Call Recording Consent Laws by State
Call Recording Consent Laws by State
This table summarizes call recording consent requirements across all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. Recording laws fall into two categories: one-party consent (only one person on the call needs to know it is being recorded) and all-party consent (everyone on the call must be informed).
Not legal advice
This is a technical reference summary for VoIP administrators, not legal counsel. Laws change. Verify the current statute before deploying call recording in production. Consult an attorney if your business operates across state lines.
For the Asterisk implementation side, see Selective Call Recording.
Federal baseline
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2511) requires one-party consent. A recording is legal under federal law if at least one participant consents. States can (and do) impose stricter requirements.
When calls cross state lines, the stricter state's law generally applies. If you record calls from a one-party state to a two-party state, you should comply with the two-party requirement.
All-party consent states
These states require all parties on the call to consent to recording:
| State | Consent | Statute | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | All-party | Cal. Penal Code 632 | Applies to confidential communications. Criminal and civil penalties. |
| Connecticut | All-party (phone) | Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d | All-party for phone calls; one-party for in-person under criminal law. |
| Delaware | All-party | Del. Code tit. 11, 2402 | Requires consent of all parties. |
| Florida | All-party | Fla. Stat. 934.03 | Criminal offense to intercept without all-party consent. |
| Illinois | All-party | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 | Eavesdropping statute. |
| Maryland | All-party | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402 | Felony for willful interception. |
| Massachusetts | All-party | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99 | One of the strictest; requires all parties. |
| Michigan | All-party | Mich. Comp. Laws 750.539c | Consent of all parties required. |
| Montana | All-party | Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213 | Requires knowledge of all parties. |
| New Hampshire | All-party | N.H. Rev. Stat. 570-A:2 | All parties must consent. |
| Oregon | All-party (in-person) | Or. Rev. Stat. 165.540 | All-party for in-person; one-party for electronic/phone. |
| Pennsylvania | All-party | 18 Pa.C.S. 5704 | All-party consent required. |
| Washington | All-party | Wash. Rev. Code 9.73.030 | Consent of all participants. Announcement required. |
One-party consent states
All remaining states follow one-party consent. Search your state legislature's website or Justia's 50-state survey for the full text of each statute. Only one person on the call (which can be you, the person initiating the recording) needs to know the call is being recorded.
| State | Statute |
|---|---|
| Alabama | Ala. Code 13A-11-31 |
| Alaska | Alaska Stat. 42.20.310 |
| Arizona | Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-3005 |
| Arkansas | Ark. Code Ann. 5-60-120 |
| Colorado | Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-9-303 |
| District of Columbia | D.C. Code 23-542 |
| Georgia | Ga. Code Ann. 16-11-62 |
| Hawaii | Haw. Rev. Stat. 803-42 |
| Idaho | Idaho Code 18-6702 |
| Indiana | Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-4 |
| Iowa | Iowa Code 808B.2 |
| Kansas | Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6101 |
| Kentucky | Ky. Rev. Stat. 526.010 |
| Louisiana | La. Rev. Stat. 15:1303 |
| Maine | Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, 710 |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. 626A.02 |
| Mississippi | Miss. Code Ann. 41-29-531 |
| Missouri | Mo. Rev. Stat. 542.402 |
| Nebraska | Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290 |
| Nevada | Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620 |
| New Jersey | N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A-4 |
| New Mexico | N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-12-1 |
| New York | N.Y. Penal Law 250.00 |
| North Carolina | N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-287 |
| North Dakota | N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02 |
| Ohio | Ohio Rev. Code 2933.52 |
| Oklahoma | Okla. Stat. tit. 13, 176.4 |
| Rhode Island | R.I. Gen. Laws 11-35-21 |
| South Carolina | S.C. Code Ann. 17-30-30 |
| South Dakota | S.D. Codified Laws 23A-35A-20 |
| Tennessee | Tenn. Code Ann. 39-13-601 |
| Texas | Tex. Penal Code 16.02 |
| Utah | Utah Code 77-23a-4 |
| Vermont | Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, 7001 |
| Virginia | Va. Code Ann. 19.2-62 |
| West Virginia | W. Va. Code 62-1D-3 |
| Wisconsin | Wis. Stat. 968.31 |
| Wyoming | Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-3-702 |
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.
Business telephone monitoring. The federal "business extension exception" (18 U.S.C. 2510(5)(a)) allows employers to monitor business calls on company equipment in the ordinary course of business. Many states have similar provisions. This does not cover personal calls on business lines.
Implied consent. If a caller continues a conversation after hearing an automated "this call may be recorded" announcement, most courts treat that as implied consent. This is why the announcement approach is the safest default for business call recording.
These exceptions are narrow. They do not give blanket permission to record. When in doubt, announce.
Practical guidance for Asterisk admins
If your system handles calls across multiple states, the safest approach is to play an announcement on every recorded call: "This call may be recorded for quality assurance." This satisfies all-party consent requirements regardless of which state the caller is in.
In Asterisk, add this before MixMonitor():
same => n,Playback(this-call-may-be-monitored)
same => n,MixMonitor(...)
If you only operate in one-party consent states and your organization is the party initiating the recording, you do not legally need to announce. But many businesses announce anyway as a courtesy and to avoid disputes.
Sources
User Notes
Know a tip or gotcha for this topic? Share it below and help others.
Contribute a note
Share a tip, gotcha, or practical example. Keep it under 2000 characters. No questions (use the Asterisk community forums for support). Wrap code in backticks.