- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Inhouse Counsel
AI transcription and summary tools trigger a host of platform configuration and data governance obligations.
While most of the commercial tools have built-in procedures for addressing basic things like the notices required under privacy laws, there are some blind spots.
If a tool can recognize voices, that implicates biometric privacy laws. At least two class actions have been filed against vendors for capturing and storing “voiceprints,” so employers are the logical next target.
If the tool not only provides a summary of an interview with a candidate, but also scores the candidate’s performance, it could trigger obligations under global AI laws.
For data retention, employers need to consider whether the tool has a settings like “only during the meeting” mode, so prompts and responses generated during the meeting are not retained.
And for lawyers there are also confidentiality, privilege and ethical considerations when using these tools.
If you’re using this technology as part of the talent acquisition process, consider limiting those uses by jurisdiction and enforcing strict data controls. In Europe, for example, individuals have a right to access their personal information, which could include the transcript or the summary.
AI governance protocols should also be updated to address the role of AI-generated records in HR or business decisions, including who is responsible for checking the accuracy of an AI summary – the meeting owner or everyone who attended the meeting? And how will mistakes – or even hallucinations – be dealt with?
It’s also important to prohibit shadow tools as one unauthorized tool can eviscerate all of these protections.
We will be closely monitoring these developments and we’re here to help.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]