Delaware
Phone calls: Unsettled11 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.
By Answering365 · Published November 12, 2026 · Data: state statutes, case law and the RCFP Reporter's Recording Guide (checked October 29, 2026); U.S. Census Bureau population estimates, July 1, 2025
More than one in three U.S. residents, 119.5 million people or 35.0%, live in one of the 11 states where recording a phone call takes the consent of everyone on the call (population as of July 1, 2025). Counting Delaware and Michigan, where the law is unsettled, the share is 38.3%.
Phone-call rule in each state and Washington, DC, checked October 29, 2026. Each square is one state. The full list with statutes is in the table below.
| Phone-call rule | States (incl. DC) | Share of states | Residents, July 1, 2025 | Share of residents |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All-party | 11 | 21.6% | 119,547,571 | 35.0% |
| Unsettled | 2 | 3.9% | 11,187,836 | 3.3% |
| One-party | 38 | 74.5% | 211,049,450 | 61.7% |
| United States | 51 | 341,784,857 |
Two states are unsettled, two split their rules between phone calls and in-person talk, one has the reverse split, and one has a bill pending. These notes are from our law table as checked October 29, 2026.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
The phone-call rule and statute for each state, with its population. For the notes on every state, see call recording laws by state.
| State | Phone calls | Statute | Residents, July 1, 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | One-party | Ala. Code §§ 13A-11-30, 13A-11-31 | 5,193,088 |
| Alaska | One-party | Alaska Stat. § 42.20.310 | 737,270 |
| Arizona | One-party | Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3005 | 7,623,818 |
| Arkansas | One-party | Ark. Code § 5-60-120 | 3,114,791 |
| California | All-party | Cal. Penal Code §§ 632, 632.7 | 39,355,309 |
| Colorado | One-party | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303 | 6,012,561 |
| Connecticut | All-party | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-187, 53a-189 (criminal); § 52-570d (civil) | 3,688,496 |
| Delaware | Unsettled | 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(4); 11 Del. C. § 2402(c)(4) | 1,059,952 |
| District of Columbia | One-party | D.C. Code § 23-542 | 693,645 |
| Florida | All-party | Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(d) | 23,462,518 |
| Georgia | One-party | Ga. Code §§ 16-11-62, 16-11-66(a) | 11,302,748 |
| Hawaii | One-party | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3)(A) | 1,432,820 |
| Idaho | One-party | Idaho Code § 18-6702(2)(d) | 2,029,733 |
| Illinois | All-party | 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a) | 12,719,141 |
| Indiana | One-party | Ind. Code §§ 35-33.5-1-5, 35-33.5-5-5 | 6,973,333 |
| Iowa | One-party | Iowa Code § 808B.2(2)(c) | 3,238,387 |
| Kansas | One-party | Kan. Stat. § 21-6101(a)(1) | 2,977,220 |
| Kentucky | One-party | Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 526.010, 526.020 | 4,606,864 |
| Louisiana | One-party | La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1303(C)(4) | 4,618,189 |
| Maine | One-party | Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 709, 710 | 1,414,874 |
| Maryland | All-party | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402(c)(3) | 6,265,347 |
| Massachusetts | All-party | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 | 7,154,084 |
| Michigan | Unsettled | Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 750.539a, 750.539c | 10,127,884 |
| Minnesota | One-party | Minn. Stat. § 626A.02(2)(d) | 5,830,405 |
| Mississippi | One-party | Miss. Code § 41-29-531(e) | 2,954,160 |
| Missouri | One-party | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402.2(3) | 6,270,541 |
| Montana | All-party | Mont. Code § 45-8-213(1)(c) | 1,144,694 |
| Nebraska | One-party | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290(2)(c) | 2,018,006 |
| Nevada | All-party | Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 200.620 (phone), 200.650 (in person) | 3,282,188 |
| New Hampshire | All-party | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 570-A:2 | 1,415,342 |
| New Jersey | One-party | N.J. Stat. §§ 2A:156A-3, 2A:156A-4(d) | 9,548,215 |
| New Mexico | One-party | N.M. Stat. § 30-12-1 | 2,125,498 |
| New York | One-party | N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05 | 20,002,427 |
| North Carolina | One-party | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287 | 11,197,968 |
| North Dakota | One-party | N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02 | 799,358 |
| Ohio | One-party | Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52 | 11,900,510 |
| Oklahoma | One-party | Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.4 | 4,123,288 |
| Oregon | One-party | Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(1)(a), (1)(c) | 4,273,586 |
| Pennsylvania | All-party | 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5703, 5704(4) | 13,059,432 |
| Rhode Island | One-party | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 | 1,114,521 |
| South Carolina | One-party | S.C. Code § 17-30-30 | 5,570,274 |
| South Dakota | One-party | S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20 | 935,094 |
| Tennessee | One-party | Tenn. Code §§ 39-13-601, 39-13-604 | 7,315,076 |
| Texas | One-party | Tex. Penal Code § 16.02 | 31,709,821 |
| Utah | One-party | Utah Code § 77-23a-4 | 3,538,904 |
| Vermont | One-party | No state wiretap statute; 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) applies | 644,663 |
| Virginia | One-party | Va. Code § 19.2-62 | 8,880,107 |
| Washington | All-party | Rev. Code Wash. § 9.73.030 | 8,001,020 |
| West Virginia | One-party | W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3 | 1,766,147 |
| Wisconsin | One-party | Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c) | 5,972,787 |
| Wyoming | One-party | Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-702 | 588,753 |
This dataset is general information, not legal advice. Ask a lawyer licensed in your state about your situation.
Our law table classifies each state by the rule that applies when a participant records a phone call: one-party (one person on the call may consent, as under federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)), all-party (everyone on the call must consent) or unsettled (statutes or court rulings conflict). It was compiled from the state statutes, the court decisions that interpret them and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) Reporter’s Recording Guide, and checked on October 29, 2026. Where a state has different rules for phone calls and in-person conversations, the phone-call rule is used.
Population is the Census Bureau’s Vintage 2025 resident population estimate for July 1, 2025. We added up the residents of the states in each group and divided by the U.S. total (341,784,857, the sum of the 50 states and DC).
Before publishing we re-read the RCFP guide’s summary for every state and the official statute text for the all-party states whose legislature websites serve it, and checked every population figure against the Census Bureau’s published table. We plan a full recheck of every state each year; the next is due by October 2027.
Statute and case citations for each state are in the CSV and on the full table, each with its source link.
Answering365. (2026). Call Recording Consent Laws: A 50-State Dataset. Answering365 Research. https://answering365.com/research/call-recording-consent-laws-dataset/
Download the data: call-recording-consent-laws-dataset.csv. Free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 with credit to Answering365 and a link to this page.
Recording is one of the things to settle before calls go live. The buyer’s guide covers the rest.