Call Recording Laws by State
Pick where your business is and where the caller is. See whether one-party or all-party consent applies, the line to play before recording, and the statute behind it, for all 50 states and DC.
Last updated November 12, 2026 · Free · Nothing stored
Business: Texas
One-partyTex. Penal Code § 16.02(c)(4)(opens the statute in a new tab)
What to do on this call
All-party consent governsPlay a recording notice before you record
Texas is a one-party state, but a caller can be in any state, and 11 require every party’s consent. A notice at the start of every call covers all of them.
Say this before recording
“Thanks for calling [Business name]. This call is recorded to help us serve you.”
Plays first on every inbound call. Start recording before the line plays, so the notice is on the recording too.
The statutes
General information, not legal advice. The link holds only the two states.
Call recording laws in all 50 states and DC
11 states require every party’s consent to record a phone call. 2 more, Delaware and Michigan, have laws that point both ways. The other 37 states and DC follow one-party consent. Select a state to check it.
- All-party consent
- Conflicting law
- One-party consent
- Your check
Showing 51 of 51
| Statute | What to know | Check | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | One-party | Ala. Code §§ 13A-11-30, 13A-11-31 (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Alaska | One-party | Alaska Stat. § 42.20.310 (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Arizona | One-party | Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-3005, 13-3012(9) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Arkansas | One-party | Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120(a) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| California | All-party | Cal. Penal Code §§ 632, 632.7 (opens in a new tab) | Section 632 covers confidential calls, and section 632.7 requires every party’s consent to record a call involving a cell or cordless phone whether or not it is confidential. | |
| Colorado | One-party | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303(1)(a) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Connecticut | All-party | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d (opens in a new tab) | The civil statute allows recording with every party’s consent, a verbal notice recorded at the start of the call, or a warning tone about every 15 seconds; the criminal law (§ 53a-187) needs only one party. | |
| Delaware | Conflicting | Del. Code tit. 11, § 2402(c)(4) (opens in a new tab), § 1335(a)(4) (opens in a new tab) | The wiretap law lets a party record, but the privacy law bars intercepting a telephone message without the consent of all parties, and the conflict has never been squarely resolved. | |
| District of Columbia | One-party | D.C. Code § 23-542(b)(3) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Florida | All-party | Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(d) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Georgia | One-party | Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-66(a) (opens in a new tab) | A separate section (§ 16-11-62) restricts secretly recording or watching other people in a private place. | |
| Hawaii | One-party | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3)(A) (opens in a new tab) | Installing a recording device in a private place needs the consent of the people entitled to privacy there (§ 711-1111), which is why some lists call Hawaii two-party; for phone calls, one party is enough. | |
| Idaho | One-party | Idaho Code § 18-6702(2)(d) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Illinois | All-party | 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(2) (opens in a new tab) | All-party consent applies to surreptitious recording of a private conversation, the wording adopted in 2014 after the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the broader old law. | |
| Indiana | One-party | Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-176 (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Iowa | One-party | Iowa Code § 808B.2(2)(c) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Kansas | One-party | Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6101(a)(1) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Kentucky | One-party | Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 526.010, 526.020 (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Louisiana | One-party | La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1303(C)(4) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Maine | One-party | Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 709, 710 (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Maryland | All-party | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402(c)(3) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Massachusetts | All-party | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 (opens in a new tab) | The law bans secret recording without the authority of all parties; the Supreme Judicial Court has held that recording with the other person’s actual knowledge is not secret (Commonwealth v. Jackson, 1976). | |
| Michigan | Conflicting | Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c (opens in a new tab) | The statute requires all parties’ consent to eavesdrop, but the Court of Appeals held that a participant cannot eavesdrop on their own conversation (Sullivan v. Gray, 1982), and the Michigan Supreme Court has not ruled. | |
| Minnesota | One-party | Minn. Stat. § 626A.02, subd. 2(d) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Mississippi | One-party | Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-531(e) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Missouri | One-party | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402.2(3) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Montana | All-party | Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213(1)(c) (opens in a new tab) | The ban is on recording with a hidden device without the knowledge of all parties; it does not apply to people given warning of the recording, and once one person gives the warning, either party may record. | |
| Nebraska | One-party | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290(2)(c) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Nevada | All-party | Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620 (opens in a new tab) | The statute pairs one party’s consent with an emergency and court ratification, and the Nevada Supreme Court held it bars taping phone calls with only one party’s consent (Lane v. Allstate, 1998); in-person talks fall under § 200.650 instead. | |
| New Hampshire | All-party | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:2 (opens in a new tab) | A party who records without everyone’s consent commits a misdemeanor rather than a felony, but it is still an offense. | |
| New Jersey | One-party | N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:156A-4(d) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| New Mexico | One-party | N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1(C) (opens in a new tab) | The offense is reading or copying a phone message without the consent of a sender or intended recipient, so a party’s own consent covers it, though no recent appellate case squarely addresses a private party recording a call. | |
| New York | One-party | N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05 (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| North Carolina | One-party | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287(a) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| North Dakota | One-party | N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02(3)(c) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Ohio | One-party | Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52(B)(4) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Oklahoma | One-party | Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.4(5) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Oregon | One-party | Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(1)(a) (opens in a new tab) | Phone calls need one participant’s consent, but recording an in-person conversation requires that all participants be told (§ 165.540(1)(c)). | |
| Pennsylvania | All-party | 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5704(4) (opens in a new tab) | A narrow exception (§ 5704(15)) lets telephone marketing and customer-service businesses record on one party’s consent, only for training or quality control, and destroy the recordings within a year. | |
| Rhode Island | One-party | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21(c)(3) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| South Carolina | One-party | S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-30(C) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| South Dakota | One-party | S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20 (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Tennessee | One-party | Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601(b)(5) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Texas | One-party | Tex. Penal Code § 16.02(c)(4) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Utah | One-party | Utah Code § 77-23a-4(7)(b) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Vermont | One-party | No state statute; 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) applies (opens in a new tab) | Vermont has no statute on recording phone calls, so the federal one-party rule applies. | |
| Virginia | One-party | Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-62(B)(2) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Washington | All-party | Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030 (opens in a new tab) | Consent counts as obtained once one party announces the recording to everyone in a reasonably effective way, and the announcement must itself be recorded (§ 9.73.030(3)). | |
| West Virginia | One-party | W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3(e) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Wisconsin | One-party | Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. | |
| Wyoming | One-party | Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-3-702(b)(iv) (opens in a new tab) | No special conditions for phone calls. |
Where a state’s official code site cannot be linked to a single section, the statute link goes to FindLaw’s copy. Laws change, so open the statute before relying on a row.
Which states require all-party consent to record a call?
Eleven states require every party’s consent to record a phone call: California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Delaware and Michigan have laws that point both ways, so treat them as all-party. The other 37 states and DC allow one-party consent, like federal law. On a call between a one-party and an all-party state, follow the stricter rule: tell the caller the call is recorded before recording starts.
Each state’s rule was read from its statute, linked in the table, mostly on the state legislature’s own site. The federal rule is 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). Where courts changed the reading, the case is named: Lane v. Allstate for Nevada, Sullivan v. Gray for Michigan, and Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney from the California Supreme Court for calls across state lines.
Which states are two-party (all-party) consent states?
11 states require every party’s consent, or a clear notice, before a phone call is recorded: California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. “Two-party” is the older name; the statutes say all parties, so a three-way call needs all three.
California
Connecticut
Florida
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington
Why some lists say 11, 12 or 13
The disagreement comes from 2 states whose own laws point both ways, Delaware and Michigan, and from a few states with a different rule for in-person conversations than for calls. This page counts a state as all-party only when the statute or the state’s highest court says so for phone calls, and marks Delaware and Michigan as conflicting. For a business, the practical answer is the same: play a notice.
| State | Rule here | Why lists differ |
|---|---|---|
| Delaware | Conflicting | Counted as all-party by lists that read the privacy statute, one-party by lists that read the wiretap law. |
| Michigan | Conflicting | Counted as all-party by lists that read the statute, one-party by lists that follow the courts. |
| Nevada | All-party | Sometimes listed as one-party because the statute mentions one party’s consent; the Nevada Supreme Court reads it as all-party for phone calls. |
| Oregon | One-party | Sometimes listed as all-party because in-person recording needs everyone told; phone calls need one participant. |
| Hawaii | One-party | Sometimes listed as two-party because of the private-place device rule; phone calls need one party. |
One-party consent states
In 37 states and the District of Columbia, a person on the call can record it without telling anyone else, as long as the recording is not made to commit a crime or tort. Most of these statutes copy the federal wording; Vermont has no statute, so federal law sets the rule there.
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- Colorado
- District of Columbia
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Nebraska
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
One-party consent decides whether you may record. It does not decide whether the caller is in one of the 11 all-party states, which is why businesses in one-party states still announce recording.
Federal call recording law
The federal Wiretap Act makes it lawful for a person who is a party to a call, or who has one party’s prior consent, to record it, unless the recording is made to commit a criminal or tortious act. That is 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d).
Federal law is the floor. A state can require more, and the 11 all-party states do. Following the federal rule alone does not protect a recording that a state law forbids.
The rule in one line
Federal: one party’s consent. Strictest states: every party’s consent. On a call between the two, plan for the stricter one.
- All-party states
- 11
- Conflicting
- 2
- One-party, incl. DC
- 38
Recording calls across state lines
There is no single federal rule for which state’s law applies when the business and the caller are in different states. Courts decide it case by case, and they have not always agreed.
CALIFORNIA, 2006
The caller’s state applied
In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, a brokerage recorded calls in Georgia, a one-party state, with clients in California. The California Supreme Court held that Cal. Penal Code § 632 applies to such calls. It allowed an injunction against future recording but no damages for past calls, and it said a business that tells all parties at the outset of the call would not violate the statute.
NEVADA, 2017
The recorder’s state applied
In Ditech Financial v. Buckles, the Nevada Supreme Court held that Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620 does not apply when the recording takes place outside Nevada, even if the other person is a Nevada resident.
Because the answer can turn on which court hears the case, the safe practice is to follow the stricter of the two states. Most businesses cannot know where a caller is, since a mobile number keeps its area code when people move or travel, so the simplest way to follow the stricter rule is to announce recording on every call.
How businesses and AI receptionists handle consent
The common approach is a short notice at the very start of the call, before the caller shares anything, with the recording already running so the notice is captured. Several all-party statutes and courts treat a clear notice, followed by the caller staying on the line, as enough:
- Washington treats consent as obtained once one party announces the recording to everyone in a reasonably effective way, and requires the announcement itself to be recorded (Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(3)).
- Connecticut allows recording that is preceded by a verbal notice recorded at the beginning of the call (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d).
- Montana exempts people given warning of the recording (Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213(2)).
- California’s Supreme Court said in Kearney that a business which adequately advises all parties at the outset of the call would not violate Cal. Penal Code § 632.
- Pennsylvania has a narrow exception for telephone customer-service and marketing businesses that record on one party’s consent for training or quality control only (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5704(15)).
Not every state spells this out, and the rules above describe a notice given on the call itself, so say it on the call, in plain words. When you call a client back, ask and wait for a yes. If a caller objects, offer to continue without recording or to have a person call back.
01
Put the notice in your greeting
The first thing every caller hears is the easiest place for one sentence about recording. Write the greeting and the notice together so the wording matches.
Write a voicemail greeting →02
Check how your AI receptionist opens the call
If an AI receptionist answers and the call is recorded, its opening line is your notice. Make it say so before the caller gives any details.
See the AI receptionist →03
Cover after-hours calls the same way
An after-hours service answering from another state is still on the same call. The notice should play on those calls too.
After-hours answering →
What this page does not cover
- It covers state and federal laws on recording phone calls. It does not cover video, workplace monitoring policies, or rules on how long recordings are kept and who may hear them.
- Several states have separate rules for in-person conversations, such as Oregon, or for hidden devices in private places, such as Hawaii and Kansas.
- It counts Delaware and Michigan as conflicting rather than forcing a label. If you record calls there, treat them as all-party.
- This is general information, not legal advice. Laws and court rulings change; for a specific situation, ask a lawyer licensed in the states involved.
How to check the call recording law for a call
01
Pick your state and the caller’s
Choose where your business answers the phone, then where the caller is. If you cannot know where callers are, keep “Not sure”.
02
Read which rule governs
The result shows whether one-party or all-party consent applies, follows the stricter state on a call between two states, and links each statute.
03
Copy the disclosure line
Pick the phone greeting, AI receptionist or callback version, add your business name, and copy the line to play before recording starts.
Common questions
How many states are two-party consent states?
Eleven states require all-party consent to record a phone call: California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Lists that say 12 or 13 add Delaware and Michigan, whose laws point both ways: Delaware’s privacy statute conflicts with its wiretap law, and Michigan’s statute says all parties while its courts allow a participant to record.
What is a one-party consent state?
In a one-party consent state, a person on the call can record it without telling the others, as long as the recording is not made to commit a crime or tort. 37 states and DC follow this rule, the same as federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d).
Is it legal to record a phone call without telling the other person?
Only if every state involved allows one-party consent and you are on the call. If the caller is in one of the 11 all-party states, recording without consent or notice can break that state’s law. Because a business rarely knows where a caller is, the safe practice is to announce recording on every call.
Which law applies when the caller is in another state?
There is no single rule. California’s Supreme Court applied California law to calls a Georgia office recorded with California clients (Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 2006), while Nevada’s Supreme Court held its statute does not reach recordings made outside Nevada (Ditech v. Buckles, 2017). Follow the stricter state’s rule.
Is California a two-party consent state?
Yes. California Penal Code section 632 bars recording a confidential communication without the consent of all parties, and section 632.7 requires all parties’ consent to record calls involving a cell or cordless phone, whether or not the call is confidential. A notice at the start of the call is the usual way to meet it.
Are Florida, Texas and New York one-party or two-party states?
Florida is all-party: Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(d) requires all parties’ prior consent. Texas is one-party under Tex. Penal Code § 16.02(c)(4), and New York is one-party under N.Y. Penal Law § 250.00. A Texas or New York business calling a Florida client should still give notice.
Does an AI receptionist have to say the call is recorded?
If the AI receptionist records calls and any caller could be in an all-party state, it should say so at the start, before the caller shares details. Washington treats an announcement that is itself recorded as consent, and Connecticut allows a recorded verbal notice at the beginning of the call.
Is “this call may be recorded” enough?
A clear notice at the start of the call, with the caller choosing to stay on the line, is how most businesses handle it, and California’s Supreme Court said advising all parties at the outset avoids a violation. Saying the call is recorded, not that it may be, is plainer. This is general information, not legal advice.
Related
See it against your book
Hear how the call opens before you switch anything on.
On a 30-minute demo we show the front-desk agent answering and booking into the calendar you already use. Ask exactly what it says first, so the opening matches the notice your states need, and we will tell you plainly if your call volume is too low for it to be worth paying for.