One-party and two-party consent states
Whether you can record a phone call depends on the state. In one-party consent states, one person on the call can agree to the recording. In two-party (all-party) consent states, everyone on the call has to agree. That matters for businesses using AI receptionists, which usually record and transcribe calls.
General information, not legal advice. Calls between states can raise questions about which state's law applies; many businesses follow the stricter rule.
Statutes checked as of October 15, 2026.
9 two-party (all-party) consent states: California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington.
| State | Consent | Statute | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | One-party | Ala. Code 13A-11-30, 13A-11-31 | The RCFP guide describes Alabama's eavesdropping law as allowing recording with the consent of at least one party. |
| Alaska | One-party | Alaska Stat. 42.20.310 | Using a device to hear or record a conversation is an offense only without the consent of a party to the conversation; the statute's definition of eavesdropping device covers conversations held in person or by telephone. |
| Arizona | One-party | Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-3005(A) | Intercepting a wire or electronic communication is an offense for a non-party acting without the consent of either the sender or the receiver. |
| Arkansas | One-party | Ark. Code 5-60-120(a) | Interception is unlawful unless the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties has given prior consent. |
| California | Two-party (all-party) | Cal. Penal Code 632(a), (c); 632.7(a) | Recording a confidential communication requires the consent of all parties; a communication is not confidential where the parties may reasonably expect it to be overheard or recorded (Penal Code 632). A separate provision requires all parties' consent to record calls involving a cellular or cordless phone, without the confidentiality limit (Penal Code 632.7). |
| Colorado | One-party | Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-9-303(1)(a) | Wiretapping is defined as a non-party recording a telephone or electronic communication without the consent of either the sender or a receiver. |
| Connecticut | Depends on the situation | Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d(a); 53a-187, 53a-189 | Connecticut has different civil and criminal rules. The civil statute bars recording a private telephone call unless all parties consent (in writing or on the recording), a verbal notice is recorded at the start of the call, or an automatic warning tone sounds about every 15 seconds (52-570d). The criminal wiretapping definition covers only recording by someone other than a sender or receiver without the consent of either one (53a-187). |
| Delaware | Depends on the situation | 11 Del. C. 2402(c)(4); 11 Del. C. 1335(a)(4) | Delaware's two statutes point in different directions. The wiretap chapter allows a person to intercept a communication they are a party to, or one where a party gave prior consent, unless it is done to commit a crime or tort (11 Del. C. 2402(c)(4)). The privacy offense in 11 Del. C. 1335(a)(4) makes it a misdemeanor to intercept a message by telephone or a private conversation without the consent of all parties, subject to listed exceptions. This page does not resolve how the two interact. |
| District of Columbia | One-party | D.C. Code 23-542(b)(3) | A person who is a party to a communication, or who has a party's prior consent, may intercept it, unless it is done to commit a criminal, tortious or other injurious act. |
| Florida | Two-party (all-party) | Fla. Stat. 934.03(2)(d) | Interception is lawful under the wiretap chapter when all parties to the communication have given prior consent. |
| Georgia | One-party | Ga. Code 16-11-62; 16-11-66(a) | The privacy statute does not bar a person who is a party to a communication, or who has a party's prior consent, from intercepting it. |
| Hawaii | One-party | Haw. Rev. Stat. 803-42(b)(3)(A); 711-1111 | A person not acting under color of law may intercept a call if they are a party or one party gave prior consent, unless it is done to commit a criminal or tortious act (803-42). A separate privacy offense covers installing or using recording devices in, or aimed into, a private place without the consent of the people entitled to privacy there (711-1111(1)(d)-(e)). |
| Idaho | One-party | Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(d) | Interception is lawful when one party has given prior consent, but not when done to commit a criminal act (18-6702(2)(e)). |
| Illinois | Two-party (all-party) | 720 ILCS 5/14-1, 5/14-2 | The RCFP guide describes Illinois law as making it a felony to record a private telephone or electronic communication unless all parties consent; the rule applies to communications made with a reasonable expectation of privacy. |
| Indiana | One-party | Ind. Code 35-31.5-2-176; 35-33.5-5-5 | "Interception" is defined as recording or acquiring a communication by a person other than a sender or receiver, without the consent of the sender or receiver. |
| Iowa | One-party | Iowa Code 727.8; Iowa Code 808B.2(2)(c) | A sender or recipient may record a message, and a person openly present and participating may listen or record (727.8). The wiretap chapter also allows a party, or a person with a party's prior consent, to intercept unless it is done to commit a criminal, tortious or injurious act (808B.2(2)(c)). |
| Kansas | One-party | Kan. Stat. 21-6101(a)(1) | The breach-of-privacy statute covers intercepting a telephone message without the consent of the sender or receiver. |
| Kentucky | One-party | Ky. Rev. Stat. 526.010, 526.020 | "Eavesdrop" is defined as overhearing or recording a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one party. |
| Louisiana | One-party | La. Rev. Stat. 15:1303 | The RCFP guide describes Louisiana's Electronic Surveillance Act as allowing recording with the consent of at least one party. |
| Maine | One-party | 15 M.R.S. 709(4); 15 M.R.S. 710 | "Intercept" excludes the sender or receiver of the communication and anyone given prior authority by the sender or receiver. |
| Maryland | Two-party (all-party) | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402(c)(3) | Interception is lawful for a person who is a party to the communication only where all parties have given prior consent, and not when done to commit a criminal or tortious act. |
| Massachusetts | Two-party (all-party) | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99(B)(4), (C)(1) | "Interception" means secretly hearing or recording a communication by anyone other than a person given prior authority by all parties. The statute reaches secret recordings. |
| Michigan | Depends on the situation | MCL 750.539a(2); MCL 750.539c | The eavesdropping statute bars using a device to eavesdrop on a private conversation without the consent of all parties (MCL 750.539c), but "eavesdrop" is defined as overhearing or recording the private discourse "of others" (MCL 750.539a(2)). Whether a participant may record their own call without the others' consent turns on how courts read that definition, which this page does not cover from an official source. |
| Minnesota | One-party | Minn. Stat. 626A.02, subd. 2(d) | A person not acting under color of law may intercept if they are a party or one party gave prior consent, unless it is done to commit a criminal or tortious act. |
| Mississippi | One-party | Miss. Code 41-29-531(e) | A person not acting under color of law may intercept if they are a party or one party gave prior consent, unless it is done to commit a criminal, tortious or other injurious act. |
| Missouri | One-party | Mo. Rev. Stat. 542.402.2(3) | A person may intercept a wire communication if they are a party or one party gave prior consent, unless it is done to commit a criminal or tortious act. |
| Montana | Two-party (all-party) | Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213(1)(c), (2)(a) | It is an offense to record a conversation with a hidden device without the knowledge of all parties. Exceptions include persons given warning of the recording (if one person gives the warning, either party may record), public officials and employees performing official duties, persons speaking at public meetings, and recorded health care emergency calls. |
| Nebraska | One-party | Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290(2)(c) | A person not acting under color of law may intercept if they are a party or one party gave prior consent, unless it is done to commit a criminal or tortious act. |
| Nevada | Depends on the situation | Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620; 200.650 | Phone calls and in-person conversations are treated differently. For phone calls, the statute allows interception only with one party's prior consent and an emergency where a court order is impractical (NRS 200.620); the RCFP guide reports that the Nevada Supreme Court has read this to require all parties' consent to record a call (Lane v. Allstate, 1998; Sharpe v. State, 2015). For in-person private conversations, recording is allowed if one of the people in the conversation authorizes it (NRS 200.650). |
| New Hampshire | Two-party (all-party) | N.H. Rev. Stat. 570-A:2, I and I-a | Intercepting a telecommunication or oral communication without the consent of all parties is a felony. A party to the communication who records without the others' consent commits a lesser misdemeanor offense. |
| New Jersey | One-party | N.J. Stat. 2A:156A-3, 2A:156A-4 | The RCFP guide describes New Jersey law as allowing a party, or someone with one party's consent, to record, unless it is done to commit a criminal or tortious act. |
| New Mexico | One-party | N.M. Stat. 30-12-1(C) | The interference-with-communications statute covers reading, taking or copying a telephone communication without the consent of a sender or intended recipient. |
| New York | One-party | N.Y. Penal Law 250.00, 250.05 | Wiretapping is defined as overhearing or recording a telephonic communication by a person other than a sender or receiver, without the consent of either the sender or receiver. |
| North Carolina | One-party | N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-287(a) | Interception is an offense only when done without the consent of at least one party to the communication. |
| North Dakota | One-party | N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(3)(c) | It is a defense to prosecution if the person was a party to the communication or a party gave prior consent, and the interception was not for a crime or other unlawful harm. |
| Ohio | One-party | Ohio Rev. Code 2933.52(B)(4) | A person not acting under color of law may intercept if they are a party or one party gave prior consent, unless it is done to commit a criminal offense or tortious act. |
| Oklahoma | One-party | Okla. Stat. tit. 13, 176.4(5) | A person not acting under color of law may intercept if one party gave prior consent, unless it is done to commit a criminal act. |
| Oregon | Depends on the situation | Or. Rev. Stat. 165.540(1)(a), (1)(c) | Phone calls and in-person conversations are treated differently. For telephone calls, recording by a non-participant is an offense unless at least one participant consents (165.540(1)(a)). For in-person conversations, the statute requires that all participants be specifically informed that the conversation is being recorded, with exceptions such as public meetings (165.540(1)(c)). The RCFP guide (updated October 2023) reports that a 2023 Ninth Circuit decision held the in-person rule unconstitutional; its current status is not confirmed here. |
| Pennsylvania | Two-party (all-party) | 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 5703, 5704(4) | Interception is lawful under this provision where all parties to the communication have given prior consent. |
| Rhode Island | One-party | R.I. Gen. Laws 11-35-21(c)(3) | A person not acting under color of law may intercept if they are a party or one party gave prior consent, unless it is done to commit a criminal, tortious or other injurious act. |
| South Carolina | One-party | S.C. Code 17-30-30(C) | |
| South Dakota | One-party | S.D. Codified Laws 23A-35A-20 | Recording is an offense for a non-party acting without the consent of either a sender or receiver, or for a person not part of a conversation acting without the consent of a party. |
| Tennessee | One-party | Tenn. Code 39-13-601(b)(5) | A person not acting under color of law may intercept if they are a party or one party gave prior consent, unless it is done to commit a criminal or tortious act. |
| Texas | One-party | Tex. Penal Code 16.02(c)(4) | It is an affirmative defense if the person was a party to the communication or a party gave prior consent, unless the interception was for an unlawful act. |
| Utah | One-party | Utah Code 77-23a-4(7)(b) | A person not acting under color of law may intercept if they are a party or one party gave prior consent, unless it is done to commit a criminal or tortious act. |
| Vermont | One-party | No Vermont statute; 18 U.S.C. 2511 (federal) | The RCFP guide states that Vermont has no specific statute on recording phone calls, so the federal one-party consent rule applies. |
| Virginia | One-party | Va. Code 19.2-62(B)(2) | |
| Washington | Two-party (all-party) | RCW 9.73.030(1)(a), (3) | Recording a private telephone conversation requires the consent of all participants. Consent is treated as given when one party announces to the others, in any reasonably effective manner, that the conversation is about to be recorded, and that announcement is itself recorded. |
| West Virginia | One-party | W. Va. Code 62-1D-3(e) | A person may intercept if they are a party or one party gave prior consent, unless it is done to commit a criminal or tortious act. |
| Wisconsin | One-party | Wis. Stat. 968.31(2)(c) | A person not acting under color of law may intercept if they are a party or one party gave prior consent, unless it is done to commit a criminal or tortious act. |
| Wyoming | One-party | Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702(b)(iv) | A person may intercept if they are a party or one party gave prior consent, unless it is done to commit a criminal or tortious act. |