Legality of live call translation, by jurisdiction
Reviewed 17 September 2026
Subtl does not record audio in its normal mode: it turns speech into text as it happens, shows you a translation, and keeps the text on your device. Some legal systems treat live transcription differently from recording; many have not decided the question, and several regulate any capture of a conversation. This page summarises the rules that matter so that you can ask the right question — it is general information, not legal advice, and laws change.
The rule we apply ourselves: if you are not sure, tell the other person at the start of the call. One sentence is usually enough — "I use a live transcription and translation tool; nothing is recorded."
Summary by jurisdiction
| Jurisdiction | Rule on recording or capturing a conversation | What it means when you use Subtl |
|---|---|---|
| United States — federal law and most states | One-party consent: a participant may record or capture a conversation they take part in (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). | Your own participation is generally enough. Employer policies and platform terms may still require notice. |
| United States — all-party consent states | Consent of every participant for private conversations: California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington; Connecticut (civil), Michigan and Oregon (in part), Nevada (telephone). | Tell everyone at the start. If any participant is in one of these states, follow the stricter rule. |
| Canada | One-party consent under the Criminal Code; PIPEDA and provincial privacy laws apply in business contexts. | Personal use as a participant is generally lawful. In business, give notice and explain the purpose. |
| European Union (general) | The GDPR applies to the other person's voice and words. National criminal laws differ, and several protect the privately spoken word. | For business calls, rely on legitimate interests plus clear notice; for sensitive calls, ask for consent. |
| Germany | § 201 of the Criminal Code makes recording the non-public spoken word without consent an offence; courts are strict. | Always inform and obtain consent before the call starts. |
| France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands and other EU states | Participant recording is generally not a crime but must not intrude on privacy or be disclosed; the GDPR and employment rules apply. | Give notice in business calls; do not share content without a lawful basis. |
| United Kingdom | A participant may record for personal use; business processing falls under UK GDPR and the telecommunications rules. | Notify participants in business calls and explain the purpose. |
| Switzerland | Art. 179bis–ter of the Criminal Code prohibits recording a conversation without the consent of all participants. | Obtain consent from everyone. |
| Australia | State laws differ. In NSW, WA, SA and Tasmania a participant generally needs consent or a narrow exception; Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory allow participant recording of private conversations. | Tell participants, especially when anyone is in NSW, WA, SA or Tasmania. |
| Brazil | Recording by a participant is generally accepted by the courts; the LGPD applies to personal data. | Personal use is generally fine; give notice in business contexts and handle data under the LGPD. |
| Mexico | Courts accept recording by a participant; the federal data-protection law applies to businesses. | Give notice in business calls. |
| Argentina, Chile, Colombia | Recording by a participant is generally allowed; data-protection laws require notice for business use. | Notify in business contexts. |
| Turkey | Article 133 of the Criminal Code penalises recording non-public conversations without consent; the KVKK applies to personal data. | Obtain consent before the call. |
| United Arab Emirates | Federal Decree-Law 34 of 2021 and the Penal Code penalise recording or capturing conversations without consent; the PDPL applies. | Obtain explicit consent from everyone. |
| Saudi Arabia | The Anti-Cyber Crime Law penalises interception without authorisation; the PDPL governs personal data. | Obtain explicit consent from everyone. |
| India | No general statute on participant recording; courts have accepted it as evidence while protecting privacy. The DPDP Act 2023 applies to personal data. | Personal use as a participant is generally fine; give notice in business. |
| Indonesia | The Electronic Information and Transactions Law restricts interception, and the Personal Data Protection Law 2022 applies. | Inform participants and obtain consent in business contexts. |
| Vietnam | The Civil Code and Decree 13/2023 on personal data require consent for collecting a person's voice and personal data. | Obtain consent before processing a call. |
| Japan | Recording by a participant is not prohibited; the APPI governs use of personal information. | Personal use is generally fine; give notice and state the purpose in business calls. |
| Singapore | Participant recording is not an offence; the PDPA requires notice and consent for collecting personal data in most business contexts. | Inform participants and state the purpose. |
| Kazakhstan | Personal-data law requires consent for collecting and processing personal data, including voice. | Obtain consent in business contexts. |
Why live transcription is not always "recording"
Many statutes speak of recording, storing or intercepting a communication. Subtl converts speech to text in real time and does not keep audio. In some jurisdictions that distinction matters; in others, any capture or processing of another person's words is regulated, and privacy law applies to the text itself. Courts in most countries have not ruled on live transcription tools specifically, so the careful choice is to treat it like recording.
Situations that need extra care
- Calls with people in several countries: follow the strictest rule that applies to any participant.
- Calls at work: your employer's policy and works-council or union agreements may require approval or notice.
- Regulated conversations — healthcare, legal advice, financial services, government — may carry confidentiality duties beyond general privacy law.
- Interviews, exams and assessments: using assistance is often prohibited by the organiser's rules, and our Terms forbid using Subtl where it is.
- Sharing transcripts or summaries with others can create obligations of its own, even where taking them was lawful.
How Subtl helps you stay within the rules
- No bot joins the call and nothing is added to the meeting, so the other participants hear exactly what they would without it — which is why telling them is up to you.
- Audio is never stored; transcripts stay on your device unless you turn on cloud history.
- You can delete any conversation and your whole account at any time.
What this page cannot do
It cannot tell you how a court in your country would treat your specific situation, and it cannot override rules that bind you for other reasons — an employer's policy, a platform's terms, an exam board or a professional code. If the stakes are high, ask a lawyer where you and the other participants are. Corrections are welcome at info@arcadallc.com.