As AI-powered meeting assistants become increasingly embedded in workplace communications, they are transforming how meetings are recorded, transcribed and documented. While these tools can deliver significant efficiency benefits, recent litigation suggests that their use may also give rise to a range of legal and risk considerations, particularly where sensitive information, personal data or potentially privileged communications are involved.

Two recent cases in the United States illustrate how AI-enabled transcription and recording tools may increasingly shape the evidential landscape of disputes. In one case, an AI notetaker recorded and circulated allegedly discriminatory remarks made after a participant had left the meeting; in another, a court found that a widely used AI notetaker had acted as a third-party eavesdropper under federal and state wiretapping laws because it had used customer meeting content for its own commercial purposes. Together, they highlight some of the legal and practical considerations that organisations should bear in mind as these tools become more widely adopted.

What happened in Lindsay Waninger v. Marathon Engineering & Environmental Services Inc. et al.?

Lindsay Waninger, a scientist at Marathon Engineering and Environmental Services Inc., was dismissed on 3 February 2025 during a remote meeting with three colleagues. The meeting was recorded and transcribed by Fireflies.ai, an AI-powered meeting assistant, which after the meeting provided Ms Waninger with a transcript of the discussion that continued after she had left the call.

During the continued conversation, the transcript recorded one participant referring to a replacement candidate as "[h]opefully a relatively strapping young man". On 12 August 2026, Ms Waninger brought a discrimination suit under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, alleging that she was terminated because of her gender despite satisfactory performance of her role.

What happened in Re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation?

The proceedings form part of a series of putative class actions filed in 2025 against Otter.ai. The plaintiffs allege that Otter.ai's meeting assistant joined remote meetings, recorded and transcribed communications, and used the data to train its models without the consent required under federal and California wiretapping and privacy laws.

Otter.ai argued that it acted as a service provider on behalf of meeting participants, not as a third-party interceptor. The Court disagreed, holding that Otter.ai was a third-party eavesdropper because it independently collected, retained and used communications for its own commercial purposes. The Court also held that, to allege a confidential communication, a claimant must provide factual detail about the substance of the communication; simply describing it as “private” or “sensitive” was insufficient.

Key Risks and Practical Tips

The Marathon and Otter.ai cases illustrate some of the legal and practical questions that can arise when AI-powered notetaking tools are used to capture workplace communications. However, these developments should not be viewed as a reason to avoid the technology altogether. AI notetakers can deliver significant efficiency benefits, provided they are deployed within an appropriate governance framework. The issues are highly context-specific: relevant factors include the functionality of the tool, the provider’s terms of service and privacy practices, the categories of data processed, and the nature and sensitivity of the communications being recorded. Depending on the circumstances, organisations may need to consider disclosure obligations, data protection requirements and cybersecurity risks, as well as issues of confidentiality and legal professional privilege including because transcripts may be accessible to providers as well as third-party vendors under the terms of service.

Organisations considering the use of AI notetakers should ensure that appropriate governance measures are in place. In practice, this may include:

• only using approved and appropriately vetted AI notetaking solutions;
• adopting clear written internal policies governing when and how such tools may be used;
• restricting recording and transcription for particularly sensitive discussions;
• carefully managing access to, and sharing of, recordings, transcripts and AI-generated outputs (i.e. disabling automatic sharing);
• considering whether lawyer-prepared notes or summaries may be preferable for discussions involving legal advice or other privileged material; and
• implementing processes to review AI-generated transcripts and summaries for accuracy and completeness.

For a broader discussion of the opportunities and governance considerations associated with AI use in the boardroom, see our article, Generative AI tools in the boardroom.

Organisations should also consider the increasing risk of employees using personal covert recording tools, such as AI notetaking devices, which come in forms such as tie-clips or credit cards, as well as smart glasses.

By taking a considered approach to deployment and oversight, organisations can seek to realise the benefits of AI notetaking tools while managing the legal, regulatory and operational risks that may arise from their use.