New York AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)

New York is a one-party consent state under N.Y. Penal Law 250.00, so a meeting participant may lawfully activate an AI recording tool without notifying others. Recording without any party's consent is eavesdropping, a Class E felony under Penal Law 250.05.

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 and still in committee, would tighten New York's wiretapping definition so that a third party recording a phone call needs the consent of both the sender and receiver, a change aimed squarely at recorders who are not on the call. NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2025-6, issued in December 2025, established new ethical guardrails for attorneys using AI recording tools that go far beyond what the criminal statute requires, and Formal Opinion 2026-2, issued in August 2026, extended those guardrails to conversations with non-clients such as opposing counsel and witnesses. 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. Federal law adds one limit: its one-party exception does not protect a recording made for a criminal or tortious purpose (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)), a theory that helped keep the federal claim against Otter.ai alive in August 2026 (see below).

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 364 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. New York amended Penal Law 70.15 in 2019 to cap Class A misdemeanor sentences at 364 days rather than a full year, keeping convictions under the one-year threshold federal immigration law uses to define an aggravated felony. 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 for a telephone or telegraph corporation, not an individual employee, to fail to report wiretapping. Under the statute, a corporation that has knowledge of unlawful wiretapping and does not report it to an appropriate law enforcement officer or agency is subject to a fine of up to $15,000 under Penal Law 80.10. Corporations cannot be sentenced to imprisonment, so no individual jail exposure attaches to this particular offense.

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, but it contains a statutory exception: such evidence is admissible in any civil or criminal trial, hearing, or proceeding against a person who committed, or is alleged to have committed, the eavesdropping itself.

New York state law does not provide a general private cause of action with fixed damages for eavesdropping violations, and New York does not recognize a common-law invasion-of-privacy claim: the Court of Appeals held in Howell v. New York Post Co. (1993) that the right to privacy there is governed exclusively by statute, mainly Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51. A person recorded unlawfully may sue under the federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2520), where a court may award actual damages and profits or statutory damages of $100 per day for each day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater. The statutory award is at the court's discretion, not automatic. A successful plaintiff may also recover reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs under federal law.

Senate Bill S5077: A Proposed Tightening of the Consent Rule

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(1). The definition would still cover only recording "by a person other than a sender or receiver," but it would require the consent of "BOTH the sender AND receiver" instead of either one. The sponsor's memo says the goal is to require that all persons involved in a conversation consent.

As written, though, the bill would not reach a participant who records their own call, and it leaves the in-person "mechanical overhearing" and electronic-communication definitions unchanged. Its practical effect would fall on third parties, such as a vendor's bot recording a call it is not part of with only one side's consent. Even if enacted in this form, New York would not plainly join the states the site counts as all-party (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington, several of them only for certain kinds of conversation).

Impact on AI Meeting Recorders

Under the current framework, a single participant's activation of an AI recorder satisfies the consent requirement. As written, S5077 would not change that for a participant recording a phone call they are on, and it would not touch in-person or electronic-communication recording.

The bill would matter most for AI tools whose vendor is treated as the one doing the recording. A bot that captures a call it is not a party to would need the consent of both the sender and receiver of that call, not just the host's. Tools that record by default or rely on passive notification would be the most exposed.

Because the sponsor's stated aim is broader than the text, the bill could also be amended before any vote. Organizations should watch the final wording rather than assume either reading.

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 November 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 Opinions 2025-6 and 2026-2: 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.

Formal Opinion 2026-2: Recording Non-Client Conversations

On August 5, 2026, the New York City Bar Association's Professional Ethics Committee issued Formal Opinion 2026-2, titled "Ethical Use of AI for Recording, Transcribing, and Summarizing Non-Client Conversations." The opinion builds on Formal Opinion 2025-6 rather than replacing it, explaining that the principles set out in the earlier opinion apply well beyond the attorney-client relationship. It covers conversations with co-counsel and aligned counsel, prospective clients, opposing counsel, witnesses, and an attorney's own employees or agents such as investigators.

For AI meeting recording specifically, 2026-2 is the more directly applicable authority, because most meetings and calls include people who are not the recording attorney's client. The opinion states that as part of their duties under Rule 8.4, attorneys must not surreptitiously record conversations, including videoconferences, with any third parties, and that attorneys must disclose the intention to record the conversation and obtain permission from all participants.

The opinion also sets a default against recording at all. It advises that absent a good reason to record a particular conversation, the default practice should be not to use AI tools to record, transcribe, or summarize it. Alongside Rule 8.4, the opinion analyzes Rule 1.1 (competence), Rule 1.18 (duties to prospective clients), Rule 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel), Rule 4.2 (communication with represented persons), and Rule 4.3 (dealing with unrepresented persons).

The practical effect is that New York attorneys now operate under an all-participant consent practice for AI meeting recording as a matter of professional ethics, even though the criminal statute still requires the consent of only one party.

Broader Implications

While Formal Opinions 2025-6 and 2026-2 apply directly only to attorneys, their 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

In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation

The August 2025 class action against Otter.ai (formerly 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 original 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, now In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, consolidates four class actions against Otter.ai, Inc. under the federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Illinois's biometric privacy law, and other theories. In August 2026 the court let the core wiretap, California privacy, and Illinois biometric claims proceed past a motion to dismiss. The federal claim survived because real-time capture pleads an interception and, even if Otter counts as a party, the complaint plausibly alleged that using meeting conversations without consent to train Otter's own AI models could be a tortious purpose that removes the federal one-party consent protection (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)). The case is now in discovery, and no court has decided whether Otter actually violated the law.

That federal theory applies to meetings recorded in New York too. So even in one-party New York, a participant's consent may not protect the vendor if its own use of the recording is found to be tortious under federal law.

The Ambriz "Capability Test"

In Ambriz v. Google (N.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2025), a federal judge refused to dismiss California wiretapping claims over Google's contact-center AI. On whether a software vendor is a third-party eavesdropper under California Penal Code 631, the court noted that trial courts are split: some require that the vendor actually use the recordings for its own purposes, while others ask only whether it is capable of doing so. The court applied the broader capability approach, first used in Javier v. Assurance IQ (N.D. Cal. 2023). The ruling bound no other court, and in October 2026 the same judge dismissed the remaining plaintiffs' claims on consent and intent grounds (with leave to amend) and sent others to arbitration. No New York court has adopted this approach.

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, except that the federal exception does not protect a recording made for a criminal or tortious purpose (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)). If S5077 passes as written, New York's standard would become stricter than the federal one for third parties who record a phone call with only one side's consent, so a recording lawful under federal law could still violate New York law.

Cross-State Calls

Courts have not settled which state's law governs a call with participants in several states. Some courts apply the law of the place where the recording is made: a Pennsylvania court, for example, applied New York's one-party law to a call recorded in New York (Larrison, Pa. Super. 2000), and the Nevada Supreme Court took the same approach in Ditech Financial v. Buckles (2017). The California Supreme Court, by contrast, weighed each state's interests in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006), applied the recording party's home-state (Georgia) law to past damages, and applied California's all-party rule to such calls going forward. Because the answer is unsettled, the safe practice for a multistate meeting is to get every participant's consent.

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.

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 August 2026.

More New York Laws

• New York Data Privacy Laws
• New York Deepfake Laws
• New York Employee Monitoring Laws
• New York Recording Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it legal to use an AI meeting recorder in New York without telling other participants?

Under New York's current one-party consent framework (N.Y. Penal Law 250.00), a meeting participant may record without notifying others. Senate Bill S5077, still in committee, would require a third party who records a phone call to have both sides' consent, though as written it would not change the rule for participants. Attorneys face a stricter standard under NYC Bar Opinion 2025-6, which requires client consent before using AI recording tools regardless of the criminal statute, and under NYC Bar Opinion 2026-2 (August 2026), which directs attorneys not to record third parties surreptitiously and to obtain permission from all participants on calls with non-clients such as opposing counsel and witnesses.

What are the penalties for illegal recording in New York?

Eavesdropping is a Class E felony under Penal Law 250.05, carrying up to four years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Possession of eavesdropping devices is a Class A misdemeanor under 250.10, with up to 364 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. Victims may also sue under the federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2520), where a court may award actual damages and profits or statutory damages of $100 a day or $10,000, whichever is greater, plus attorney's fees. New York itself recognizes no common-law privacy claim (Howell v. New York Post Co., 1993).

Would Bill S5077 make AI meeting recorders illegal in New York?

S5077 would not make AI meeting recorders illegal. As written, it would require a third party who records a phone call to have the consent of both the sender and receiver, rather than just one. It would not change the rule for a participant recording their own call, and it would not cover in-person conversations, although its sponsor describes it as an all-party consent bill. The bill is still in the Senate Codes Committee and could change before any vote. AI tools that get every participant's opt-in would comply under any version.

What do the NYC Bar opinions require for attorneys using AI recording tools?

Formal Opinion 2025-6 requires attorneys to obtain client consent before recording, treat AI transcription services as third-party vendors receiving confidential information under Rule 1.6, understand how the tool works (Rule 1.1 competence), independently verify AI-generated transcripts for accuracy, and evaluate the tool's data storage, retention, and training practices. Formal Opinion 2026-2 (August 2026) extends the same principles to non-client conversations, barring surreptitious recording of third parties, requiring disclosure of the intent to record and permission from all participants, and advising that the default practice should be not to record absent a good reason.

Can using an AI meeting recorder waive attorney-client privilege in New York?

No New York court has directly ruled on this question. However, if an AI tool transmits attorney-client communications to external servers where the provider can access the content, a court could find that the privilege has been waived through voluntary disclosure to a third party. Attorneys should select tools with strong confidentiality protections and document their due diligence.