Is it legal to record a meeting in France?

Code pénal Art. 226-1 opens, verbatim: "Est puni d'un an d'emprisonnement et de 45 000 euros d'amende le fait, au moyen d'un procédé quelconque, volontairement de porter atteinte à l'intimité de la vie privée d'autrui", followed by two numbered limbs, of which the first covers capturing, recording or transmitting, without the consent of their author, words spoken in a private or confidential setting. There is also an aggravated tier of two years and €60,000 in defined circumstances.

Art. 226-2 is the one people forget, and it reaches the transcript as much as the recording: it punishes with the same penalties "le fait de conserver, porter ou laisser porter à la connaissance du public ou d'un tiers ou d'utiliser de quelque manière que ce soit tout enregistrement ou document obtenu à l'aide de l'un des actes prévus par l'article 226-1". Keeping and using an unlawfully obtained recording is its own offence.

Art. 226-1 provides, verbatim: "Lorsque les actes mentionnés aux 1° et 2° du présent article ont été accomplis au vu et au su des intéressés sans qu'ils s'y soient opposés, alors qu'ils étaient en mesure de le faire, le consentement de ceux-ci est présumé."

In plain terms: where the recording was made in plain sight and hearing of the people concerned, and they did not object although they were in a position to, their consent is presumed. Announcing the recording clearly at the start converts what would otherwise be an offence into presumed consent, without anyone having to say yes.

The practical rule that follows is short. Announce it openly, at the start, and pause for objection. Do not record covertly, because covert recording is precisely what Art. 226-1 targets and the presumption cannot reach it.

The two cautions again, because they decide how you say it rather than whether you say it. The presumption is rebuttable, and "in a position to object" is a question about the announcement's real audibility and timing. A line muttered while people are joining is not the same as a question asked to a room that has stopped talking.

Use the short form, but make the offer to object explicit, because that is what carries the presumption.

Avant de commencer : j'enregistre cette réunion pour rédiger mes notes ensuite. L'enregistrement se fait uniquement sur mon ordinateur, la transcription est locale, rien n'est envoyé sur un serveur, et l'audio n'est pas conservé, seulement le texte, dans un fichier qui reste chez moi. Je l'utilise pour mes notes personnelles, rien d'autre. Est-ce que cela convient à tout le monde ? Si quelqu'un préfère que je n'enregistre pas, dites-le maintenant et je l'arrête.

In English: Quick note before we start: I'm recording this so I can write my notes up afterwards. It transcribes on my laptop, nothing goes to the cloud, and I only keep the text. Say so now if you'd rather I didn't.

A written line in the invite is worth adding as advance notice, and there is a specific reason to have both here: the presumption turns on people having been able to object, and advance warning strengthens that while the spoken announcement is what makes it "au vu et au su". More on the mechanics is on telling people you're recording.

GDPR applies as well, and the analysis is the ordinary European one: a meeting recording is personal data, the household exemption almost certainly does not cover a work meeting, you need a lawful basis, and Art. 13 requires the information at the time the data are obtained. The European framework covers it once rather than on every country page.

One point of overlap is worth noticing: the announcement that earns the criminal-law presumption is also, if you make it properly, most of what Art. 13 asks for. Saying who you are, what you are recording for, where it goes and that they can object does both jobs in one sentence.

Two provisions and one regulator position, and together they make an employer rollout in France hard.

Code du travail Art. L1222-4 provides that no information concerning an employee may be collected by a device that has not been brought to their prior knowledge. That is close to a direct prohibition on covert workplace monitoring.

Art. L2312-38, third paragraph, verbatim: "Le comité est informé et consulté, préalablement à la décision de mise en œuvre dans l'entreprise, sur les moyens ou les techniques permettant un contrôle de l'activité des salariés." Information and consultation of the CSE, before the decision to deploy, on the means or techniques allowing control of employees' activity. Not after the pilot.

And CNIL's position is directly adverse. Its current page on monitoring employees says: "Une surveillance constante est excessive : placer les membres du personnel sous surveillance permanente est en général considéré comme une atteinte excessive à leurs droits et libertés." Its older and more specific page on listening to and recording calls at work says an employer may not put in place a permanent ou systématique listening or recording device absent a legal provision, that a less intrusive means must be chosen, and gives as its example a system letting the employee trigger the recording. Read that second one with the caveat printed on the page itself: it is marked obsolete and under revision, and dated 2009. Quote it as CNIL's long-standing position on call recording and pair it with the current page.

Neither addresses an individual recording their own meetings on their own device, which remains an open question. What they do settle is that an employer deploying continuous capture across a team in France has a serious problem, and it is not one that better copy solves.

There has been a real change here, and it is recent. The Cour de cassation, sitting in assemblée plénière on 22 December 2023, decided two cases (n° 20-20.648 and n° 21-11.330). The operative passage in the first holds, verbatim: "dans un procès civil, l'illicéité ou la déloyauté dans l'obtention ou la production d'un moyen de preuve ne conduit pas nécessairement à l'écarter des débats", and requires the judge to balance the right to evidence against the competing rights, admitting evidence that infringes them only where its production is indispensable and the infringement strictly proportionate.

Two cautions. This is about admissibility in civil proceedings, not about whether the recording was lawful: a recording can be admitted and still be an offence under Art. 226-1. And it cuts both ways, which is the part employers tend not to notice: it also means a recording an employee made of a manager can come in. The second case is narrower than the headline suggests, turning on a private conversation not intended for disclosure not being a breach of the employment contract at all.

Earkeep records continuously and announces itself to nobody: no bot in the participant list, no banner on anyone else's screen. In France that is the crux, because the presumption of consent depends entirely on the recording having been made au vu et au su of the people concerned, and nothing about the app makes it visible to them. If you do not say it, the presumption does not apply and you are inside Art. 226-1.

What the app gives you is a real answer to an objection, which matters here because the presumption is defeated by one. A pause from the live edge releases the microphone and the system audio stream, so the operating system's own recording indicator goes dark and the person who objected can see it rather than take your word. A meeting on a connected calendar can be marked never-record. And a stretch of the day, or a saved meeting with its transcript, can be purged, which is worth knowing given that Art. 226-2 makes keeping an unlawfully obtained recording its own offence.

On the data protection side the architecture helps concretely: transcription runs on your device, the audio is never written to disk, nothing is sent anywhere, and there is no processor agreement to sign because there is no transfer. That is a data protection argument, and it does not answer Art. 226-1. Earkeep does not make a recording lawful and cannot make anyone compliant.

• Code pénal Art. 226-1 and Art. 226-2, Legifrance.
• Code du travail Art. L1222-4 and Art. L2312-38, Legifrance.
• Cass. ass. plén., 22 December 2023, n° 20-20.648 and n° 21-11.330.
• CNIL, contrôle de l'activité des personnes employées, and CNIL on recording calls at work (marked obsolete on the page itself).

• European recording laws: the four layers, and all 32 countries.
• Telling people you're recording: the scripts, and the three ways to stop.
• Private by design: why the audio never leaves your computer.

This page is legal information, not legal advice. It summarises statutes and cases rather than replacing them, and we are not lawyers. If the answer matters, ask someone who can be held to their answer.