Ambient AI in Clinical Practice - The Legal Landscape of Recording Consent Requirements

Taylor N. Anderson, M.D., Michael S. Sinha, M.D., J.D., M.P.H., I. Glenn Cohen, J.D., and R. Logan Jones, M.D.
Abstract
The rapid proliferation of ambient artificial intelligence (AI) platforms has created a precarious legal landscape, as highlighted by the 2025 class action lawsuit Saucedo versus Sharp Healthcare. In the absence of legal precedent, the application of existing legal restrictions to the capture and transmission of audio recordings in the clinical context remains unclear. State �eavesdropping� statutes create a patchwork of consent requirements � 34 states follow one-party consent policies, while the remaining 16 states require all-party consent or apply mixed standards. In the latter jurisdictions, institutions and clinicians face potential civil and criminal penalties for failing to obtain consent from all recorded parties, a risk compounded by �bycatching� incidental conversations in shared clinical spaces. Defining and mitigating these risks requires the collaborative effort of institutions, clinicians, vendors, and physician advocacy groups. Ultimately, responsible deployment of ambient AI necessitates clear institutional safeguards and advocacy for legislative clarification to protect both patients and clinicians. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation [grant number NNF23SA0087056]).

Ambient AI in Clinical Practice - The Legal Landscape of Recording Consent Requirements