Call Recording Consent Laws by State

This reference summarizes US call-recording consent rules for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Recording laws are not always accurately described by the labels one-party consent and all-party consent. Some states have different rules for telephone calls, in-person conversations, and electronic communications. Others depend on statutory definitions, reasonable expectations of privacy, announcement procedures, or case law. All-party consent is also commonly called two-party consent, although all-party is more precise for conferences and multi-party calls.

Last reviewed: July 30, 2026

For the Asterisk implementation side, see Selective Call Recording.

Federal baseline

The federal Wiretap Act generally permits a private person to record a wire, oral, or electronic communication when that person is a party to the communication or when one party has given prior consent. Federal law does not permit recording for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. 18 U.S.C. § 2511

Federal law is a one-party-consent baseline. States may impose stricter requirements, and a recording that is lawful under federal law may still violate state law.

Federal law does not provide a blanket employer authorization to monitor every call made on company equipment. The federal definitions contain provider and subscriber-equipment provisions, but employee-monitoring statutes and state privacy laws may impose separate notice or consent requirements. Treat employee and customer monitoring as separate compliance questions.

Interstate calls

When participants are in different states, courts do not apply one universally settled conflict-of-laws rule to every recording. Some decisions focus on where the recording device or interception occurred. Others consider the location of the participants or the state with the strongest relationship to the communication.

As a risk-minimizing operational policy:

• Determine the locations of all participants when reasonably possible.
• Apply the strictest plausible consent requirement.
• Announce the recording clearly to every participant.
• Obtain affirmative consent when a participant may be in an all-party or legally disputed jurisdiction.
• Keep evidence of the announcement and any consent response.

A phone number's area code does not reliably identify the participant's physical location.

If one participant is outside the United States, foreign privacy and recording laws may also apply. GDPR applicability depends on the organizations, processing activities, and territorial scope involved. The presence of an EU participant does not by itself answer whether GDPR applies.

Consent, notice, and privacy

Consent requirements are not identical to notice requirements.

• One-party consent generally means one participant must authorize the recording.
• All-party consent generally means every participant whose private communication is recorded must consent.
• Notice means telling participants that recording is about to occur.
• Announcement-based consent is a jurisdiction-specific rule under which a clear announcement, followed by continued participation, may establish consent.
• Expectation of privacy can limit a statute to private or confidential communications rather than public conversations.

A generic announcement is not guaranteed to satisfy every jurisdiction. When in doubt, use a clear announcement that identifies the recording and its purpose, give participants an opportunity to object, and stop recording if consent is refused.

Strict or generally all-party telephone states

The following jurisdictions generally require consent from all participants for private telephone calls, subject to statutory exceptions, privacy expectations, and case law. Delaware and Michigan are legally disputed and are included here because an all-party operational policy is the safer default:

Hybrid, disputed, or communication-specific jurisdictions

Some jurisdictions cannot be accurately summarized by a single label:

Nevada deserves special care. Its statutes and case law have been discussed differently for telephone and in-person recordings. Michigan also deserves special care because its statute expressly refers to consent of all parties, while courts have recognized a participant exception in some contexts.

One-party consent states

The following jurisdictions generally permit a participant to record a private telephone call when that participant consents, subject to privacy expectations, statutory exceptions, criminal or tortious-purpose restrictions, and case law.

This classification is a technical starting point, not a substitute for checking the current statute and controlling decisions. A one-party telephone rule may not authorize recording an in-person conversation, a private-place conversation, or a communication made for a criminal or tortious purpose.

Recent developments

These state-level changes are pending or were recently considered. No state changed its consent classification in 2025 or 2026.

New York (pending): Senate Bill S5077, introduced February 2025, would amend the penal law definition of wiretapping to require consent of all parties rather than just one. As of mid-2026 the bill remains in the Senate Codes Committee and has not advanced. If enacted, New York would shift from one-party to all-party consent.

Maryland (no change): In 2025 the Maryland House Judiciary Committee held hearings on whether to narrow the state's all-party consent requirement, including proposed exemptions for fair housing investigations and certain evidentiary contexts. No legislation passed. Maryland remains an all-party consent state under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402.

Common exceptions

Most state wiretapping statutes include exceptions where recording is permitted regardless of consent requirements:

Law enforcement. Courts can authorize wiretaps for criminal investigations. This does not apply to private businesses.

Personal safety. Several states allow recording without consent when a participant reasonably believes the recording is necessary to document a crime being committed against them, including threats, extortion, harassment, or blackmail. California (Penal Code 633.5), Florida (934.03(2)(c)), and Illinois (720 ILCS 5/14-3) have explicit personal safety exceptions.

Extortion and criminal activity. Recording someone who is committing extortion, bribery, kidnapping, or other felonies is generally permitted even in all-party consent states. The recording party must be a victim or witness to the crime, not a third party.

Emergency services. 911 calls and emergency dispatch recordings are typically exempt from consent requirements under both federal and state law.

Employee monitoring. Federal provider and subscriber-equipment definitions are not a blanket authorization for employers to monitor every call made on company equipment. State employee-monitoring laws may require advance notice, written policies, or electronic acknowledgment. Delaware, for example, has a separate employee-monitoring notice statute. This does not cover personal calls on business lines.

Implied consent. Continuing after a clear announcement may establish consent in some jurisdictions, but not all. Announcement procedures, express-consent requirements, and the opportunity to object vary.

These exceptions are narrow. They do not give blanket permission to record. When in doubt, announce clearly, provide an opportunity to object, and stop recording if consent is refused.

Other federal compliance layers

State wiretap consent is one layer; it is not the only federal or regulatory requirement that may apply.

TCPA (47 U.S.C. 227). The Telephone Consumer Protection Act governs outbound auto-dialed calls and prerecorded messages with its own consent requirements, entirely separate from wiretap law. Complying with state recording consent does not satisfy TCPA, and vice versa. If your Asterisk system runs outbound campaigns using an auto-dialer or predictive dialer, TCPA applies regardless of whether you record the calls.

HIPAA. Healthcare organizations have additional obligations under HIPAA's Security Rule when recording calls that contain protected health information. State wiretap consent does not substitute for HIPAA's access control, minimum necessary, and audit trail requirements.

Practical guidance for Asterisk admins

For systems that handle interstate calls or cannot reliably determine participant locations, the safest default is:

1. Announce recording clearly to every participant before recording begins.
2. Identify the purpose, such as quality assurance, training, security, or compliance.
3. Give participants a meaningful opportunity to object or end the call.
4. Do not record if required consent is refused.
5. Store the announcement version, timestamp, call identifier, and consent result.
6. Apply a documented retention and deletion policy.
7. Restrict access to recordings and audit access.
8. Encrypt recordings in transit and at rest.

Announcement and MixMonitor

The following simplified pattern answers the channel before playing an announcement and starts recording afterward:

same => n,Answer()
same => n,Playback(this-call-may-be-monitored)
same => n,MixMonitor(${UNIQUEID}.wav,b)
same => n,Dial(PJSIP/100)
same => n,StopMixMonitor()

This example is not sufficient for every call flow. MixMonitor() does not automatically answer the channel, and Playback() plays on the current channel. In an outbound call, an announcement played before Dial() may be heard by the caller but not by the called party.

To notify the called party, use a called-channel Gosub or an equivalent Dial() strategy. Test the announcement with both call legs, transfers, queues, conferences, and early media. The announcement itself may or may not need to be included in the recording, depending on the evidence and retention policy.

Asterisk MixMonitor documentation notes that the application does not automatically answer the channel. Gosub documentation describes running a subroutine on the called party's channel.

Recording controls

Document and test how recording behaves when:

• A call is transferred
• A call enters or leaves a queue
• A participant is added to a conference
• A participant is placed on hold
• A call is bridged to another provider
• Recording is paused for payment or sensitive information
• A participant refuses consent
• The announcement fails to play
• The recording service or storage system is unavailable

A fail-safe policy should prevent recording when the required notice or consent workflow cannot be completed.

Sources

• Justia 50-State Survey: Recording Phone Calls
• 18 U.S.C. 2511 (Federal Wiretap Act)
• 47 U.S.C. 227 (TCPA)
• Delaware employee monitoring law
• Asterisk MixMonitor documentation
• Asterisk Gosub documentation