Call recording laws by state
Federal law and most states let a phone call be recorded when one person on the call consents. 11 states require everyone on the call to consent, and in 2 more (Delaware, Michigan) the law is unsettled. Here is the rule for phone calls in all 50 states and Washington, DC, with the statute behind each one.
Checked 2026-10-29. General information, not legal advice.
11
all-party consent states for phone calls
2
unsettled (Delaware, Michigan)
38
one-party consent states (including DC)
The two rules
One-party consent: a call can be recorded if one participant agrees. That participant can be the person recording. This is the federal rule (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). A private party may record a call it takes part in, or with one party's prior consent, unless the purpose is a criminal or tortious act. States may set stricter rules. For interstate calls, courts may apply the stricter state's law; Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006), applied California law to Georgia-recorded calls with Californians.
All-party consent:everyone on the call must agree. In practice, that is why so many business lines start with “this call may be recorded.” The all-party states for phone calls are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington. Delaware, Michigan are unsettled; see the notes below.
Calls between states
A call from an all-party state to a one-party state can fall under both laws. In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney(2006), the California Supreme Court applied California’s all-party rule to calls a Georgia office recorded with California clients. A business that answers calls from many states, as most answering services do, often uses the all-party standard everywhere.
Phone call recording consent, state by state
| State | Phone calls | Statute | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | One-party | Ala. Code §§ 13A-11-30, 13A-11-31 | |
| Alaska | One-party | Alaska Stat. § 42.20.310 | Alaska courts read the statute as aimed at third-party interception, not call participants (Palmer v. State, 1979). |
| Arizona | One-party | Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3005 | Recording by a non-party without any participant's consent is a felony; civil suits allowed under § 12-731. |
| Arkansas | One-party | Ark. Code § 5-60-120 | |
| California | All-party | Cal. Penal Code §§ 632, 632.7 | § 632 covers confidential calls; § 632.7 covers calls involving a cellular or cordless phone. Kearney (2006) applied California law to out-of-state recording of calls with Californians. |
| Colorado | One-party | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303 | |
| Connecticut | All-party | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-187, 53a-189 (criminal); § 52-570d (civil) | Criminal law is one-party, but civil liability for phone recording requires all parties' consent unless a recorded notice or warning tone is given. |
| Delaware | Unsettled | 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(4); 11 Del. C. § 2402(c)(4) | Statutes conflict: the privacy law requires all-party consent, the wiretap law allows one-party. Unsettled; reference guides treat all-party as the cautious reading. |
| District of Columbia | One-party | D.C. Code § 23-542 | Applies to cellphone calls too (Thomas v. United States, 2017). |
| Florida | All-party | Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(d) | For in-person talk, consent is needed only where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. |
| Georgia | One-party | Ga. Code §§ 16-11-62, 16-11-66(a) | |
| Hawaii | One-party | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3)(A) | Separate privacy law (§ 711-1111) requires all parties' consent for recording in private places. |
| Idaho | One-party | Idaho Code § 18-6702(2)(d) | |
| Illinois | All-party | 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a) | Amended in 2014 after court rulings; now covers private conversations and private electronic communications, meaning a reasonable expectation of privacy. Violation is a felony. |
| Indiana | One-party | Ind. Code §§ 35-33.5-1-5, 35-33.5-5-5 | Statute covers phone and electronic communications; in-person coverage is unclear. |
| Iowa | One-party | Iowa Code § 808B.2(2)(c) | |
| Kansas | One-party | Kan. Stat. § 21-6101(a)(1) | |
| Kentucky | One-party | Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 526.010, 526.020 | |
| Louisiana | One-party | La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1303(C)(4) | |
| Maine | One-party | Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 709, 710 | |
| Maryland | All-party | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402(c)(3) | Phone calls are protected regardless of expectation of privacy; violation is a felony. |
| Massachusetts | All-party | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 | Bans secret recording; recording everyone knows about is not covered (Curtatone v. Barstool Sports, 2021). |
| Michigan | Unsettled | Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 750.539a, 750.539c | Uncertain: statute text says all parties, but Sullivan v. Gray (1982) lets a participant record its own call. Michigan Supreme Court has not resolved it. |
| Minnesota | One-party | Minn. Stat. § 626A.02(2)(d) | |
| Mississippi | One-party | Miss. Code § 41-29-531(e) | |
| Missouri | One-party | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402.2(3) | |
| Montana | All-party | Mont. Code § 45-8-213(1)(c) | Bars recording without knowledge of all parties; exceptions include people given a warning of the recording (either party may then record). |
| Nebraska | One-party | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290(2)(c) | |
| Nevada | All-party | Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 200.620 (phone), 200.650 (in person) | Lane v. Allstate (1998) read § 200.620 to require all parties' consent for phone calls; in-person recording is generally one-party. |
| New Hampshire | All-party | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 570-A:2 | A participant recording without all parties' consent is a misdemeanor rather than a felony; civil suits are possible. |
| New Jersey | One-party | N.J. Stat. §§ 2A:156A-3, 2A:156A-4(d) | A 2026 bill (S1508) would make New Jersey all-party; not enacted as of this date. |
| New Mexico | One-party | N.M. Stat. § 30-12-1 | Statute refers to telephone lines; whether it reaches cellphone calls is untested. |
| New York | One-party | N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05 | |
| North Carolina | One-party | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287 | |
| North Dakota | One-party | N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02 | |
| Ohio | One-party | Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52 | |
| Oklahoma | One-party | Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.4 | |
| Oregon | One-party | Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(1)(a), (1)(c) | Phone calls are one-party. In-person conversations require that all participants be told (upheld by 9th Cir. en banc, Project Veritas v. Schmidt, 2025). |
| Pennsylvania | All-party | 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5703, 5704(4) | Phone calls are covered regardless of expectation of privacy. |
| Rhode Island | One-party | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 | |
| South Carolina | One-party | S.C. Code § 17-30-30 | |
| South Dakota | One-party | S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20 | |
| Tennessee | One-party | Tenn. Code §§ 39-13-601, 39-13-604 | |
| Texas | One-party | Tex. Penal Code § 16.02 | |
| Utah | One-party | Utah Code § 77-23a-4 | |
| Vermont | One-party | No state wiretap statute; 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) applies | Vermont has no general recording statute, so the federal one-party rule governs. State v. Geraw (2002) limits secret police recording inside homes. |
| Virginia | One-party | Va. Code § 19.2-62 | |
| Washington | All-party | Rev. Code Wash. § 9.73.030 | Consent is treated as obtained when one party announces the recording to all others in a reasonably effective way, and the announcement is recorded. |
| West Virginia | One-party | W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3 | |
| Wisconsin | One-party | Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c) | |
| Wyoming | One-party | Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-702 |
Recording law questions
In a one-party consent state, a phone call can be recorded if one person on the call agrees, and that person can be the one recording. Federal law follows the same rule (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)).
For phone calls, 11 states require the consent of everyone on the call: California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington. In Delaware, Michigan, the law is unsettled: the statutes or court rulings point both ways, and many businesses treat them as all-party. Some states have exceptions, such as a recorded announcement; see the notes in the table.
It can be both states' laws. Courts have applied the stricter state's rule to calls placed into that state; the California Supreme Court did so in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006). Many businesses that take calls from several states follow the all-party rule everywhere and tell callers the call may be recorded.
Many do. Answering365 records messages and keeps them for three months, so you can listen back to any message in that window. If you use any service that records calls, check how it tells callers about recording, especially for calls from all-party states.
No. This table is general information, checked 2026-10-29. Recording laws change and have exceptions. Ask a lawyer licensed in your state about your situation.