Dangers of Transcribing E-Meetings

One effect of AI in its transcription services has been to expand the use of recording meetings and even phone-call transcriptions.  Zoom meeting calls are particularly often attended by AI transcription.  There are dangers to such use.  

First, in litigation, plaintiffs often seek such transcriptions as part of the discovery process.  Occasionally, loose talk in such transcriptions create damaging evidence that can be used against employers in litigation.  Further, if lawsuits are filed, employers have an obligation to place “litigation holds” on relevant information in their possession, and failure to maintain such information when the likelihood of litigation is clear, can create an “adverse inference” that the discarded information would have been harmful to the employer.  A court can punish the employer in various ways for not retaining such relevant information, including instructing a jury that the information would have been damaging to the employer or even granting a ruling against the employer on the merits.

A particular concern expressed by some is whether the recording of meeting content results in the AI being provided to a third party to the conversations, which has significant legal consequences.  Using an AI tool is argued by defendants to be analogous to a tape recording, but some courts have found that a vendor that can make independent use of the collected information can be considered a third party.  Plaintiffs may argue that the use of such AI tools leads to a loss of the attorney-client privilege and/or can raise a wiretapping claim, or even an argument as to the loss of trade secrets.

Editor’s Note:  The issue of the plaintiff’s seeking of transcriptions of meetings and calls is definitely a concern, but the other concerns noted above are yet to be developed in the case law.  

This article is part of our January 2026 Newsletter. 

View the newsletter online

Download the newsletter as a PDF