Recording consent, in plain language

Practically, yes, and you should get it whether or not a statute forces you. California is a two-party consent state for confidential communications, and a training session with a disclosure in it can become exactly that.

The workable rule: announce it before you start, in the invitation and again out loud, and give people a way to participate without being recorded.

Four things, in under twenty seconds: that it is being recorded, who will see it, how long it is kept, and what happens to the chat. Then start.

Write that line once and reuse it. Facilitators who improvise it each time eventually leave out the part about who sees it, which is the part people care about.

Decide the retention period before the session and hold to it. A recording kept indefinitely can be subpoenaed, discovered in litigation, or surface in an investigation years later.

Chat logs are records too. A chat where somebody named a manager becomes evidence if a complaint follows.

Yes, and that is the real cost. A recorded session gets less honesty, particularly from the people with the least protection.

For sessions about conduct, culture or anything close to a complaint, I do not record. The material is worth less than the candor you lose.

No. This is education, written by a lawyer who is not your lawyer. Your obligations depend on your state, your industry and your facts. The Legal Side of Training covers this in depth, and it still is not advice for your situation.

Want this applied to your own session?

Book twenty minutes and bring the agenda you are stuck on.