What clinics in Minnesota must do when an AI agent answers the phone.

Under the statute below, the consent of one party to the call is enough. Federal law lets a party to a call record it, so the federal rule applies the same way here.

• Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes: Minn. Stat. 626A.02, subd. 2(d)“where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception”

We found no state law that requires a business or health provider to tell a caller, texter or patient they are dealing with an AI. This rests on secondary trackers and web searches, not on the legislature's own search, so it is a finding of none found and not proof that none exists.

Minnesota's consumer data privacy sections do not apply to information that meets the definition of protected health information under HIPAA, or to health records as defined in section 144.291. The clinic as an entity is not named as excluded, so the exemption is for the data. We did not read the applicability thresholds. HIPAA still binds a covered clinic and its business associate vendor.

• Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes: Minn. Stat. 325M.12, subd. 2(a)(3)“protected health information, as defined by and for purposes of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law 104-191, and related regulations”

Minnesota's rule is not limited to sales. A caller may not connect an automatic dialing-announcing device to a telephone line unless the subscriber has knowingly or voluntarily requested or consented to the message, or a live operator first obtains consent. The section exempts messages to subscribers with whom the caller has a current business or personal relationship. The federal rules on AI-voice calls and texts apply as well.

• Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes: Minn. Stat. 325E.27(a)“unless: (1) the subscriber has knowingly or voluntarily requested, consented to, permitted, or authorized receipt of the message”
• Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes: Minn. Stat. 325E.27(b)(2)“messages to subscribers with whom the caller has a current business or personal relationship”

We found no adopted statement from the Minnesota Board of Dentistry on AI agents. The minutes of its Policy Committee meeting of 5 September 2024 record a presenter who advocates developing dental industry guidance on acceptable AI use. That is a committee discussion, not an adopted statement.

• Minnesota Board of Dentistry: Policy Committee minutes, meeting of 2024-09-05 (approved)“advocates for developing dental industry guidance regarding acceptable AI use”

We found no statement from the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice on AI agents. Our check was a web search, not a search of the board's own site, so this is not proof of absence.

The federal rule applies here; nothing specific to this place was found.

The ADA requires a public accommodation to provide effective real-time communication, including text telephones and FCC-approved relay systems. A clinic phone line answered by an AI agent must still work for a relay caller.

• eCFR: 28 CFR 36.303(d)(1), effective communication (current to 2026-10-16)“effective real-time communication ... including text telephones (TTYs) and all forms of FCC-approved telecommunications relay systems, including Internet-based relay systems.”