Listen to this article

The basics:

• AI-generated Zoom and Microsoft Teams transcripts may be discoverable evidence
• Companies must preserve transcripts once litigation is reasonably anticipated
• In-meeting chat logs can also be discoverable and must be retained
• Experts urge updates to document retention and litigation hold policies

If your company uses AI transcription in Zoom or Teams meetings, here’s a question worth asking now before litigation hits: Do you know how those transcripts are treated when a lawsuit is on the horizon?

Many inhouse teams and business leaders don’t realize that AI-generated meeting transcripts are electronically stored information (ESI). Once litigation is reasonably anticipated, they’re subject to the same preservation rules as emails, contracts, and other business records.

Virtual meetings are where business happens today. Product development discussions, HR investigations, executive strategy sessions, customer negotiations are all happening on video platforms with AI quietly transcribing every word. When litigation is threatened or filed, those transcripts can become discoverable evidence. If your company can’t produce them – or worse, deleted them after the duty to preserve arose – you may face sanctions, adverse inferences, and serious litigation disadvantages.

Courts are increasingly clear that format doesn’t matter. If a transcript is relevant, accessible, and within your company’s control, it’s likely discoverable. The same principles that apply to email apply to AI-generated transcripts.

Companies that haven’t updated their document retention and litigation hold procedures are exposed.

Going off script

Many companies overlook this entirely: chat messages exchanged during a Zoom or Teams meeting are a separate evidentiary record that can be just as damaging as anything said out loud.

Zoom automatically saves in-meeting chat logs, including messages sent privately between participants, to the host’s local device or cloud account. A message sent “privately” to one colleague may still appear in a file the host or your Zoom administrator can access and produce in discovery. (See Zoom Support, “Saving In-Meeting Chat”)

Microsoft Teams goes further. Chat messages sent during a Teams meeting are persistent by default and remain in the Teams channel or chat thread after the meeting ends, subject to your organization’s retention policies in Microsoft Purview.

Some other issues to bear in mind:

• “Off the record” does not exist in the chat. Employees treat in-meeting chat as informal or casual. It is neither. Every message is a potential exhibit.
• Private messages may not be private. Depending on platform settings, one-on-one chat messages can be captured in saved logs accessible to administrators.
• Chat logs must be separately preserved. A litigation hold covering transcripts but not chat logs is incomplete and can still result in spoliation sanctions under applicable state and federal rules.
• Metadata matters. Timestamps and sender identification provide important context about the sequence of events.

Act now

Organizations should be taking steps now to reduce risk:

• Map where transcripts are stored. Cloud storage, local drives, platform servers — Legal and IT need a shared understanding of where these records reside and who controls them.
• Review auto-deletion settings. Many platforms automatically delete recordings and transcripts after 30–90 days. That’s fine for ordinary business — until there’s a litigation hold. Make sure you know how to suspend auto-deletion when preservation is required.
• Update your litigation hold process. If your company’s litigation hold notices and procedures don’t specifically mention video meeting transcripts, they’re incomplete. Employees need clear instructions about preserving these materials.
• Train your team. HR, compliance, sales, and executives should understand how litigation holds affect video meetings and transcripts.
• Preserve metadata. Attendance, timing, edits and access history may be important evidence as well.

AI transcripts also raise data protection issues. If your transcripts capture discussions with EU customers or employees, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) may apply. If you’re discussing confidential business information, consider whether transcription should be disabled for sensitive meetings. Build clear policies around when transcription is appropriate.

Waiting until a litigation hold notice is issued to figure out your transcript preservation process is often too late. Companies that fail to account for AI-generated transcripts in their information governance programs are creating unnecessary risk. If your litigation hold procedures were written before 2020, there is a good chance this issue isn’t addressed.

Make sure your company is ready by updating document retention policies and litigation hold policies to account for AI generated meeting transcripts.

Deanna L. Koestel is a partner in Pashman Stein Walder Hayden PC‘s Commercial Litigation practice and chair of the Construction Law practice.