50-state comparison
State call recording laws
State call-recording laws generally address whose consent is required before a conversation may be recorded.
The wording, exceptions and penalties vary. This comparison shows the general rule stated in each available source, along with the citation and source date.
State table
Compare state rules
The table lists all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Each available entry includes a summary, the cited wording and a link to the source.
| Alabama | We haven't added Alabama's rules on this yet. | — |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska | We haven't added Alaska's rules on this yet. | — |
| Arizona | A nonparty may intercept with consent of a sender or receiver; a party may record. “with the consent of a party to the communication” | Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-3005, 13-3012(9) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Arkansas | A recorder may be a party or have one party's prior consent. “one (1) of the parties ... has given prior consent” | Ark. Code § 5-60-120; Act 1823 of 2001 Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| California | We haven't added California's rules on this yet. | — |
| Colorado | A person who is not sender or intended receiver may record a telephone communication with consent of either sender or receiver. “without the consent of either a sender or a receiver” | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303(1)(a) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Connecticut | Criminal law is effectively one-party for calls, but § 52-570d creates civil exposure unless all parties consent or a statutory recorded verbal notification or warning tone is used. “is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication and such prior consent either is obtained in writing or is part of, and obtained at the start of, the recording” | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-187, 53a-189; 52-570d Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Delaware | The privacy statute says all parties; the wiretap statute permits a party or one party's prior consent. “without the consent of all parties thereto” | 11 Del. C. §§ 1335(a)(4), 2402(c)(4) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| District of Columbia | A private person may intercept when a party consents, absent criminal, tortious, or other injurious purpose. “one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent” | D.C. Code §§ 23-542(b)(3), 23-554 Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Florida | All parties must give prior consent to protected wire, oral, or electronic communications. “all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent” | Fla. Stat. §§ 934.02, 934.03(2)(d), 934.10 Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Georgia | A party, or a recorder with one party's prior consent, may intercept. “one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent” | O.C.G.A. §§ 16-11-62, 16-11-66(a) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Hawaii | The principal interception statute is one-party, but recording in or from a statutory private place has separate all-entitled-persons privacy limits. An ordinary remote servicing call generally follows one-party law; location facts can matter. “one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent” | Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 803-42(b)(3), 711-1111 Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Idaho | One party's prior consent generally permits private interception unless the purpose is criminal, tortious, or otherwise injurious. “one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent” | Idaho Code § 18-6702(2)(d) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Illinois | Current law targets surreptitious recording of private conversations and requires consent of all other parties when the recorder is a party. “in a surreptitious manner ... unless he or she does so with the consent of all other parties” | 720 ILCS 5/14-1, 14-2(a) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Indiana | We haven't added Indiana's rules on this yet. | — |
| Iowa | A party or recorder with one party's prior consent may intercept under chapter 808B; § 727.8 separately protects openly present participants/senders/recipients. “one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent” | Iowa Code §§ 808B.2(2)(d), 727.8 Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Kansas | The statute prohibits interception of a private message without sender or receiver consent; Kansas precedent treats this as one-party. “without the consent of the sender or receiver” | Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6101(a)(1); State v. Roudybush, 686 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1984) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Kentucky | We haven't added Kentucky's rules on this yet. | — |
| Louisiana | We haven't added Louisiana's rules on this yet. | — |
| Maine | A sender, receiver, or person with prior authority from either is outside the statutory definition of intercept; separate private-place recording law can require consent. Ordinary phone calls are one-party, but location facts matter. “A person given prior authority by the sender or receiver” | 15 Me. Rev. Stat. §§ 709(4), 710; 17-A Me. Rev. Stat. § 511 Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Maryland | A party may intercept only when all parties have given prior consent. “all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent” | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. §§ 10-402(c)(3), 10-410 Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Massachusetts | The statute punishes secret interception and defines interception to exclude recording with prior authority of all parties. “a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication” | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(B)(4), (C)(1) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Michigan | Statute says all parties, but Sullivan held a participant is not eavesdropping on the discourse 'of others.' Sullivan also distinguished using a third party. “without the consent of all parties thereto” | Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 750.539a, 750.539c; Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982) Effective: March 10, 1967 · Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Minnesota | A party or recorder with one party's prior consent may intercept unless acting for a criminal or tortious purpose. “one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent” | Minn. Stat. § 626A.02(2)(d) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Mississippi | We haven't added Mississippi's rules on this yet. | — |
| Missouri | Telephone/wire interception is permitted when the recorder is a party or one party consents, absent criminal or tortious purpose. “one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent” | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402.2(2) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Montana | Montana is an all-participant-knowledge/warning jurisdiction rather than a pure consent rule. A hidden device may not record without all parties' knowledge, and warned persons are excepted. “Subsection (1)(c) does not apply to: ... (iii) persons given warning of the transcription or recording.” | Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213(1)(c), (d) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Nebraska | A party or recorder with one party's prior consent may intercept unless acting for criminal or tortious purpose. “one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent” | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290(2)(c) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Nevada | Lane interprets § 200.620 to require consent of all parties to telephone recording, despite the statute's one-party-plus-emergency wording. “The interception ... is made with the prior consent of one of the parties” | Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 200.620, 200.650; Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| New Hampshire | Participant recording without all parties' consent is prohibited, although Locke recognizes consent may be inferred from circumstances showing knowledge. “without the consent of all parties to the communication” | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 570-A:2(I), (II)(d); State v. Locke, 761 A.2d 376 (N.H. 1999) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| New Jersey | We haven't added New Jersey's rules on this yet. | — |
| New Mexico | We haven't added New Mexico's rules on this yet. | — |
| New York | We haven't added New York's rules on this yet. | — |
| North Carolina | Willful interception without consent of at least one party is prohibited. “without the consent of at least one party to the communication” | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287(a) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| North Dakota | A party or recorder with one party's prior consent may intercept wire or oral communications, absent criminal or tortious purpose. “one of the parties to the communication had given prior consent” | N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02(3)(b) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Ohio | A party or recorder with one party's prior consent may intercept unless acting for criminal, tortious, or injurious purpose. “one of the parties to the communication has given the person prior consent” | Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52(B)(4) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Oklahoma | A party or recorder with one party's prior consent may intercept unless acting to commit a criminal act. “one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent” | 13 Okla. Stat. §§ 176.3, 176.4(5) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Oregon | Telephone/telecommunication acquisition is permitted for a participant or with one participant's consent; many in-person conversations require all participants be specifically informed. “unless consent is given by at least one participant” | Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 165.535, 165.540(1)(a), (c) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Pennsylvania | All parties must give prior consent. “all parties to the communication have given prior consent” | 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 5703, 5704(4), 5725 Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Rhode Island | A party or recorder with one party's prior consent may intercept unless acting for criminal, tortious, or injurious purpose. “one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent” | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21(c)(3) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| South Carolina | A party or recorder with one party's prior consent may intercept. “one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent” | S.C. Code §§ 17-30-20, 17-30-30(C) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| South Dakota | We haven't added South Dakota's rules on this yet. | — |
| Tennessee | A private person may intercept as a party or with one party's prior consent, absent criminal or tortious purpose; cellular recording separately requires at least one party. “one (1) of the parties ... has given prior consent” | Tenn. Code §§ 39-13-601(b)(5), 39-13-604 Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Texas | We haven't added Texas's rules on this yet. | — |
| Utah | We haven't added Utah's rules on this yet. | — |
| Vermont | We haven't added Vermont's rules on this yet. | — |
| Virginia | A party or recorder with one party's prior consent may intercept unless acting for criminal or tortious purpose. “one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent” | Va. Code § 19.2-62(B)(2) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Washington | Private calls and conversations generally require all participants' consent. The statute deems consent obtained after a reasonably effective announcement, and the announcement must itself be recorded. “consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties” | Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030 Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| West Virginia | A party or recorder with one party's prior consent may intercept unless acting for criminal or tortious purpose. “one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent” | W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3(e) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Wisconsin | A party or recorder with one party's prior consent may intercept unless acting for criminal, tortious, or injurious purpose. “one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent” | Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(b) Fetched October 7, 2026 |
| Wyoming | A party or recorder with one party's prior consent may intercept unless acting for criminal or tortious purpose. “one (1) of the parties to the communication has given prior consent” | Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-702(b)(iv) Fetched October 7, 2026 |