. A. 22-2514 to 22-2519 [Weeks 1974]). 1. Shawnee…”
- State v. Roudybush (Supreme Court of Kansas 1984, 235 Kan. 834)“…nlawful and in violation of K.S.A. 21-4001 and K.S.A. 22-2514 et seq., “in that no warra…”
- State v. Brooks (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2011, 46 Kan. App. 2d 601)“…nition. Brooks notes a broad definition of "intercept" in K.S.A. 22-2514(3) but says it does not apply. The Stat…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kansas Security Camera Laws, Kansas Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws, Kansas Voyeurism Laws
§ 22-2518Same; civil action for damages; defense available in civil and criminal actions.In forcecited in 13 of our articles
(1) Any person whose wire, oral or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this act shall 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, and shall be entitled to recover from any such person: (a) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater; (b) punitive damages; and (c) reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (2) A good faith reliance by any person on a court order authorizing the interception of any wire, oral or electronic communication shall constitute a complete defense in any civil or criminal action brought against such person based upon such interception.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Gibson (Supreme Court of Kansas 1994, 255 Kan. 474)“…f unlawfully intercepted *481 wire or oral communications. K.S.A. 22-2518 establishes a civil cause of action for…”
- Fields v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Co. (District Court, D. Kansas 1997, 985 F. Supp. 1308)“…18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq., and the Kansas Wiretap Act, K.S.A. 22-2518, and invaded their privacy by intercept…”
- Banks v. Opat (District Court, D. Kansas 2021)“…ete defense against any civil action. 18 U.S.C. § 2520(d); K.S.A. § 22-2518(2). “To be in good faith, the officers’…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kansas Video Recording Laws, Kansas Workplace Recording Laws, Kansas Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Kan. Stat. Ann. Section 21-6101 - Breach of Privacy(ksrevisor.gov).gov
- Kansas HB 2313 - AI Platforms of Concern on State Devices(kslegislature.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- Kansas Reporters Recording Guide (RCFP)(rcfp.org)
- Brewer v. Otter.ai Class Action (NPR)(npr.org)
- AI Transcription Technologies: Employer Considerations (Littler)(littler.com)
- Kansas AI Deepfake Policy (Ballotpedia)(ballotpedia.org)
- Ambriz v. Google AI Wiretapping Ruling(courthousenews.com)
- Kansas Senate Bill 186, L. 2025 ch. 120 (amending K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(8) to cover AI-altered images)(sos.ks.gov)
- Kan. Stat. Ann. Section 22-2518 - Civil action for unlawful interception(ksrevisor.gov)
- Kan. Stat. Ann. Section 22-2514 - Authorized interception act, supplemental to the code of criminal procedure(ksrevisor.gov)