Recording meetings in Switzerland: what is allowed with AI transcription – and what is a criminal offence
Jens Margraf ·
Recording a meeting in Switzerland? Without everyone's consent you risk prosecution. What the Criminal Code and revFADP require – plus a checklist.
A small device, magnetically attached to the back of your smartphone – and every phone call ends up in the cloud as a clean transcript with a to-do list. No beep, no notice, the other party notices nothing. For many, this is the ultimate productivity dream. In Switzerland, it is above all one thing: a criminal offence.
AI recorders like PLAUD, meeting bots in Teams or Zoom and AI phone assistants have long since arrived in Swiss companies – often faster than any internal policy. Anyone who wants to record a meeting in Switzerland, however, is operating at the intersection of criminal law, data protection and employment law. And the rules there are considerably stricter than the default settings of American tools would suggest.
💡 Note: This article is a practical overview and does not replace legal advice in individual cases.
Recording meetings in Switzerland: why everyone has to consent
At federal level, the US follows the principle of one-party consent: it is enough for a single person involved in the conversation – usually the one recording – to agree. Many AI tools are built on exactly this logic. And even there things are getting uncomfortable: since 2025, a class action has been pending in California against the notetaker provider Otter.ai, because its bot allegedly recorded conversations without the consent of all participants.
In Switzerland, the situation is clear: all participants must consent – in advance, explicitly or through clearly recognisable conduct.
Art. 179ter of the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC) punishes anyone who, as a participant, records a non-public conversation without the consent of the others, keeps it or makes it accessible to third parties – with a custodial sentence of up to one year or a monetary penalty.
Art. 179bis SCC goes even further: anyone who eavesdrops on or records someone else's conversation without taking part risks up to three years. This is more relevant than it sounds. An AI bot that automatically joins a meeting you are not attending yourself is exactly such a "third party".
Both offences are prosecuted only upon complaint. The affected person has three months to file it, starting from the moment they learn of the recording.
What exceptions exist – and why they hardly help you
Art. 179quinquies SCC provides two exceptions: emergency calls to the police, fire brigade or ambulance, and business calls concerning orders, contracts or reservations. This refers to routine transactions such as reserving a table by phone.
As soon as the conversation involves advice, complaints, negotiation or strategy, the exception no longer applies. And even where it does apply, the recordings may only be used to secure evidence – not for quality analysis, staff training or training AI models.
Incidentally, secret recordings are rarely useful as evidence either. Swiss courts only consider unlawfully obtained evidence if the interest in establishing the truth clearly prevails (Art. 152 para. 2 Swiss Civil Procedure Code). The risk of becoming the accused yourself is generally greater than the benefit.
What the revFADP additionally requires for AI transcription
Criminal law protects the spoken word. The revised Federal Act on Data Protection, in force since 1 September 2023, governs what happens to the data afterwards. Voices, names, statements and opinions are personal data – so all revFADP obligations apply, cumulatively with the Criminal Code. The most important at a glance:
| Obligation | What it means for your meeting recording |
|---|---|
| Duty to inform (Art. 19) | Disclose in advance: who is responsible, why it is recorded, who receives the data, how long it is stored |
| Processing by processors (Art. 9) | Conclude a data processing agreement (DPA) with every AI provider |
| Cross-border transfer (Art. 16 f.) | Check the server location; outside countries with an adequate level of protection, safeguards such as standard contractual clauses are required |
| Records (Art. 12) | Document the "AI meeting transcription" process in the record of processing activities |
| Impact assessment (Art. 22) | Carry out a DPIA where the risk is high, e.g. health data or biometric speaker recognition |
| Data subject rights (Art. 25, 28) | Free access within 30 days, data portability, deletion on request |
On the subject of the USA: since 15 September 2024, US companies certified under the Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework have been deemed adequately protected according to the Federal Council. This simplifies a lot – but does not release you from checking in each case whether your provider is actually certified. You can read more about the basics in our article on AI and data protection in Switzerland.
Transcription without detours via third-party clouds
With Audio to Text in aibox you can transcribe meetings and conversations – including Swiss German – and create minutes directly in the Audio Studio. Try it free for 14 days.
Who is liable? Not the company – but you personally
This is the biggest difference from the European GDPR. In the EU, fines hit the company. The Swiss revFADP targets people: fines of up to CHF 250,000 are directed at the responsible natural person (Art. 60 ff. revFADP) – executive management, board of directors, IT management or the employee who switches on the recorder.
Intentional conduct is punishable. Conditional intent is already sufficient: anyone who considers a violation possible and accepts it is liable. "The tool was just set up that way" is therefore no shield. Nor is the manufacturer's claim of being "FADP-compliant" – responsibility remains with the company using the tool.
Internal meetings: where employment law draws the line
Team meetings and staff appraisals add a third layer. Under Art. 328b of the Swiss Code of Obligations, employers may only process data that is necessary for the employment relationship. And Art. 26 of Ordinance 3 to the Employment Act prohibits systems intended to monitor employee behaviour.
A transcript for the minutes of decisions? Unproblematic with consent. A permanent recording to analyse later who talks how much? Not permitted. And anyone who declines a recording must not suffer any disadvantage for it. Incidentally, this is often exactly where shadow AI emerges: employees use private recorder apps because there is no official solution.
AI recorders like PLAUD: where the pitfalls lie
Hardware recorders are technically impressive – and that is exactly why they are tricky.
| Feature | Risk under Swiss law |
|---|---|
| Recording via smartphone housing vibration | Both sides of the conversation are captured without an acoustic signal. Without an announcement: Art. 179ter SCC |
| Automatic cloud upload | Cross-border transfer without a verified server location and DPA |
| Speaker identification by AI | Automated processing, potentially high-risk profiling with sensitive content |
The device is not the problem. The missing announcement is.
How to record meetings in a legally compliant way: 4 steps
1. Clarify what is being recorded. Customer, supplier, job interview or internal meetings? If sensitive personal data is discussed, a data protection impact assessment is required.
2. Secure your provider. Conclude a DPA, check the server location, get written confirmation that your data will not be used to train public AI models.
3. Build in transparency. Notice in the invitation, recording icon visible, a short check at the start. And a clear plan B for anyone who does not agree – such as manual minutes.
4. Document and delete. Add the process to the record of processing activities, delete raw audio and transcript once the minutes are approved, train employees.
A sample announcement for online meetings can be this simple:
Sample announcement for online meetings
"Before we start: we would like to transcribe this meeting with AI to create the minutes of decisions. The recording will be deleted once the minutes are approved. Does anyone object?" – wait briefly, only then start the recording.
Ten seconds that protect you from criminal proceedings if things go wrong.
Conclusion: recording meetings in Switzerland – yes, but with an announcement
AI transcription is one of the most tangible productivity levers there is. Companies demonstrably save an enormous amount of time with it – as the example of Somedia with 70% less transcription effort shows. Doing without it would be a mistake.
But: in Switzerland, it is not the tool that decides whether something is lawful, but the process around it. Consent from everyone, a proper contract with the provider, a clear deletion policy. Anyone who sorts this out now, instead of waiting for the first criminal complaint, uses AI with a clear conscience – and protects themselves along the way.
My question to you: does your company already have a rule on who may record which meetings and when – or does everyone decide for themselves today?
AI tools for your company
Discover our AI products – from aibox for SMEs to tailor-made enterprise solutions. Discover aibox
FAQ
May I record a meeting in Switzerland if I am taking part myself?
Only with the consent of all participants. Unlike in many US states, the consent of a single person is not enough. Anyone who, as a participant, records a non-public conversation without the consent of the others is liable to prosecution under Art. 179ter SCC.
Is a notice in the meeting invitation enough?
A written notice in the invitation is a good basis, but ideally does not replace a short check at the start of the meeting. Anyone who does not agree must be given a real alternative, such as manual minutes.
Is an AI notetaker such as PLAUD or a Teams bot permitted in Switzerland?
Yes, if all participants are informed in advance and consent, a data processing agreement (DPA) with the provider is in place and any data transfer abroad is safeguarded. Covert recordings and automatic cloud uploads without a verified server location are problematic.
Who is liable for data protection violations – the company or the individual?
The revFADP relies on personal liability: fines of up to CHF 250,000 are directed at the responsible natural person, such as executive management, IT management or the acting employee. Intentional conduct is punishable, and conditional intent is sufficient.
May internal team meetings be recorded for performance monitoring?
No. Art. 26 of Ordinance 3 to the Employment Act prohibits systems intended to monitor employee behaviour at the workplace. Even with voluntary recordings, no one who declines may suffer a disadvantage.
Jens Margraf, CEO and founder of AI now AG