Check your state's rule before your business records a phone call. Each state links to its official source, quotes the key words and shows the date we checked it. Not legal advice.
Check your state's rule before your business records a phone call. Each state links to its official source, quotes the key words and shows the date we checked it. Not legal advice.
Step 1
Know which rule applies to your call
In a one-party state, a person on the call can record it. In an all-party state, everyone on the call has to agree, and some of those states accept a clear announcement or warning tone. Where the answer depends on the facts, the state's row explains why.
Tell callers the call is recorded, even in a one-party state.
When callers are in different states, many businesses follow the stricter rule.
Read the quoted source text before you rely on a summary.
Step 2
Recording consent is not consent to call
These rules cover recording a call you take part in. They do not decide whether you may place the call. Calls that use an AI or prerecorded voice have their own federal consent, identification and opt-out rules.
Check calling consent separately from recording consent.
Federal rules treat an AI-generated voice as an artificial voice.
Workplace, health and other industry rules can add duties.
Questions
Before you hand this off
Is this legal advice?
No. It is a dated summary that links each state's official source. Laws and court rulings change. Ask a lawyer licensed in your state before you rely on it.
How was each state checked?
On October 10, 2026, TeamShift checked every row against official sources with an automated research pass, then fetched each source again to match the quoted words. Most rows quote the state statute; a few quote the official act, agency rule, court decision or federal law that sets the rule. No lawyer has reviewed the table.
Can I download the table?
Yes. The CSV and JSON files hold the same rows as this page, with the citation, source link, quote and check date for each state.
TeamShift checked every row against official sources on 2026-10-10 with an automated research pass. Most rows quote the state statute; a few quote the official act, agency rule, court decision or federal law that sets the rule. Each row links its source. No lawyer has reviewed this table.
Not legal advice. These summaries cover a person recording a private phone call they take part in. Rules for in-person talks, recording calls you are not on, calls across state lines and how a recording may be used can differ.
AlabamaDepends on the facts · Ala. Code §§ 13A-11-30(1), 13A-11-31; Ala. Admin. Code r. 770-X-5-.11
Alabama's criminal law lets a person on a call record it. A Public Service Commission rule also says the public phone network may not be used to record a call unless everyone gives express consent or hears a notice.
…All the parties to the conversation give their express prior consent to the monitoring or recording, or 2. When notice…
The rule accepts a repeating warning tone, a spoken announcement or a marked phone as notice. It names no penalty, and how far it binds private callers is unsettled.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
AlaskaOne party · Alaska Stat. § 42.20.310(a)(1), (b)
Alaska's eavesdropping law applies only when no party to the conversation consents, so a person on a phone call may record it.
…record all or any part of an oral conversation without the consent of a party to the conversation…
This covers private callers. Police recording, and the use of recordings someone else made illegally, follow separate rules.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
ArizonaOne party · Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-3005(A)(1), 13-3012(9)
Arizona only bars recording by someone who is not on the call and has no consent from either side. A person on the call may record it, and anyone may record with one party's consent.
…if the interception is effected with the consent of a party to the communication or a person who is present…
The rule covers landline, cell and other wireless calls. Federal law still forbids recording a call to commit a crime or tort.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
CaliforniaAll parties · Cal. Penal Code §§ 632(a), 632.7(a); Smith v. LoanMe, Inc., 11 Cal.5th 183 (2021)
California requires every party's consent. Section 632.7 bars recording a call that involves a cell or cordless phone without everyone's consent, even by someone on the call, and § 632 does the same for any confidential call.
Every person who, without the consent of all of the parties to a communication, intercepts or receives and intentionally records…
Section 632 turns on whether the conversation is confidential; § 632.7 applies to cell and cordless calls either way. The California Supreme Court applied § 632.7 to people on the call in Smith v. LoanMe (2021).
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
ColoradoOne party · Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303(1); § 18-9-304
Colorado's wiretapping crime covers only someone who is not on the call and records it without either side's consent. A person on the call may record it.
…records a telephone, telegraph, or electronic communication without the consent of either a sender or a receiver thereof…
To record a private phone call, you need everyone's consent (in writing or recorded at the start of the call), a recorded announcement at the start, or a repeating warning tone.
…or (2) is preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning and is part of the communication…
A separate privacy law (11 Del. C. § 1335) requires all parties' consent, but it gives way to recording that is "authorized by law". No Delaware court ruling on how the two laws fit together was checked.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
District of ColumbiaOne party · D.C. Code § 23-542(b)(3)
A private person on the call, or with one party's prior consent, may record it unless the purpose is a crime, a tort or another injurious act.
…a party to the communication, or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent…
In-person conversations are protected only when people reasonably expect privacy. The law's narrow exceptions mostly cover police and phone companies, so they don't help a business that records its own calls.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
GeorgiaOne party · O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66(a); State v. Cohen, S17A1265 (Nov. 2, 2017)
Georgia's interception ban does not apply to a person on the call, or to someone with one party's prior consent.
…such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent…
The quote comes from a 2017 Georgia Supreme Court opinion that quotes the statute; the same words appear in the current official code. Another part of the section covers recording calls with a child under 18.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
HawaiiOne party · Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3)(A)
A private person on the call, or with one party's prior consent, may record it unless the purpose is a crime or tort.
…a party to the communication or when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent…
It covers only secret recording of private conversations, where people reasonably expect privacy.
Effective date
2016-01-01
IndianaOne party · Ind. Code §§ 35-31.5-2-176, 35-33.5-5-5
Indiana's interception crime reaches only recording by someone who is neither sender nor receiver and has no consent from either. A person on the call may record it or let someone else do so.
…by a person other than a sender or receiver of that communication, without the consent of the sender or receiver…
Putting a recording device on someone else's line also needs consent from whoever controls that line. Recording sound in a private place has its own rules.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
KentuckyOne party · KRS §§ 526.010–526.020
Kentucky's eavesdropping crime covers recording someone else's call or conversation without at least one party's consent. A person on the call may record it.
…any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto…
MaineOne party · 15 M.R.S. §§ 709(4)(A), (C), 710(1)
Maine's crime covers only interception, and recording by the sender or receiver of a call, or by someone either one authorized, does not count as interception. A person on the call may record it.
…intercepting device by any person other than: A. The sender or receiver of that communication;
Telling everyone on the call that it is being recorded keeps the recording from being secret. People harmed by an illegal recording can also sue.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
MichiganOne party · MCL §§ 750.539a(2), 750.539c; Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982); Lewis v. LeGrow, 258 Mich. App. 175 (2003); Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022)
Michigan's eavesdropping law covers recording the private conversations "of others". State appeals courts read that to let a person on the call record it, but someone who is not on the call needs everyone's consent.
…any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse.
This rests on Court of Appeals decisions (Sullivan v. Gray, Lewis v. LeGrow), which a federal appeals court followed in Fisher v. Perron (2022). The Michigan Supreme Court has not decided the question.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
MinnesotaOne party · Minn. Stat. § 626A.02, subd. 2(d)
A private person on the call, or with one party's prior consent, may record it unless the purpose is a crime or tort.
…a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent…
MississippiOne party · Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-531(e)
Mississippi's wiretap law does not apply to a private person who is on the call or has one party's prior consent, unless the recording is meant to commit a crime, a tort or another injurious act.
…a party to the communication, or if one (1) of the parties to the communication has given prior consent…
Mississippi's compiled code is published only by LexisNexis, so the quote comes from the official 2004 act that re-enacted this section. A 2006 law removed its expiration date; the current wording was compared with an unofficial copy.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
MissouriOne party · Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402.2(3)
A private person on the call, or with one party's prior consent, may record it unless the purpose is a crime or tort.
…a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent…
This exception is written for phone calls. In-person recording falls under other rules.
Effective date
2017-01-01
MontanaAll parties · Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213(1)(c), (2)(a)(iii)
Recording a conversation with a hidden device needs everyone's knowledge. Once anyone on the call warns that it is being recorded, either party may record.
…a hidden electronic or mechanical device that reproduces a human conversation without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation…
Employers who monitor calls at work have separate notice and purpose conditions.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
NevadaAll parties · NRS 200.620(1), 200.690; Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998); Ditech Fin. LLC v. Buckles, 133 Nev. 493, 401 P.3d 215 (2017)
Nevada requires every party's consent to record a phone call. The statute allows one-party consent only in an emergency with later court approval, and the Nevada Supreme Court has held one-party taping unlawful.
…prior consent of one of the parties to the communication; and (b) An emergency situation exists…
The rule comes from Lane v. Allstate (1998) and Ditech v. Buckles (2017). Ditech held that the law does not reach recordings made outside Nevada. In-person conversations follow a separate rule (NRS 200.650).
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
New HampshireAll parties · N.H. RSA § 570-A:2(I), (I-a)
New Hampshire requires every party's consent. A person on the call who records it without everyone's consent commits a misdemeanor, and other recording without all-party consent is a felony.
…without consent of all parties to the communication, the person knowingly intercepts a telecommunication or oral communication…
Narrow exceptions cover approved official investigations. People harmed by an illegal recording can also sue.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
New JerseyOne party · N.J.S.A. § 2A:156A-4(d)
A private person on the call, or with one party's prior consent, may record it unless it is made or used for a crime, a tort or another injurious purpose.
…such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent…
This section is written for telephone and telegraph messages. Federal law still forbids recording a call to commit a crime or tort.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
New YorkOne party · N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00(1)–(2), 250.05
New York defines wiretapping as recording a call by someone who is neither sender nor receiver and has neither one's consent. A person on the call may record it.
…by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver…
Sharing or using a recording that someone else made illegally is a separate offense.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
North DakotaOne party · N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02(3)(c)
It is a defense to North Dakota's interception crime that the person was on the call, or had one party's prior consent, and did not record it to commit a crime or other harm.
…The actor was a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication had given prior consent…
The law frames this as a defense to the crime rather than a permission. Secret loitering and eavesdropping are covered separately.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
OhioOne party · Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52(B)(4)
Anyone other than a police officer who is on the call, or has one party's prior consent, may record it unless the purpose is a crime, a tort or another injurious act.
…a party to the communication or if one of the parties to the communication has given the person prior consent…
Narrow exceptions exist. A business may record telemarketing and customer-service calls for training, quality control or monitoring when one party consents, with limits on use and retention. Victims, witnesses and licensed private detectives may record when they reasonably suspect a crime of violence.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
Rhode IslandOne party · R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21(c)(3)
A private person on the call, or with one party's prior consent, may record it unless the purpose is a crime, a tort or another injurious act.
…the person is a party to the communication, or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent…
A 2024 law (Pub. Ch. 1045) repealed § 39-13-603, the old civil-suit section, and left this rule unchanged.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
TexasOne party · Tex. Penal Code § 16.02(c)(4)
Texas makes it a defense to its interception crime that a private person was on the call or had one party's prior consent, unless the purpose was an unlawful act.
…a party to the communication; or (B) one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent…
Lawsuits over illegal recording fall under a separate section (§ 77-23a-11).
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
VermontNo clear statute · 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) (no Vermont statute); State v. Geraw, 173 Vt. 350 (2002)
Vermont has no statute on private recording of phone calls. The federal rule applies: a person on the call, or with one party's consent, may record it.
…a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent…
State v. Geraw (2002) limits secret police recording in a home under the Vermont Constitution; it does not set a rule for private callers. Other state privacy claims could still apply.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
VirginiaOne party · Va. Code § 19.2-62(B)(2)
Recording a call is not a crime under Virginia's wiretap law when the recorder is on the call or one party gave prior consent.
…such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent…
Washington requires every participant's consent to record a private phone call. A recorded announcement that reasonably reaches everyone counts as consent.
…without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication…
Some calls may be recorded with one party's consent, including emergency, threatening, anonymous or repeated calls, calls at extremely inconvenient hours, and hostage calls.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
West VirginiaOne party · W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3(e)
A person on the call, or with one party's prior consent, may record it unless the purpose is a crime or tort.
…a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent…
A separate law (§ 885.365) generally keeps recorded phone calls out of civil cases as evidence, with exceptions such as a notice at the time or a recorder tone.
Effective date
Not stated in the official text checked
WyomingOne party · Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-3-702(b)(iv)
A person on the call, or with one party's prior consent, may record it unless the purpose is a crime or tort.
…a party to the communication or where one (1) of the parties to the communication has given prior consent…
Recording consent does not make an AI or prerecorded call legal. The FCC treats AI-generated voices as artificial voices under the TCPA, so federal consent, identification, opt-out and do-not-call rules apply, and some states add their own.
18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d): Federal law lets a party to a call record it, or record it with one party's consent, unless the recording is made to commit a crime or tort. The link is the official 2023 edition.
47 C.F.R. § 64.1200: Consent, identification and opt-out rules for prerecorded and artificial-voice calls. Telemarketing calls of this kind generally need prior express written consent.