3 GDPR Compliant Meeting Assistants You Can Actually Trust

Choosing a GDPR compliant meeting assistant is one of those modern headaches nobody ever wanted.

You set up a simple video call, you hit record, and suddenly you are knee deep in data laws, consent rules and questions about where your meeting is actually being stored. I have lived the panic myself. Long before GDPR officially arrived, I was already dealing with ICO registrations under the old Data Protection Act, and by the time the new regulation came into force, I was so worried about getting it wrong that I registered as a data controller just to be safe.

It feels like GDPR has been around forever because the first proposal landed back in 2012. The law was adopted in 2016 and enforced in 2018, but the years before that were chaos. Inboxes filled with “Please stay subscribed” emails. Companies deleted entire mailing lists because they were terrified of fines. Teams added double opt in to anything that moved because they were confused and did not want to risk it.

And yes, the fines have been real. H&M was handed a significant penalty for keeping detailed, inappropriate notes about staff. A well-known UK parenting site was fined for selling mothers’ and children’s data to political groups during an election. I only remember that one because I still somehow get promotional emails from them even though my kids are now in full tweendom and have mastered the art of eye rolling.

This matters even more in the world of AI meeting assistants. These tools record voices, capture client details and store conversations that often include confidential or sensitive information. Every part of that is personal data under GDPR. The recordings. The transcripts. Even the AI summaries. So if you work in the UK or EU, or if you collaborate with people who do, you need a meeting assistant that is genuinely GDPR compliant and not one that quietly stores your data in a US region with vague promises about security.

This guide breaks everything down in plain English. What GDPR means for meeting recordings. What the risks are if you ignore it. Which meeting assistants genuinely support compliance and which ones fall short. No jargon, no legal posturing. Just the practical insight I wish I had before I panicked my way through the early GDPR years.

Your GDPR Checklist for Choosing a Meeting Assistant

GDPR at a Glance

Use this as a quick checklist when you are looking at any AI meeting assistant or note taker.

✅ People know they are being recorded
Participants are told that the meeting is being recorded or transcribed, and they understand the purpose.
✅ There is a lawful reason to record
The company has a valid legal basis, such as consent or a clear business need that has been documented.
✅ Only the minimum data is kept
Recordings and transcripts are limited to what is actually needed, rather than keeping everything by default.
✅ Data is stored in suitable regions
Personal data from people in the EU or UK is stored in locations and with providers that meet GDPR standards.
✅ People can access or delete their data
There is a clear process to honor access, correction, and deletion requests for meeting content.
✅ Vendors explain how AI uses the data
The tool states whether recordings or transcripts are used for AI training, and allows customers to control this.

This checklist is for general information only and does not replace legal advice.

tl;dr: GDPR and Meeting Assistants

Meeting recordings count as personal data, so you need a tool that is upfront about storage, retention, subprocessors, AI behaviour and regional processing.
From what vendors publish publicly, tl;dv, Sembly and Jamie offer the clearest GDPR relevant documentation. Other tools may also be suitable, but usually need extra checks with the vendor.
Many other tools make broad claims but leave gaps around hosting regions, model training and data flow, which means more work for EU first organisations.
The safest choice is a meeting assistant that gives full control over retention, deletion, data residency and AI processing, and publishes a proper DPA.

What Is GDPR and Why It Matters For Meeting Assistants?

GDPR is the EU and UK data protection law that, at its core, is designed to protect real people, even when those people are taking part in something that feels purely professional. A business setting does not remove someone’s rights over their own information. If a meeting assistant records a call that features someone’s voice, their name, their role or anything that links back to them, then GDPR applies.

Meeting assistants sit in an unusual space. They handle business data, yet they process it through identifiable individuals. A project update, a client conversation or a sales call may feel impersonal, but the information still belongs to actual employees, contractors or clients. That is why the regulation matters here. These tools capture the details of decisions, discussions, ideas and reactions in a way that suddenly makes the person behind the job title visible.

When you see it through that lens, GDPR becomes far more relevant to day to day work than many teams expect.

What Counts as Personal Data in a Business Meeting Recording?

Personal data in a business context is broader than people assume. It covers anything that can identify or relate to someone directly, even if the information is linked to their job rather than their private life.

This might include someone’s voice as they speak during a call. It might be their name or role when they introduce themselves. It might be an email address displayed on a screen, or a comment about their workload, performance, attendance or availability. It might be a financial figure tied to a specific client manager. It can even include AI produced notes if the notes summarise or refer to an identifiable person.

A meeting recording often contains all of this within minutes, sometimes without anyone noticing. The overlap between “business information” and “personal information in a business setting” is where many companies get caught out.

GDPR Principles in Plain Language for Busy Teams

GDPR may sound heavy, but the underlying ideas are straightforward. You need to be open with people about what you are recording and why. You should only collect what you need and avoid retaining recordings long after they have served their purpose. You should store everything securely and avoid systems that scatter your data across unknown regions. You should give people the ability to review or remove their own information when appropriate. You also need a valid reason to record, which in a business meeting usually means clear agreement from the people involved.

These principles apply just as much to a Monday morning sync as they do to a customer presentation. The setting changes, but the rights do not.

Why GDPR Applies Even If Your Company Is Based in the US or Elsewhere

A lot of people outside Europe assume GDPR only applies if their company is physically based in the UK or EU. In reality, the law also covers any organization that handles the personal data of people in those regions when that handling is linked to providing a service to them.

If your business works with European clients, or if you have team members in Europe taking part in recorded meetings, then GDPR becomes part of your responsibilities even if your headquarters are somewhere else.

This can catch people off guard because meeting assistants sit quietly in the background, recording voices and storing what feels like everyday business chatter. Those recordings can contain names, roles, opinions, client details, financial discussions and all the things that make a person identifiable within their professional world. As soon as a European participant joins the call, their information becomes personal data under European law, which means you need a tool that treats it properly.

Things get more complex when your meeting assistant stores recordings in regions outside Europe. The moment personal data leaves the UK or EU, the company handling it must rely on approved safeguards and provide clear information about where the data goes, how long it stays there and who might access it. This also includes being open about whether meeting data is used to develop AI features, because people have a right to know how their information is being used.

This does not mean you cannot use a non-European meeting assistant. It simply means you need more time spent doing due diligence. You need to understand the company’s data storage locations, retention rules and training practices before you decide whether it supports your GDPR responsibilities.

Privacy laws in other places mirror this too. Brazil has LGPD, Japan has APPI and California has its own strict rules (CCPA), including tighter consent expectations for recordings. GDPR remains the anchor for many global businesses, but the broader theme is the same. If you are handling the information of real people across borders, you need a meeting assistant that treats that information responsibly.

European meeting assistants often make this easier because their data residency, consent prompts and retention options are already aligned with the regulation. That does not make them the only option, but it does place them on steadier ground for anyone working with European clients.

GDPR Compliant Vs “Working Towards Compliance”

Most meeting assistants fall into one of two camps. There are the companies that actually support GDPR, and there are the companies that talk about it in a hopeful way without confirming anything concrete. The difference matters, because GDPR is not a label you can claim through marketing copy. It is a legal framework with specific requirements that must be built into the product, not glued on afterwards.

A meeting assistant that genuinely supports compliance will show you how it handles your data in a straightforward way. A company that is still “working towards compliance” will try to sound helpful without giving you the details you need to make a responsible choice. Once you know what to look for, the gap becomes obvious.

How to Recognize Real GDPR Compliance in a Meeting Assistant

When a company is serious about GDPR, you can see it in the way they present their information. They explain where your data is stored and how long it remains there. They give you control over retention, deletion and access. They spell out their subprocessors. They tell you whether they use meeting recordings to train AI features. They describe their security measures with enough substance to feel grounded rather than decorative.

They also provide a proper Data Processing Agreement. It should be easy to find, not hidden behind a sales call. The agreement should outline responsibilities on both sides, reflect the reality of how the service functions and make sense to a non specialist who is trying to meet their obligations.

Genuine GDPR oriented companies tend to design their tools so that compliance is the default rather than something you need to work around. You do not have to force them into transparency because they already understand why it matters.

Red Flags in Privacy Policies and Security Pages

Red flags normally appear when a company wants the credibility of GDPR without the work that goes into supporting it. The first sign is vague language about storage locations. If they say “your data may be stored in several secure regions” without telling you which regions those are, you are left guessing about where your meeting recordings actually sit.

Another warning sign is when a company does not clearly state whether it uses customer data to develop its AI features. Some bury this in broad wording about “improving the service”, which is not the same thing as telling you that your recorded meetings might be used in internal training workflows.

You should also pause if the company talks a lot about general security but avoids the specifics. Phrases about “best practices” and “industry standards” do not tell you whether the service gives you retention controls or respects your deletion requests.

The biggest red flag is confusion. If you cannot work out how the company handles your meeting data after reading their policy, there is probably a reason for that.

Why Vague Claims Like “Our Customers Say We Are GDPR Compliant” Are Not Enough

Some meeting assistants try to reassure people by saying their customers consider them GDPR compliant. This sounds comforting until you realise it does not confirm anything. GDPR is not based on customer opinion. It is based on clear obligations and responsibilities that can be demonstrated through documentation, technical decisions and accountable processes.

A company cannot outsource its compliance to customer sentiment. Nor can it imply that compliance is achieved through popularity. If the only proof offered is that “many customers use our product in Europe”, that does not tell you whether the company itself has met the requirements of the regulation.

You need certainty, not a vibe. You need to know where your recordings go, who has access to them, how long they are kept and whether anyone is using them for model training. These are factual questions with factual answers. If a company cannot give you those answers, you cannot rely on the comfort of a customer quote.

What Happens If You Ignore GDPR?

Most businesses mean well. They record meetings to save time and reduce misunderstandings. The trouble is that GDPR does not focus on intention. It focuses on what actually happens to personal data once it has been captured. When a company overlooks GDPR, even by accident, the consequences can be serious and can appear long after the meeting took place.

The risk is not only about large fines, although those are real and have shaped the approach regulators take with workplace data. The deeper issue is that meeting recordings contain far more personal information than people realize. One careless storage decision can turn into a breach. One unclear approach to consent can become a complaint. One oversight in retention can leave years of recordings sitting on a server.

Examples That Show How Serious Regulators Can Be

I touched on these cases earlier, but it is worth looking at them properly because they show exactly how regulators think about situations where companies collect or store information about people without a clear reason.

H&M received a fine of 35.3 million euros from the Hamburg data authority after managers created detailed files on employees. These files included private family matters, health issues and personal observations that had been gathered quietly over long periods. The information was then used in decisions about staffing. The regulator viewed this as intrusive monitoring that went far beyond what employees would ever expect.

Emma’s Diary, run by Lifecycle Marketing, was fined £140,000 by the ICO. The company collected data from new mothers who believed they were signing up for pregnancy and baby advice. That information was later passed to a political organization during an election without any explanation in the privacy policy. Parents had no reason to think their details would end up in that context.

Although these cases sit outside the world of meeting assistants, the pattern is the same. Regulators act when companies gather or use personal information in ways people did not agree to and would not reasonably anticipate. Meeting recordings often include the same categories of information without anyone noticing at the time. A comment about health, a reference to performance, a client detail tied to an identifiable person, or a sensitive update shared casually on a call. All of this becomes personal data once it has been captured.

If those recordings sit in a system for longer than needed or move to regions people were never told about, the situation begins to resemble the scenarios regulators have already penalized. The technology is different, but the underlying concern is identical. It is the handling of personal information without clarity or purpose.

There has not yet been a public GDPR case that focuses on AI meeting assistants. That does not mean companies using them are exempt. It simply means the issue has not reached a regulatory investigation in a high profile way. The history of other fines shows exactly how these situations are likely to be viewed when one eventually does.

The 3 Best GDPR Compliant Meeting Assistants

I wanted to create a neat list of five. I really did!!! I spent far too long digging around privacy pages and security documents, only to discover that most meeting assistants either rely heavily on US data centres or make vague claims that fall apart as soon as you read the small print. In the end, only three tools offered the kind of clear, grounded, public GDPR commitments that felt strong enough to share.

These three have transparent hosting, workable retention controls, proper documentation and a privacy posture that aligns with the way European businesses need to operate.

1) tl;dv

Built in Europe using GDPR as its baseline

I work with tl;dv, so I know exactly how the product handles meeting data behind the scenes. It is designed with a lot of care, and that shows in the way it approaches GDPR, security and transparency. The platform is based in Europe, the hosting is in Europe, and the whole system is set up so that customers, especially those handling UK or EU personal data, have a clear understanding of what happens to their recordings.

tl;dv uses a privacy-first design rather than trying to wrap GDPR language around a structure that was never built for it. Data is encrypted at rest and in transit. Recordings and transcripts stay in European data centres. The team keeps an internal record of processing activities so they can show exactly how personal data moves through the system. These things sound small, but they are the foundation of trust. They allow customers to explain and justify their choices if they ever need to.

You have full control over your meeting data

One of the reasons I trust tl;dv is the level of choice it gives customers. You can set how long your recordings are kept. You can delete anything at any time. You can download everything. You can decide where your AI is hosted. If your business needs your AI processing to remain in Europe, you can lock it to Europe. If your organization spans continents and prefers US hosting, that is a choice you can make. The point is that the decision belongs to you.

tl;dv also gives customers clear information about how third-party AI is involved. When the platform uses Anthropic for generative AI, it does so with safeguards. Metadata is anonymized. Segments are broken up and shuffled so no model ever sees a full conversation. Anthropic does not train anything from your data. This level of transparency is still rare in the AI space, and it matters for GDPR because it goes straight to fairness, purpose limitation and data minimization.

Security controls are real, not decorative

tl;dv has a SOC 2 Type 1 report, and the company follows a structured development process with code reviews, testing, separate environments and regular scanning of production systems. Traffic is encrypted. Storage uses strong AES-256 encryption. The infrastructure sits on providers that are already certified under ISO 27001 and SOC standards, and the internal team monitors how each part of the system behaves over time.

Again, none of this is about chasing badges for show. It is about making sure that when a customer asks, “Where is my data, who can see it, and how long does it stay there”, you can give an answer that stands up to scrutiny.

More than a meeting assistant

The part that is often overlooked is how deeply tl;dv fits into the wider organization. People do use it for meeting recordings, but they also use it for onboarding, internal training, knowledge capture, coaching, sales reviews, product research and all the messy, everyday work that happens outside a standard call. Once the tool is in place, it becomes a quiet layer of documentation for the whole company. That makes the privacy foundation even more important because the content is not just meeting chatter. It is the operational memory of the organization.

This is why GDPR is not a footnote here. It is one of the core reasons the product was built the way it was.

tl;dv — GDPR Overview

Strength: Strong privacy posture based on publicly available documentation
Hosting: Data stored in Europe
Training: Vendor states customer data is not used for AI training
AI handling: Metadata anonymized and meeting segments processed in small randomized parts
Controls: Includes consent mode, custom retention settings, and full data deletion
Summary: Based on published information, tl;dv provides an EU-centered architecture that supports GDPR-aligned use when configured appropriately.

2) Sembly

Enterprise style structure with heavy documentation and strong controls

Sembly takes a very formal approach to data protection. They have a full Trust Center with SOC 2 Type 2 audits, data flow diagrams, pentest reports and detailed security policies. They also describe GDPR as something they have prioritized from the start, and they document how personal data is handled in a way that feels familiar to anyone who works with compliance teams.

One feature that stands out is their handling of model training. Enterprise customers have a clear promise that their audio, video or text will not be used for training. Other plans can opt out. This reduces the risk of personal data drifting into a secondary use you did not intend. They also publish a list of subprocessors, which is helpful for data protection impact assessments.

I did try to get access to more detailed GDPR documentation through their Trust Center, but I did not receive a response at the time of writing. Even so, based on what they publish publicly, Sembly offers a level of structure that suits larger organizations, as long as you manage consent and meeting-specific obligations properly.

Sembly — GDPR Overview

Strength: Enterprise-style compliance documentation and audits
Hosting: Public materials describe secure cloud infrastructure; full residency details require direct vendor confirmation
Training: Enterprise plans exclude model training; other plans can opt out
AI handling: Encryption at rest and in transit, published subprocessors
Controls: SOC 2 Type II, Trust Center materials, DPA available
Summary: Public documentation indicates a strong compliance framework. A complete assessment depends on access to additional vendor-supplied materials.

3) Jamie

EU hosted and very privacy conscious, but dependent on user transparency

Jamie is often recommended as a privacy-forward option because it is based in Germany, processes data inside Germany and deletes raw audio once the transcript has been created. They are also clear that Anthropic does not store or train on customer data, and they appoint an external Data Protection Officer who audits their compliance each year. The technical foundation is strong and feels aligned with GDPR principles.

The thing you need to understand is how Jamie works in practice. It runs quietly on your device rather than joining the meeting as a visible participant. That approach removes the awkwardness of a bot entering the call, but it also means the responsibility for transparency falls entirely on the person starting the recording. GDPR expects people to know when their voices are being processed. Without a clear notice or consent step, the lawful basis becomes shaky.

If teams use Jamie responsibly and tell people in advance, it fits neatly into GDPR requirements. If they do not, the risk comes from the lack of communication rather than the technology itself.

Jamie — GDPR Overview

Strength: EU-based processing with fast audio deletion and a privacy-focused architecture
Hosting: Vendor states processing and storage occur in Frankfurt, Germany
Training: Vendor states audio is deleted after transcription and not used for model training
AI handling: Final summaries processed via Anthropic API without retention
Controls: External Data Protection Officer, annual GDPR audits, detailed privacy documentation
Summary: Jamie supports GDPR-aligned use on a technical level; compliance depends on users providing proper notice because the tool is not visible inside meetings.

Are ALL GDPR Complaint Tools GDPR Compliant?

Some tools provide extensive documentation, while others use broader language that leaves more for customers to verify.

The examples below show how some well-known tools present themselves on their websites, along with what that positioning may mean if your organization needs a stricter, EU-first setup. This is not a judgment on their quality or legality. It simply reflects the difference between a high-transparency approach and one that requires more direct confirmation from the vendor before adoption.

MeetGeek

MeetGeek lists GDPR, SOC 2 and HIPAA among its standards, which suggests broad coverage. The publicly available information does not go into the same level of detail on hosting regions, subprocessors or retention structure as the tools covered earlier. For many teams this may be fine, but anyone needing confirmed EU-only residency or deep documentation may need to request more specifics directly.

Leexi

Leexi highlights GDPR, ISO certification and secure processing. Their public materials, however, provide limited technical detail about storage locations, subprocessors and model-training behavior. Organizations that require full visibility into data flows would need to request this information before relying on the platform for sensitive work.

Fireflies

Fireflies references GDPR and SOC 2 Type II, and the platform is widely used. Their infrastructure appears to rely on regions outside Europe, and some features involve model-training controls that customers must configure. These points do not prevent GDPR-aligned use, but they do mean customers have more configuration work if they need strict regional handling.

Read.ai

Read.ai positions itself as GDPR ready and emphasizes trust and accuracy. The service processes data in the United States, which is lawful when appropriate safeguards are in place. It simply means teams needing an EU-only footprint would need to evaluate transfer arrangements and consent practices carefully.

Gong

Gong offers strong commercial security and clear documentation, and supports GDPR through standard contractual safeguards. Their hosting approach is primarily US-based, which is common in enterprise SaaS. Organizations that require EU-resident data would need to confirm that setup directly before relying on it for European personal data.

These tools can be appropriate for many teams. The only distinction here is that they publish less detail about residency, transfers, training behavior or retention than the three EU-first tools highlighted earlier. If you work in an environment that needs strict regional processing, predictable retention, and fully accessible documentation, it is worth requesting that information directly from the vendor before adopting any tool described as “GDPR compliant.”

How To Choose a GDPR-First Meeting Assistant for Your Team

Once you understand how differently companies use the phrase “GDPR compliant,” it becomes easier to choose a meeting assistant that actually supports your responsibilities. You do not need a legal background for this. You just need to know what to ask and how a responsible vendor should respond.

A good place to start is with the basics:

Where your recordings are stored, and whether everything can stay inside Europe
How long the tool keeps your data and whether you can set your own retention rules
Whether meeting content is ever used to train AI models and whether that can be switched off
Which subprocessors are involved and whether they see any personal data
Whether you can read the Data Processing Agreement before making a commitment
How deletion, access and export work for recordings and transcripts
Whether you can choose regional AI hosting or limit all processing to Europe
Any meeting assistant that expects you to record people should be comfortable answering these questions in a simple and direct way.

If you work with a DPO or legal team, they will want predictable safeguards.

They will look for clear hosting information, encryption details, a published subprocessor list, and a straightforward explanation of how the tool handles model training and regional processing. They do not expect perfection but they do expect visibility and practical controls.

You can make the decision easier by choosing a tool that is built around these principles from the start. tl;dv’s Privacy and Security page explains exactly how data is stored in Europe, how AI processing works and how you stay in control of retention, deletion and hosting.

If you want a meeting assistant that supports GDPR without extra work or guesswork, it is a helpful place to begin.

FAQs About GDPR and AI Meeting Assistants

Do I need consent before using an AI meeting assistant in Europe?

You need to make sure everyone in the meeting knows that the call is being recorded or transcribed. Consent is the simplest lawful basis, and most teams use it to avoid confusion.

Is a meeting recording considered personal data under GDPR?

Yes. Voices, names, job roles and anything said on the call can identify a person, which makes meeting recordings personal data.

Can a US-based meeting assistant be used in a GDPR context?

Yes, but only when data transfers are handled correctly and the tool provides suitable safeguards. Many teams prefer EU-based tools for this reason.

How can I check if a meeting assistant stores data in Europe?

Look for explicit hosting information, a published subprocessor list and a Data Processing Agreement that states where personal data is processed.

Is it a GDPR issue if my meeting assistant uses recordings for AI training?

It can be. GDPR expects clear information about how personal data is used. You need the option to disable training if you work with sensitive content or European clients.

What should my team document when recording meetings?

You should record the lawful basis, how participants were informed, where the data is stored and how long you plan to keep the recordings.

How long can I keep meeting recordings under GDPR?

Only as long as they are needed for a clear purpose. You should set retention rules and delete recordings when they are no longer required.

Which features in a meeting assistant help with GDPR compliance?

EU hosting, deletion controls, retention settings, clear AI training policies and an accessible DPA all make GDPR-aligned use much easier.

Is tl;dv GDPR compliant?

Yes, tl;dv is GDPR compliant. It gives users EU data residency options, publishes a clear Data Processing Agreement, provides granular retention controls, and allows you to disable AI training on meeting content. It also discloses all subprocessors and follows strict security standards so teams can record and process meetings in a GDPR aligned way.