All Party Consent Required to Record Meetings in California

Introduction

​

With the continued emergence of AI and the rapidly developing use cases, it is a good time to take a deep dive on the use of audio recordings in the workplace. The AI space is filled with applications that can record, transcribe, take notes and summarize meetings, whether in-person or virtual. Although AI is the shiny new tool used to record and take notes in meetings, let’s also review other settings where audio recordings may be utilized, such as performance reviews, team meetings, 1:1 meetings, training, employee relations investigations, strategy meetings and the like. 

​

California has strict rules on audio recordings of conversations and meetings where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. California is an 'all-party consent’ state for recording confidential communications. (Sometimes, it is referred to as ‘two-party consent.’) This means every single participant must consent before any audio recording can lawfully occur. It is imperative that employers in California are aware of these rules to ensure compliance and adhere to best practices.

​

In this article, we will answer these questions:

​​

• What is a 'confidential communication?'

• What is a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy?'

• When is consent required?

• How do we effectively obtain consent?

• Can we use AI to ‘record’ or ‘take notes’ at meetings or on video calls?

• Can and should audio recordings be allowed at workplace investigations?

​

The all-party consent rules are contained in the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), California Penal Code §§630, et. seq. CIPA was first effective in 1967 and has been modified over the years, although the core requirements have not been altered. In addition, California has adopted the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), effective in 2020, and the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), enacted as Proposition 24 and approved by the voters in 2020. The CPRA amended and expanded the CCPA. The CCPA and CPRA are contained in California Civil Code §§1798.100, et. seq. These two laws cover several other aspects of privacy rights in California. This article focuses on the all-party consent rules under CIPA.

​​

What the Law Actually Says

​​

California Penal Code §632 makes it a crime to “intentionally and without the consent of all parties” use any electronic device to eavesdrop upon or record a confidential communication. The statute defines a confidential communication as one carried on in circumstances that reasonably indicate any party wants it kept private among those present. Therefore, a meeting held in a conference room with multiple participants is potentially covered under the law. The rules are not restricted to phone calls or one-on-one conversations behind closed doors. It does, however, explicitly exclude public gatherings, open legislative or judicial proceedings, or situations where participants should reasonably expect the conversation to be overheard or recorded. The key test courts apply is the “reasonable expectation of privacy.” In most workplace settings, such as performance reviews, 1:1 coaching sessions, disciplinary conversations, accommodation discussions, internal investigations, team strategy meetings and the like, employees and managers have a strong, objectively reasonable expectation that their words will not be secretly captured.

 

Recording in these contexts without everyone’s informed consent violates the law. The penalties are serious:

​

• Criminal: Fines up to $2,500 per violation, up to one year in county jail (and in some cases state prison), or by both fine and prison.

• Civil: Claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act can result in statutory damages of at least $5,000.

 

HR Perspective and Best Practices

​

From a pure HR perspective, the real cost is often cultural. When employees discover a secret recording, trust collapses, engagement drops, and legal exposure skyrockets. I generally advise that workplace conversations should presumptively be considered private unless clearly stated otherwise. Employees reasonably expect that what they say in a one-on-one with their manager, during a confidential HR intake, or in a performance calibration meeting stays within that room (or virtual equivalent). Secret recordings undermine that expectation and can chill protected activity, deter reporting of concerns, and create a climate of paranoia. That’s why strong HR policies explicitly prohibit secret recordings and require advance (preferably written) consent for any audio capture. When consent is obtained, I recommend documenting it clearly, e.g., “All parties consented to this meeting being recorded for [specific purpose]” with date, time, and participant acknowledgments. Announcing at the start of a call or meeting is simple, transparent, and protective. For example, “This session will  being recorded with everyone’s consent for note-taking purposes. Does anyone object?” 

​

The AI Meeting-Recording Trap: Where Good Intentions Meet Legal Risk

​

The explosion of AI-powered meeting assistants, such as Otter.ai, Zoom AI Companion, Google Meet, Microsoft Copilot for Teams, Gong, Chorus, and dozens of others, has created a compliance minefield that many organizations are still navigating. These tools typically work by joining the meeting (often silently or with minimal notice), recording the audio, transcribing it, summarizing action items, and sometimes using the data to train models. Here’s the problem in California: if the tool records without the explicit consent of every single participant, it likely violates Penal Code § 632. Recent class-action lawsuits filed in California federal courts against Otter.ai (and similar suits involving other AI notetakers) illustrate the risk. Plaintiffs who were not even subscribers to the tool allege their confidential conversations were intercepted and recorded without their knowledge simply because another participant enabled the AI. The complaints cite unlawful interception, violation of all-party consent requirements, and privacy torts.

​

Here are some key pitfalls that can occur and to avoid:

​

• The meeting host enables the AI, but remote participants (especially in California) have no idea it’s recording.

• The tool joins as a “participant” without audible or visible announcement that recording is active.

• Consent is assumed from the organizer’s terms of service, but California law does not recognize one-party or implied consent for confidential communications.

• Data is stored or used for AI training without additional notice or consent.

 

Even if only one participant is physically located in California, or the recording occurs in circumstances tied to the state, the all-party consent rule applies. Multi-state meetings must follow the strictest standard. In this case, it’s California’s.

Practical HR Recommendations for AI Tools:

​

• Have a clear policy on the use of AI for these purposes and train all employees on the proper utilization. Retrain annually.

• Disable all default AI recording/transcription features in your organization’s video platforms.

• Add a clear disclaimer to every meeting invite: “This meeting may utilize AI note taking tools that will record and transcribe audio. By joining, you consent unless you notify the organizer in advance to opt out.”

• At the start of every meeting where AI will be used, verbally confirm: “We are using [Tool] for note-taking today. Is everyone okay with that? If not, we’ll take manual notes.”

• Allow easy opt-outs—never pressure or penalize someone who declines.

• For high-sensitivity meetings (performance, discipline, investigations, union-related), prohibit AI recording entirely and rely on manual note takers who do not create audio files.

• Review vendor privacy policies and data-processing agreements to ensure they align with California law and your own policies.

 

Audio Recordings During Workplace Investigations

​

Workplace investigations into harassment, discrimination, retaliation, misconduct, safety concerns, or policy violations are among the most sensitive and confidential processes an organization conducts. I've seen firsthand how audio recordings (secret or otherwise) can complicate, undermine, or even compromise the investigation. Employers can and should maintain a clear policy prohibiting audio recordings during investigative interviews without explicit all-party consent. This prohibition extends to witnesses, complainants, respondents, and any other participants. 

 

Here's why this is a best-practice recommendation rooted in both law and practical HR realities:

​

Preservation of Confidentiality and Investigation Integrity

• Investigations often involve highly personal, embarrassing, or damaging information. Witnesses may share details reluctantly, fearing retaliation or gossip. If a participant records the interview, that recording could leak, intentionally or accidentally, to co-workers, social media, opposing counsel, or even the public. This breaches the limited confidentiality employers promise ("information shared on a need-to-know basis") and can compromise the process by allowing witnesses to compare stories, coach each other, or alter recollections.

Risk of Chilling Candor and Rapport

• Knowing a conversation is being recorded can make participants guarded, anxious, or less forthcoming. Witnesses who distrust the process or fear reprisal may withhold key details, leading to incomplete or inaccurate findings.

Loss of Control Over Evidence

• In California (a strict all-party consent state under Penal Code §632), if the employer or investigator records openly with consent, a witness might still record secretly (violating the law themselves). This creates parallel, uncontrolled versions of the same interview that could be edited, shared selectively, or used out of context later in litigation, grievances, or media exposure.

Legal and Compliance Exposure

• While employers can sometimes record interviews openly (with clear notice and consent from all parties, and in compliance with Section 632's exceptions for non-secret recordings), secret recordings by anyone violate the law. Prohibiting recordings reduces the chance of criminal exposure, civil claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code §§630, et seq.), or admissibility issues (illegally obtained recordings are generally inadmissible in proceedings per Section 632(d)). It also aligns with protecting sensitive information like trade secrets, medical details (in accommodation cases), or union-related discussions.

Consistency with Broader Privacy Expectations

• Reinforcing that investigative interviews are presumptively private upholds the reasonable expectation of privacy central to California law. It signals to employees that the company values fairness, due process, and psychological safety.

​

Final Thoughts

​

Organizations that treat consent to audio recording as seriously as they treat other privacy matters position themselves as privacy-forward employers. California’s all-party consent law isn’t a burden, it is a reminder that privacy is a core employee right and a foundational element of healthy workplaces. When we respect the reasonable expectation of privacy in our meetings, communications, and AI practices, we send a powerful message: “Your voice matters, and it will be heard with dignity.” By requiring explicit consent, announcing recordings clearly, we protect our organizations while, at the same time, building the trust that drives engagement and retention.

 

References

​

The code sections I referred to in the article are part of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (commonly abbreviated as CIPA), which is codified in the California Penal Code under Chapter 1.5, Title 15 (Miscellaneous Crimes), specifically Penal Code §§630–638.55.The primary provision addressing audio recordings of confidential communications (the all-party consent requirement for eavesdropping or recording) is California Penal Code §632. Here is the key language from Penal Code §632(a):

​

(a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

 

This section is the core of the two-way (all-party) consent rule for audio in confidential settings, including most workplace conversations where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Related sections in the same chapter include:

​​

• Section 631 — Wiretapping / unauthorized connections to lines.

• Section 632.7 — Specific rules for cellular and cordless phones (all-party consent without needing to prove the communication was "confidential").

• Section 637.2 — The civil private right of action, allowing individuals to sue for statutory damages ($5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, whichever is greater), plus attorney fees.

​

When people refer to "the California Invasion of Privacy Act" in the context of recording laws, they're almost always pointing to this Penal Code chapter, with Section  632 being the most frequently cited for audio recording violations.

​

​​​​​For more information, contact us:
 

Email: paul@amanteHR.com

Tel.: (714) 309-9677

​

This article is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be, nor shall it be construed as legal advice or guidance.

Consult with a professional for appropriate advice and guidance.