Legal reference · updated 2026-11-09
Call Recording Laws by State and Province (2026): One-Party vs All-Party Consent
Who has to agree before a phone call can be recorded, for every US state, DC, US federal law and Canada. Each row cites the statute and links to its text. Where courts or statutes disagree, we say so instead of guessing.
Not legal advice. This page is a general summary written by Ahoya, an AI receptionist company, not a law firm. Laws change and courts interpret them; how a law applies depends on your facts. Statutes were checked against their published text in November 2026. Confirm with a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction before relying on it.
The short answer
US federal law and 37 of 51 US jurisdictions (50 states plus DC) let you record a call you take part in with only your own consent. 9 states require every party's consent: California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington. 5 more have mixed rules. Canada's Criminal Code is one-party, but businesses must still tell callers they are being recorded and why. The safe practice for any business is to announce the recording at the start of every call.
Consent rules by jurisdiction
One-party: a participant may record. All-party: everyone on the call must consent. Mixed: depends on the kind of call, or the statutes disagree. Read the note.
Showing 57 of 57 jurisdictions
| Statute | What to know | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| AlabamaUnited States | One-party | Ala. Code §§ 13A-11-30, 13A-11-31 | Eavesdropping means recording others' private communication without the consent of at least one of the people in it. |
| AlaskaUnited States | One-party | AS 42.20.310 | Bars recording a conversation without the consent of a party to it, so a participant may record. |
| AlbertaCanada | One-party | Criminal Code s. 184; Personal Information Protection Act, SA 2003, c. P-6.5 | Criminal rule is one-party. Alberta's PIPA replaces PIPEDA for in-province private-sector organizations: notify callers of the recording and its purpose. |
| ArizonaUnited States | One-party | A.R.S. §§ 13-3005, 13-3012(9) | Lawful with the consent of a party to the communication or a person present during it. Covers phone and in-person conversations. |
| ArkansasUnited States | One-party | Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120 | Lawful if you are a party to the communication or one party has given prior consent. Covers landline, wireless and in-person conversations. |
| British ColumbiaCanada | One-party | Criminal Code s. 184; Personal Information Protection Act, SBC 2003, c. 63 | Criminal rule is one-party. BC's PIPA requires disclosing the purpose before collecting; consent can be deemed when a caller continues after notice. BC's Privacy Act also makes wilful eavesdropping a tort. |
| CaliforniaUnited States | All-party | Cal. Penal Code §§ 632, 632.7 | § 632 requires every party's consent to record a 'confidential communication' (one a party reasonably expects to stay private). § 632.7 requires all parties' consent to record any call involving a cell or cordless phone, confidential or not. |
| Canada (federal)Canada · federal | One-party | Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 184(2)(a); PIPEDA | Intercepting a private communication is a crime unless the originator or intended recipient consents, so a party may record. Businesses also fall under PIPEDA: tell callers the call is recorded and why, and offer an alternative where recording isn't essential. |
| ColoradoUnited States | One-party | C.R.S. §§ 18-9-303, 18-9-304 | Wiretapping requires the consent of neither sender nor receiver; eavesdropping on a conversation requires that no principal party consented. Either party's consent is enough. |
| ConnecticutUnited States | Mixed | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-187, 53a-189 (criminal); § 52-570d (civil) | Criminal law is one-party. But the civil statute makes a person who records a private phone call liable unless all parties consented, a verbal notice is recorded at the start of the call, or a warning tone sounds about every 15 seconds. |
| DelawareUnited States | Mixed | 11 Del. C. § 2402(c)(4) vs § 1335(a)(4) | The wiretap act allows one-party consent, but the separate privacy offense in § 1335(a)(4) bars intercepting a private conversation without the consent of all parties. Both are in force; treat Delaware as all-party to be safe. |
| District of ColumbiaUnited States | One-party | D.C. Code § 23-542(b)(3) | A party, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record unless the purpose is criminal, tortious or otherwise injurious. |
| FloridaUnited States | All-party | Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(d) | Recording is lawful only when all parties to the communication have given prior consent. Violations are a felony. |
| GeorgiaUnited States | One-party | O.C.G.A. §§ 16-11-62, 16-11-66(a) | A party, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record. Video recording of people in a private place without consent is a separate offense. |
| HawaiiUnited States | One-party | HRS § 803-42(b)(3)(A); § 711-1111 | One-party consent for calls, unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. Installing or using a recording device in a private place without the consent of those entitled to privacy there is a separate crime. |
| IdahoUnited States | One-party | Idaho Code § 18-6702(2)(d) | Lawful when one party to the communication has given prior consent. Covers phone and in-person conversations. |
| IllinoisUnited States | All-party | 720 ILCS 5/14-1, 5/14-2 | Since the 2014 rewrite, secretly recording a private conversation (one with a reasonable expectation of privacy) requires the consent of all parties, even if you are one of them. Openly announced recording is not secret. |
| IndianaUnited States | One-party | Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-176; § 35-33.5 | Interception means recording by someone who is neither sender nor receiver and lacks their consent, so a party may record. The statute is written around electronic communications. |
| IowaUnited States | One-party | Iowa Code § 808B.2(2)(c) | A party, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. |
| KansasUnited States | One-party | K.S.A. 21-6101 | Breach of privacy is intercepting a message without the consent of the sender or receiver, so either one's consent is enough. Hidden recording devices in private places are separately barred. |
| KentuckyUnited States | One-party | KRS 526.010, 526.020 | Eavesdropping means recording others' communication without the consent of at least one party to it. |
| LouisianaUnited States | One-party | La. R.S. 15:1303(C)(4) | A party, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record unless the purpose is criminal, tortious or 'any other injurious act', a broader exclusion than most states. |
| MaineUnited States | One-party | 15 M.R.S. §§ 709, 710 | 'Intercept' excludes the sender or receiver and anyone they authorized, so a participant may record. |
| MarylandUnited States | All-party | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402(c)(3) | Lawful only where the person is a party and all parties have given prior consent. Courts limit in-person coverage to private conversations; phone calls are covered. |
| MassachusettsUnited States | All-party | M.G.L. c. 272, § 99 | Bans secretly recording without authority from all parties, with no 'expectation of privacy' limit. Recording that is clearly announced is not secret. |
| MichiganUnited States | Mixed | MCL 750.539a, 750.539c | The statute says 'all parties', but eavesdropping is defined as recording the private discourse 'of others'. Sullivan v. Gray (1982) held a participant may record; the Michigan Supreme Court has never settled it. Non-participants need everyone's consent. |
| MinnesotaUnited States | One-party | Minn. Stat. § 626A.02, subd. 3(d) | A party, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. |
| MississippiUnited States | One-party | Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-531(e) | A party, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record unless the purpose is criminal, tortious or injurious. |
| MissouriUnited States | One-party | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402.2(3) | A party, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record a wire communication unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. |
| MontanaUnited States | All-party | Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213(1)(c) | Bans recording with a hidden device without the knowledge of all parties. 'Persons given warning' are exempt: once one person gives the warning, either party may record, so an upfront announcement satisfies it. |
| NebraskaUnited States | One-party | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290(2)(c) | A party, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. |
| NevadaUnited States | Mixed | NRS 200.620 (phone); NRS 200.650 (in person) | Phone calls are effectively all-party: the Nevada Supreme Court held in Lane v. Allstate (1998) that taping a call with only one party's consent violates NRS 200.620. In-person conversations are one-party under NRS 200.650. |
| New HampshireUnited States | All-party | RSA 570-A:2 | Recording a phone call or private conversation without the consent of all parties is a crime. The one-party exception covers only authorized law enforcement. |
| New JerseyUnited States | One-party | N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d) | A party, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. |
| New MexicoUnited States | One-party | N.M. Stat. § 30-12-1 | Interception is barred only without the consent of a sender or intended recipient. The statute is written around telephone lines and wires; courts have not clearly settled how it applies to cellphones or in-person talk. |
| New YorkUnited States | One-party | N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05 | Wiretapping is recording without the consent of either the sender or receiver, so either party's consent is enough. |
| North CarolinaUnited States | One-party | N.C.G.S. § 15A-287(a) | The offense requires acting without the consent of at least one party to the communication. |
| North DakotaUnited States | One-party | N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02(3)(c) | Being a party, or having one party's prior consent, is a defense unless the purpose is a crime or other unlawful harm. |
| OhioUnited States | One-party | O.R.C. § 2933.52(B)(4) | A party, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record unless the purpose is criminal, tortious or otherwise injurious. |
| OklahomaUnited States | One-party | 13 O.S. § 176.4(5) | Lawful where one party has given prior consent. Bills to make Oklahoma all-party (e.g. HB 2326 in 2023) have been introduced but not enacted; check for changes. |
| Ontario and other provincesCanada | One-party | Criminal Code s. 184; PIPEDA, S.C. 2000, c. 5 | Criminal rule is one-party. With no substantially similar private-sector law, PIPEDA governs: the regulator's guidance says inform the caller, state the purpose narrowly, and get consent (express consent for voiceprints). |
| OregonUnited States | Mixed | ORS 165.540(1)(a), (1)(c) | Phone calls are one-party: recording needs the consent of at least one participant. In-person conversations require that all participants are specifically informed they are being recorded. |
| PennsylvaniaUnited States | All-party | 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5703, 5704(4) | Recording is lawful only where all parties have given prior consent. Unlawful interception is a felony. |
| QuebecCanada | One-party | Criminal Code s. 184; CQLR c. P-39.1 (as amended by Law 25) | Criminal rule is one-party, as everywhere in Canada. Quebec's private-sector privacy act replaces PIPEDA for in-province business and, since Law 25, requires clear purpose notice and free, informed consent. It is the strictest regime in Canada. |
| Rhode IslandUnited States | One-party | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21(c)(3) | A party, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record unless the purpose is criminal, tortious or injurious. |
| South CarolinaUnited States | One-party | S.C. Code § 17-30-30(C) | A party, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record. |
| South DakotaUnited States | One-party | SDCL 23A-35A-20 | The felony is recording without the consent of either a sender or receiver, or of a party to a conversation. |
| TennesseeUnited States | One-party | Tenn. Code § 39-13-601(b)(5) | A party, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. |
| TexasUnited States | One-party | Tex. Penal Code § 16.02(c)(4) | Being a party, or having one party's prior consent, is an affirmative defense unless the recording is for an unlawful purpose. |
| United States (federal)United States · federal | One-party | 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) | A party to a call, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record it unless the purpose is a criminal or tortious act. This is a floor: stricter state laws still apply. The old FCC 'beep tone' rule (47 CFR 64.501) was deleted in 2017. |
| UtahUnited States | One-party | Utah Code § 77-23a-4(7)(b) | A party, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. |
| VermontUnited States | One-party | No state statute; 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) applies | Vermont has no general recording statute, so the federal one-party rule governs private parties. Vermont case law on police recording in the home rests on the state constitution and does not bind private callers. |
| VirginiaUnited States | One-party | Va. Code § 19.2-62(B)(2) | Recording is not an offense where the person is a party or one party has given prior consent. |
| WashingtonUnited States | All-party | RCW 9.73.030 | Recording a private call or conversation requires the consent of all participants. Consent is satisfied when one party announces the recording in a reasonably effective way and the announcement is itself recorded. |
| West VirginiaUnited States | One-party | W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3(e) | A party, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. |
| WisconsinUnited States | One-party | Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c) | A party, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record unless the purpose is criminal, tortious or injurious. |
| WyomingUnited States | One-party | Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-702(b)(iv) | A party, or someone with one party's prior consent, may record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. |
What this means for a business using an AI receptionist
Disclose in the greeting
Put the notice in the first sentence, before the caller says anything worth recording: “Just so you know, this call may be recorded.” Ahoya adds this line to the greeting when recording is on, including on custom greetings.
Say what you do with it
Privacy laws, Canada's in particular, expect you to say why you record (quality, training, or keeping a record of the booking) and to keep it to that purpose. Mention it in your privacy policy, and give callers who object another way to reach you.
Interstate calls: strictest rule
Your callers don't all live in your state. A Texas business answering a caller in California can fall under California's all-party rule, so announce the recording on every call, wherever you are.
Want to hear how the disclosure sounds before you turn it on? Try a call in the free call simulator, or see how Ahoya handles recording consent and data.
Common questions
Is it legal to record a phone call without telling the other person?
Under US federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) and in most states, yes, if you are a party to the call: only one party needs to consent. But 9 states require every party's consent (California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington), and a few more have rules that depend on the kind of call. A business should not rely on one-party consent; announce the recording instead.
Which states are two-party (all-party) consent states?
California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington require the consent of everyone on the call. Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon have mixed rules: for example, a different rule for phone calls than for in-person conversations, or criminal and civil statutes that disagree. Check the row for each state in the table.
What if the caller and my business are in different states?
No federal rule settles it, and courts have applied the stricter state's law. In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006), the California Supreme Court applied California's all-party rule to calls recorded by a firm in Georgia. The practical answer is to follow the strictest rule that could apply, which means announcing the recording at the start of every call.
Is a “this call may be recorded” announcement enough?
It is the standard way businesses get consent, and some statutes say so explicitly: Washington treats an announcement that is itself recorded as consent (RCW 9.73.030(3)), and Connecticut's civil statute accepts a verbal notice recorded at the start of the call (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d). A caller who hears the notice and stays on the line is generally treated as consenting. Give the caller a way to opt out, such as asking for a callback instead.
Do I need consent to record calls in Canada?
Under the Criminal Code (s. 184), recording is lawful if one party to the conversation consents. A business that records customer calls also has privacy-law duties: under PIPEDA (or Quebec's, Alberta's or BC's private-sector privacy law), tell callers at the start that the call is recorded and why, and only use the recording for that purpose.
Does an AI receptionist count as recording the call?
If it stores audio or a transcript, treat it as recording. The consent rules above apply to the business that deploys it, so the AI should announce the recording at the start of each call, just as a human receptionist would.
Cite this page
Writing about call recording? You're welcome to link to this table. Copy the HTML below:
<a href="https://ahoya.ai/call-recording-laws">Call Recording Laws by State and Province (2026), Ahoya</a>An AI receptionist that discloses recording by default
Ahoya announces the recording in the greeting, keeps a transcript of every call, and lets you turn recording off. Hear it for yourself first.