Identify the call and the parties
Applicable law Map the business, caller, staff and service-provider roles. Review interstate calls and any industry-specific restrictions with counsel.
US phone calls · sourced reference
Call recording laws by state:
check the rule and its limits.
Call recording rules depend on the communication, the participants and the laws that apply to the call. Federal law includes a participant-consent exception, while state laws can impose additional consent or notice requirements. Use the state table to find the cited authority, then review the full provision and applicable decisions before enabling recording. A generic announcement is not a guarantee of compliance everywhere.This is an editorial reference, not legal advice. It summarizes ordinary private phone calls, not every in-person, surveillance, workplace or regulated-industry situation. Source versions and important limitations are shown below.
Call recording law reference · Operations Live
- Inbound requestReason captured
- QualificationContext structured
- RoutingOwner selected
- Next stepMeeting bookedReady
Illustrative workflow
Review AI Transparency and Responsible Use. A related guide to check alongside this page is Data Processing Agreement.
Read the labels carefully
One-party is a starting point, not blanket permission
A one-party baseline generally means a participant can record, or authorize an interception, under the cited provision. It does not authorize secretly capturing conversations in which nobody has consented. Some provisions also exclude criminal, tortious or other injurious purposes. Equipment access, disclosure, retention and use of the resulting recording can raise separate issues.
All-party rules require closer attention to the form and timing of consent. Other statutes focus on secret interception, knowledge or a particular notification mechanism. Connecticut, Delaware and Michigan illustrate why a two-column map can be misleading. The table keeps these distinctions visible instead of treating a category as an instruction to record.
Calls can involve people in different states, remote staff and an outside service provider. Do not choose a rule solely from the business address or a phone area code. Ask qualified counsel which laws and consent process apply to your actual workflow. The AI transparency page and call-transfer guide help separate automation disclosure and handoff design from the legal decision about recording.
All states and DC
Search the phone-recording reference
Filter by state or framework, sort the state column, or print the full table. Read the linked authorities; a source-access date does not certify that no later amendment or decision exists.
Last source/editorial review: . Source and editorial review; not a legal opinion or certification of compliance. Reproductions may show the 2025 codification. Confirm current amendments and applicable case law before implementation.
Showing 51 of 51 jurisdictions. Categories summarize ordinary private business calls; exceptions and interstate rules still apply.
| State | Framework | Important limits | Statute and sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | One-party baseline | The criminal eavesdropping definition uses consent from at least one participant; review the related prohibitions. | Ala. Code §§ 13A-11-30–31Official statuteAlabama court instruction explaining §§ 13A-11-30–31 |
| Alaska | One-party baseline | The linked 2025 codification uses consent of a participant. Check amendments before relying on this baseline. | Alaska Stat. § 42.20.3102025 statute reproduction |
| Arizona | One-party baseline | The statute distinguishes wire/electronic communications and conversations. Review sender/receiver consent and the related exceptions. | Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3005Official statute |
| Arkansas | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Ark. Code § 5-60-1202025 statute reproduction |
| California | All-party consent | Section 632 covers confidential communications. Cellular and cordless calls also require review of § 632.7; do not assume a public-conversation exception resolves every call. | Cal. Penal Code §§ 632, 632.72025 statute reproduction |
| Colorado | One-party baseline | The telephone provision distinguishes a sender or intended receiver from another interceptor. Purpose and disclosure restrictions also matter. | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-3032025 statute reproduction |
| Connecticut | Context-specific | Civil phone-recording rules provide specified consent, recorded-notification or tone-warning routes. The criminal one-party rule alone does not resolve civil liability. | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570dOfficial statute |
| Delaware | Context-specific | The wiretap and privacy provisions differ. Review both § 2402 and § 1335 with counsel before relying on a one-party description. | 11 Del. C. §§ 2402, 1335Official statuteAdditional privacy provision: 11 Del. C. § 1335RCFP discussion of the conflicting provisions |
| District of Columbia | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | D.C. Code § 23-542(b)(3)Official statute |
| Florida | All-party consent | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(d)Official statute |
| Georgia | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Ga. Code § 16-11-66(a)2025 statute reproduction |
| Hawaii | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3)Official statute |
| Idaho | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Idaho Code § 18-6702(2)(d)2025 statute reproduction |
| Illinois | All-party consent | The eavesdropping offense concerns surreptitious recording of private conversations. Review privacy, notice and statutory exceptions rather than relying on a label alone. | 720 ILCS 5/14-2Official statute |
| Indiana | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Ind. Code §§ 35-31.5-2-176, 35-33.5-5-52025 statute reproduction |
| Iowa | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Iowa Code § 808B.2(2)(c)Official statute |
| Kansas | One-party baseline | Sender/receiver consent and control of the communication facilities are addressed in separate parts of the privacy statute. | Kan. Stat. § 21-6101(a)Official statute |
| Kentucky | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Ky. Rev. Stat. § 526.010Official statute |
| Louisiana | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1303(C)(4)Official statute |
| Maine | One-party baseline | The definition of interception excludes a sender/receiver and a person with prior authority from one; review the surrounding prohibitions. | Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 709(4)Official statute |
| Maryland | All-party consent | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402(c)(3)Official statute |
| Massachusetts | All-party notice/consent | The statute focuses on secret interception, with an all-party prior-authority provision. Overt recording and exceptions require separate analysis. | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99Official statute |
| Michigan | Context-specific | Sullivan v. Gray recognizes participant recording under the statutory definition. Third-party or provider recording needs careful analysis; do not infer that every interception is covered. | Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 750.539a, 750.539cOfficial statuteSullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982) |
| Minnesota | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Minn. Stat. § 626A.02, subd. 2(d)Official statute |
| Mississippi | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Miss. Code § 41-29-531(e)2025 statute reproduction |
| Missouri | One-party baseline | The private-person exception cited here addresses wire communications. Other recording and privacy rules may differ. | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402(2)(3)Official statute |
| Montana | All-party notice/consent | The hidden-device provision refers to knowledge of all participants, rather than a universal one-party rule. Review the listed exceptions. | Mont. Code § 45-8-213(1)(c)Official statute |
| Nebraska | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290(2)(c)Official statute |
| Nevada | All-party consent | Treat ordinary telephone calls as requiring all-party consent under the case law. In-person conversations follow a different provision; narrow emergency exceptions are not a general business permission. | Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620Official statuteLane v. Allstate, 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998) |
| New Hampshire | All-party consent | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 570-A:2Official statute |
| New Jersey | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | N.J. Stat. § 2A:156A-4(d)Official statute |
| New Mexico | One-party baseline | The telephone provision refers to consent of a sender or intended recipient. Other interference with equipment or communications is separately restricted. | N.M. Stat. § 30-12-12025 statute reproduction |
| New York | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00–250.05Official statute |
| North Carolina | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287Official statute |
| North Dakota | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02Official statute |
| Ohio | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52(B)(4)Official statute |
| Oklahoma | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.4(5)2025 statute reproduction |
| Oregon | One-party baseline | Telephone/telecommunication rules differ from in-person conversation rules. This table summarizes calls only; review the current statute and relevant decisions for other settings. | Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(1)(a)2025 statute reproduction |
| Pennsylvania | All-party consent | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5704(4)Official statute |
| Rhode Island | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21(c)(3)Official statute |
| South Carolina | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | S.C. Code § 17-30-30(C)Official statute |
| South Dakota | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-202025 statute reproduction |
| Tennessee | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Tenn. Code § 39-13-601(b)(5)2025 statute reproduction |
| Texas | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Tex. Penal Code § 16.02(c)(4)2025 statute reproduction |
| Utah | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Utah Code § 77-23a-4(7)(b)2025 statute reproduction |
| Vermont | Federal baseline | The RCFP guide identifies no general state recording statute. The federal baseline and other privacy or constitutional rules still matter; absence of a dedicated statute is not blanket permission. | Federal baseline: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)Federal statuteRCFP Vermont recording guide |
| Virginia | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Va. Code § 19.2-62(B)(2)Official statute |
| Washington | All-party notice/consent | Private calls generally need consent from all participants. The statute describes a recorded announcement mechanism and specific exceptions; review the exact conditions. | Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030Official statute |
| West Virginia | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3(e)Official statute |
| Wisconsin | One-party baseline | Participant consent is the statutory starting point. Separate rules can affect use or admissibility of a recording. | Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c)2025 statute reproduction |
| Wyoming | One-party baseline | The cited provision permits participant recording or prior consent from a participant, subject to its conditions and other applicable law. | Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-702(b)(iv)Official statute |
Before recording is enabled
Turn legal advice into an operational process
Approve the disclosure and consent process
Before capture Specify what is said, when recording starts and how any required consent is documented. Do not assume one sentence works for every jurisdiction or use.
Define an available alternative
Objection Confirm whether recording can be disabled in the actual setup. If not, define a lawful non-recorded route or staff callback rather than promising a control that has not been verified.
Limit what is retained and shared
Access and retention Decide the purpose, retention period, authorized users and deletion process. A lawful recording is not permission to reuse it for any purpose.
Review the whole call path
Acceptance tests Use fictional details to test the greeting, an objection, a transfer and a failed handoff. Check the saved record and staff instructions as well as what the caller hears.
How to use this reference
Keep versions and review scope visible
The table links to official statutory pages where accessible and clearly labels statutory reproductions when used. Some reproductions display the 2025 codification. Source and editorial review means the cited materials were checked for this reference; it is not a legal opinion, legal certification or promise that every later development has been incorporated. Confirm the current text before deployment.
Vermont is identified separately because the cited source guide does not identify a dedicated general state recording statute. Its row links the federal baseline and the source discussion instead of inventing a Vermont statute. Michigan includes participant-recording case law, and Nevada includes a telephone-recording decision, because statutory wording alone can omit an important part of the analysis.
You can link to this page or use the table widget with its visible credit. When citing a particular state, cite the linked legal authority as well as this summary and retain the source version. Send a correction through our contact page with the jurisdiction, citation and relevant passage. Do not include a private customer recording or sensitive case details in a general inquiry.
Review this workflow with your team.
Bring one routine request and one exception. Review existing-number forwarding where supported, plus AI transparency.
Common questions
Questions before a business records calls
No universal guarantee is made. Laws differ on consent, knowledge, notification and documentation. Have the applicable process reviewed before recording starts, and define what happens if the caller objects.
No. It summarizes a statutory baseline. The purpose, communication type, provider role, disclosure, use and other privacy obligations may affect the result.
Do not assume that. Calls can cross jurisdictions, and an area code does not establish where a person is located. Review the actual call model with qualified counsel.
Do not assume that changing the output format avoids interception, consent or privacy duties. Review what the system captures, processes and stores, including audio and transcripts.
No. A recording-law reference does not establish a healthcare compliance status, contract or product certification. Review regulated uses and the specific implementation separately.
Yes. Use the code shown with the table and retain the visible reference link and review date. The widget is a summary, and readers should consult the linked authorities.
Federal starting point
Read the underlying federal statute
Review the workflow,
including recording decisions.
Bring your approved disclosure requirements and call-routing needs. We can review the proposed setup and dependencies; legal advice about the applicable law remains with your qualified adviser.