{{Short description|Legislations regarding telephone calls}} {{Use dmy dates|date=April 2026}} [[File:Call recording laws.svg|thumb|500px|Call recording laws for personal conversations by country {{legend|#f9941e|One-party consent}} {{legend|#faeb50|Depending on the type of call}} {{legend|#5aa7f4|Two-party consent}} ''Note: Some one-party consent places may still place restrictions on public dissemination of recorded calls'']] '''Telephone call recording laws''' are legislation enacted in many jurisdictions, such as countries, states, provinces, that regulate the practice of telephone call recording. Call recording or monitoring is permitted or restricted with various levels of privacy protection, law enforcement requirements, anti-fraud measures, or individual party consent.
==Australia == {{See also|Mass surveillance in Australia|}}
The federal ''Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979'' and State and Territory listening devices laws may both apply to monitoring or recording of telephone conversations.<ref name=":1">Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, Advisory privacy guidelines, https://www.oaic.gov.au/agencies-and-organisations/app-guidelines/</ref> The general rule is that the call may not be recorded. Section 7 of the ''Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979'' prohibits intercepting a telephone call. "Interception" is defined in section 6, of which one element is that it is made "without the knowledge of the person making the communication". There are exceptions to these rules in very limited circumstances, including where a warrant applies.
If a call is to be recorded or monitored, an organization must tell the other party at the beginning of the conversation so that it has the chance either to end the call, or to ask to be transferred to another line where monitoring or recording does not take place.<ref name=":1"/>
Reasons organizations may monitor or record conversations may include:<ref name=":1" /> *to protect a person's intent in dealings with the organization *to provide a record in the event of a dispute about a transaction *to improve customer service.
In the state of Queensland it is not illegal to record a telephone conversation by a party to the conversation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/Find-legal-information/Personal-rights-and-safety/Privacy-and-identity/Privacy|title=Queensland Legal Aid - Helping Queenslanders with their legal problems|website=www.legalaid.qld.gov.au|access-date=15 May 2019}}</ref>
==Canada== ===Organizations=== In Canada, organizations subject to the [[Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-8.6/|title=Consolidated federal laws of canada, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act|first=Legislative Services|last=Branch|date=8 April 2019|website=laws-lois.justice.gc.ca|access-date=15 May 2019}}</ref> (PIPEDA) must comply with PIPEDA when recording calls.<ref name=":0">Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. {{cite web|url=https://www.priv.gc.ca/resource/fs-fi/02_05_d_14_e.asp|title=Guidelines for Recording of Customer Telephone Calls|date=June 2008|access-date=28 September 2017}}</ref>
In order to comply with the PIPEDA, organizations should take the following steps when recording conversations:<ref name=":0"/> # The individual must be informed that the conversation is being recorded at the beginning of the call. This can be done by an automated recording or by the [[customer service representative]].<ref name=":0"/> # The individual must be advised of the purposes. The organization must be clear about the purposes; an organization should not state that it is recording the conversation for quality assurance purposes if, in fact, the recording will be used for other purposes. Informing the individual of the purposes can be done in a variety of ways—verbally, by pressing a number on the keypad (in the case of automated messages) or with clear messages on monthly statements. (For example: If you have any questions about your bill please call 1-800-XXX-XXXX. Please note your call will be recorded for...) If the individual proceeds knowing the conversation is being recorded and the purpose of the recording, consent is implied.<ref name=":0"/> # If the caller objects to the recording, the organization should provide the caller with meaningful alternatives. The alternatives might involve not taping the call; visiting a retail outlet; writing a letter; or, conducting the transaction over the Internet.<ref name=":0"/>
===Individuals=== An individual may record a call as long as they are one of the participants of the call.<ref name=":2">{{cite news|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/career-advice/experts/am-i-allowed-to-record-conversations-at-work/article21877154/|title=Am I allowed to record conversations at work?|last=Lublin|first=Daniel|work=Globe and Mail|date=2 December 2014|access-date=28 September 2017}}</ref> The recording can be used as evidence in a lawsuit.<ref name=":2"/>
However, it is illegal to record communications that the recording party is not participating in.<ref name=":2" /> An illegal recording can lead to a sentence of up to five years in prison. Section 183 (Part VI) of the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]] also outlaws surreptitious recording of communications without consent of one of the intended recipients.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legaltree.ca/node/908|title=Is it legal to record a private conversation? Wiretapping and the one party consent exception to the rule against interception|date=6 May 2008|access-date=28 September 2017}}</ref>
==Czech Republic== Calls and conversations may be recorded by any active participant, with no requirement to make other parties aware of the recording. It is quite restricted how can you use such recording. The main idea is to use it only for protection of your own rights guaranteed by the law. The law dealing with this is NOZ, [https://www.kurzy.cz/zakony/89-2012-obcansky-zakonik/paragraf-86/ § 86] and [https://www.kurzy.cz/zakony/89-2012-obcansky-zakonik/paragraf-88/ § 88] .
==Denmark== Calls and conversations may be recorded by any active participant, with no requirement to make other parties aware of the recording. But forwarding or playing calls considered private is illegal. The Denmark Data Protection Authority (DPA) ruled on 11 April 2019, that affirmative consent is required when companies record customer telephone calls.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/r0710.aspx?id=181992#Kap27|title=Straffeloven - Bekendtgørelse af straffeloven - retsinformation.dk|website=www.retsinformation.dk|access-date=15 May 2019}}</ref>
==Finland== In the case of private persons, calls and conversations may be recorded by any active participant. There is no requirement to make other parties aware of the recording, but the use of recordings, depending on their content, may be subject to various laws, such as data protection (privacy) legislation, libel laws, laws governing trade and national secrets, and any agreements, such as non-disclosure agreements.<ref name=Finland>{{cite web|url=http://www.tietosuoja.fi/fi/index/ratkaisut/puheluidennauhoittaminen.html|title=Omien keskustelujen ja puheluiden nauhoittaminen työpaikalla (Data Protection Ombudsman)|year=2006|access-date=28 September 2017|archive-date=17 December 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141217111632/http://www.tietosuoja.fi/fi/index/ratkaisut/puheluidennauhoittaminen.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>
Recording of calls by a company or an employer is subject to data protection legislation and, as a general rule, requires informing the participants prior to recording.<ref name=Finland/>
==Germany== Germany is a two-party consent jurisdiction: telephone recording without the consent of the two or, when applicable, more, parties is a criminal offence according to § 201 of the [[German Criminal Code]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#201|title=Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB)|website=www.iuscomp.org|access-date=15 May 2019|archive-date=26 April 2001|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010426054458/http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#201|url-status=dead}}</ref>—violation of the confidentiality of the spoken word. Telephone tapping by authorities has to be approved by a judge. Telephone recording by a [[private citizen]] can be allowed in cases of self-defence, § 32 of the German Criminal Code,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p0172|title=GERMAN CRIMINAL CODE|website=www.gesetze-im-internet.de|access-date=15 May 2019}}</ref> or Necessity, § 34 of the German Criminal Code.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p0177 | title=Sec. 34 of the German Criminal Code | publisher=[[Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz]], Bundesamt für Justiz (Deutschland) | work=German Criminal Code | date=13 November 1998 | access-date=16 May 2019 | author=Translation provided by Prof. Dr. Michael Bohlander}}</ref> For discussion on [[lawful interception]] in Germany please see [[:de:Telekommunikationsüberwachung|de:Telekommunikationsüberwachung]] (German language).
==India == India does not have a specific law which addresses the recording of phone calls.It is not criminal for a person to record a phone call in which they are themselves a participant without consent from the other parties although the recorders may be liable to legal action if the other party considers the action to be a breach of their privacy. However, the recording of phone calls in which the recorders are not themselves participating is illegal and prohibited by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution unless the person recording has prior consent from the participants of the call.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Goyal |first=Aman |date=2014-09-04 |title=Audio-visual recording of "informed consent" in India: Step towards "understood consent" |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1740774514542621 |journal=Clinical Trials |volume=11 |issue=5 |pages=605–606 |doi=10.1177/1740774514542621 |pmid=25190028 |s2cid=206773605 |issn=1740-7745|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Is call recording legal in India: See admissible court laws|date=6 April 2022 |url=https://www.indialegallive.com/legal/is-call-recording-legal-in-india/|publisher=IndiaLegalLive}}</ref>
The Central Government or State Government is empowered to order interception of messages per 12, section 5 of Indian Telegraph Act 1885.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/the_indian_telegraph_act_1985_pdf.pdf | title=Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 | publisher=[[Department of Telecommunications]], Ministry of Communication, Government of India | access-date=16 May 2019}}</ref> Rule 419 and 419A sets out.
Telephone tapping is permitted based on court order only and such permission is granted only if it is required to prevent a major offense involving national security or to gather intelligence on anti-national or terrorist activities.
Though economic offenses/tax evasion were initially covered under the reasons for interception of phones, the same was withdrawn in 1999 by the Government based on a Supreme Court order citing protection to privacy of the individual.
As per Rule 428 of the India telegraphic rules, no person without the sanction of the telegraph authority, use any telephone or cause or suffer it to be used, purposes other than the establishment of local or trunk calls.
The [[Government of India]] instructions provide for approved attachments. There is no provision for attachment for recording conversation.
==Italy== According to the [[Supreme Court of Cassation (Italy)|Supreme Court of Cassation]], recorded conversations are legal and can be used as evidence in court, even if the other party is unaware of being recorded, provided that the recording party takes part of the conversation.<ref>{{cite web|title=Registrare di nascosto: per la Cassazione è legale|author=Francesco Polimeni|date=5 May 2014|url=http://notizie.tiscali.it/socialnews/articoli/polimeni/13230/registrare-di-nascosto-per-la-cassazione-e-legale/|language=it|publisher=[[Tiscali]] News|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161011100301/http://notizie.tiscali.it/socialnews/articoli/polimeni/13230/registrare-di-nascosto-per-la-cassazione-e-legale/|archive-date=11 October 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>
==Ireland== Recording calls is legal and recordings can be used as evidence in court, providing the person recording is a participant to the conversation, or has consent from at least one participant from the conversation.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/q-a-what-are-the-legal-implications-1.1740070|title=Q&A: What are the legal implications?|first=Ruadhán Mac|last=Cormaic|newspaper=[[The Irish Times]]|access-date=15 May 2019}}</ref>
==Latvia== Calls and conversations by private persons may be recorded by any active participant. There is no requirement in laws to make other parties aware of the recording, but the use of recordings, depending on their content, may be subject to various laws.<ref name=Latvia>{{cite web|url=https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=4042|title=Fizisko personu datu aizsardzības likums (Personal Data Protection Law)|year=2010|access-date=28 September 2017}}</ref>
==Netherlands== Article 139a of Dutch Criminal law states that "He who deliberately uses a technical aid to record a conversation that is being held in a house, a closed room or a courtyard, without being a participant in the conversation and without any instructions from such a participant, is punishable with imprisonment of not more than six months or a fine of the fourth category".<ref name=Netherlands>{{cite web|url=https://mijnwetten.nl/wetboek-van-strafrecht/artikel139a|title=Artikel 139a Wetboek van Strafrecht|access-date=21 April 2022}}</ref> In other words, as long as one is themselves a participant, they are allowed to (discreetly) record the entirety of the conversation. Furthermore, while not explicitly stated, the European General Data Protection Regulation applies to any processing of private conversations that is not ’strictly personal’. Any publication, without explicit consent, is therefore forbidden.{{fact|date=May 2026}}
==New Zealand== Recording of phone calls by private persons falls under interception-related provisions of the [[Crimes Act 1961]], which has a general prohibition on the use of interception devices. An exception is made for when the person intercepting the call is a party to the conversation. There is no requirement that both parties be aware of the interception.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329814.html|title=Crimes Act 1961, Section 216B|access-date=28 September 2017}}</ref>
The recording of telephone calls however do fall under the purview of Privacy Act. In general, recording of telephone calls related to personal affairs does not contravene Privacy Act, whereas recording for any other purposes would. In particular, it is usually considered unfair to record someone without telling them.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.privacy.org.nz/tools/knowledge-base/view/31|title=Can I record someone without telling them?|access-date=24 April 2021|archive-date=24 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210424101713/https://www.privacy.org.nz/tools/knowledge-base/view/31|url-status=dead}}</ref> It can still be legal to record without consent if public interest in the content of the recording is strong enough to outweigh the privacy interest or confidentiality interest.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018667395/phone-recordings-what-s-legal-and-what-s-not|title= Phone recordings: what's legal and what's not|website= [[Radio New Zealand]]|date= 18 October 2018|access-date=24 April 2021}}</ref>
==Poland== According to the [[Polish Penal Code]] (art. 267), call recording is legal for a private person only when recording person is one of the participants.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://supertrans2014.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/the-criminal-code.pdf | title=The Criminal Code z dnia 6 czerwca 1997 r. (Dz.U. tłum. gb Nr 88, poz. 553) | access-date=May 16, 2019|language=en}}</ref> No consent from the other side is needed then. Similarly to Latvia, the use of recordings, depending on their content, may be subject to various laws.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.alfatronik.com.pl/info/nagrywanie-rozmow-legalne/|title=Nagrywanie rozmów - kiedy jest legalne?|date=21 April 2017|access-date=15 May 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://bezprawnik.pl/legalnosc-nagrywania-rozmowy/|title=Legalność nagrywania rozmowy. Czy taki materiał może być dowodem w sprawie?|date=5 September 2018|access-date=15 May 2019}}</ref>
==Romania== Intercepting communications falls under the provisions of the Penal Code and, in the case of electronic communications, under the [http://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/56973#id_artA88_ttl Telecommunications Act (506/2004)]. The recording of a conversation by a private member to that conversation is specifically permitted. Nevertheless, while such recordings are legal, making use of them may fall subject to further civil or criminal law. Their admissibility as evidence also depends on the circumstances.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Zarrin|first1=Shazia|last2=Saxena|first2=Shashi|last3=Arif-ul-Islam|date=September 2010|title=Step-stress Accelerated Life Testing for Exponentiated Weibull Distribution|journal=Safety and Reliability|volume=30|issue=3|pages=5–13|doi=10.1080/09617353.2010.11690911|s2cid=124623801|issn=0961-7353}}</ref>
== South Korea == In South Korea, any party in communication in a phone call may record the call without prior consent or notice.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Lee |first=Minji |date=2022-09-12 |title=Bill on recording ban sparks debate on privacy, self-protection |url=https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20220908007000315 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230321114405/https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20220908007000315 |archive-date=2023-03-21 |access-date=2025-05-26 |work=[[Yonhap News Agency]] |language=en |url-status=live }}</ref> This has been dubbed "one-party consent".<ref name=":4" /> Recordings made without notice have been the subject of a number of political scandals in the country.<ref name=":4" /> Whether to require consent or notice has been the subject of debate. Proponents for requiring consent have argued that recordings can be manipulated or misused for acts like blackmail, while opponents have argued that recordings have often been used as evidence by employees to prove workplace abuse, which can otherwise be difficult to obtain.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Choi |first=Jae-hee |date=2022-08-28 |title=Recording of phone calls: Should it be banned? |url=https://www.koreaherald.com/article/2945267 |access-date=2025-05-26 |website=[[The Korea Herald]] |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":5" /> In 2022, a bill was proposed by the ruling [[People Power Party (South Korea)|People Power Party]] to require consent or notice for recordings. A poll of 503 respondents conducted by Realmeter found that 64.1% of adult respondents were against requiring consent or notice.<ref name=":5" />
==Sweden== According to the Swedish Penal Code (Brottsbalken) Chapter 4, 8–9 §§, it is illegal to make ''unauthorized'' recordings of telephone conversations.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/brottsbalk-1962700_sfs-1962-700|title=Brottsbalk (1962:700) Svensk författningssamling 1962:1962:700 t.o.m. SFS 2019:34 - Riksdagen|last=Riksdagsförvaltningen|website=www.riksdagen.se|access-date=15 May 2019}}</ref> A court can grant permission for law enforcement agencies to tap telephone lines. Also, anyone participating in the telephone call may record the conversation — at least one party in the call must be aware of the recording being made. A recording is always admissible as evidence in a court, even if obtained in an illegal manner.
== Taiwan == According to Article 29 of The Communication Security and Surveillance Act of 1999, call recording is legal if the person conducting the surveillance is one of the parties in communication, or has obtained consent from one of the parties in communication, and the conduct is not for illegal purpose.
==Turkey== In [[Turkey]], there are strict conditions for both the act of surveillance and the storage of the data obtained, but as long as it is clear what it is being used for and legal procedures were followed by authorities, it is permissible.
==United Kingdom== ===England and Wales=== The [[Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000]] in general prohibits interception of communications by a third party, with exceptions related to government agencies. A recording made by one party to a phone call or e-mail without notifying the other is not prohibited provided that the recording is for their own use; acts which "make some or all of the contents of the communication available ... to a person other than the sender or intended recipient of the communication" are prohibited.<ref name=ripa/> Consent to disclose a call can be made retrospectively or argued to be in the [[public interest]].<ref>{{cite web | title=Recorded Conversations: Can we use them in court? | website=A City Law Firm - Specialising in Corporate and Technology Law | date=19 May 2010 | url=https://acitylawfirm.com/recorded-conversations/ | access-date=16 February 2025}}</ref> Private recordings (not restricted to telephone recordings) can be used in court proceedings if the court gives permission.<ref>{{cite web| title=Is It Illegal To Record Conversations?|website= DMA Law Advice | date=21 June 2018 | url=https://www.dma-law.co.uk/is-it-illegal-to-record-conversations/ | access-date=16 February 2025}}</ref>
Businesses may record with the knowledge of their employees but without notifying the other party for any of the following purposes:
* provide evidence of a business transaction * ensure that a business complies with regulatory procedures * see that quality standards or targets are being met * protect national security * prevent or detect crime * investigate the unauthorised use of a telecommunications system * secure the effective operation of the telecommunications system
Businesses may monitor without recording phone calls or e-mails that have been received to see whether they are relevant to the business (e.g., to check for business communications addressed to an employee who is away); but such monitoring must be proportional and in accordance with data protection laws and codes of practice.
There are special regulations governing recording for some types of organisation, such as in [[financial services]] or healthcare.<ref>{{cite web| title=Understanding the [Business] Call Recording Law in the UK| website=Flip Connect| date=12 December 2023 | url=https://www.flipconnect.co.uk/company/blog/understanding-the-call-recording-law-in-the-uk-a-comprehensive-guide}}</ref>
This summary does not necessarily cover all possible cases. There is a list of applicable laws on the [[Ofcom]] website:<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ofcom.org.uk/make-a-complaint/complain-about-mobile-phone-or-internet-services/other/data-protection/|title=Personal data and privacy - Recording calls|publisher=Ofcom|date=26 October 2023}}</ref>
* [[Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000]] ("RIPA")<ref name=ripa>{{cite book|chapter-url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents|title=UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000|year=2000|chapter=23}}</ref> * Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice)(Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 ("LBP Regulations")<ref>{{cite book|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/2699/contents/made|title=Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000|year=2000|issue=2699}}</ref> * [[General Data Protection Regulation]] * Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999<ref>{{cite book|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2093/contents/made|title=Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999|year=1999|issue=2093}}</ref> * [[Human Rights Act 1998]]
Under RIPA unlawful recording or monitoring of communications is a [[tort]], allowing civil action in the courts.
Recording is sometimes officially advised, as in recording business transactions carried out by telephone to provide a record. It is sometimes mandatory; from March 2009 [[Financial Services Authority]] rules required firms to record all telephone conversations and electronic communications relating to client orders and the conclusion of transactions in the equity, bond, and derivatives markets.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fsa.gov.uk/library/communication/pr/2008/017.shtml|title=FSA Web site: FSA publishes new rules on telephone recording|publisher=FSA|date=3 March 2008|access-date=28 September 2017}}</ref> In November 2011 this was extended to cover the recording of mobile phone conversations that related to client orders and transactions by regulated firms.
===Scotland=== The situation in Scotland is similar to that in [[England and Wales]], covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/11/contents/data.htm|title=Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000|website=www.legislation.gov.uk|access-date=2019-03-29}}</ref>
==United States== Laws in the United States vary by state. Call recording laws in some U.S. states require only one party to be aware of the recording, while other states generally require both parties to be aware. Several states require that all parties consent when one party wants to record a telephone conversation.<ref name="RCFP">{{cite web |url=http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/tape-recording-laws-glance |title=Tape-recording laws at a glance |publisher=[[Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press]] |date=1 August 2012 |access-date=28 September 2017}}</ref>
===Two-party consent states=== States that generally require that all parties consent to the recording include:
* California<ref>[http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-632.html California Penal Code Section 632(a)] Retrieved 28 September 2017.</ref> * Connecticut (For electronic recordings only, all parties must be made aware of recordings, with few exceptions.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS99/rpt%5Colr%5Chtm/99-R-0987.htm|date=1 October 1999 |title=RECORDING PHONE CALLS| author= Christopher Reinhart|website=www.cga.ct.gov}}</ref> For in-person recordings, the rule is always one party consent.)<ref name="dmlp.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations|title=Recording Phone Calls and Conversations |publisher=[[Digital Media Law Project]]|date=14 May 2014|access-date=28 September 2017}}</ref> * Florida<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm/Sections/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0934/Sections/0934.03.html|title=Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine|website=www.leg.state.fl.us|access-date=15 May 2019}}</ref> * Hawaii* (in general a one-party state, but requires two-party consent if the recording device is installed in a private place)<ref name="dmlp.org"/> * [[Illinois wiretapping law|Illinois]]<ref name=":3">{{Cite news|url=https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/illinois-newly-amended-eavesdropping-statute-poses-challenges|title=Illinois' Newly Amended Eavesdropping Statute Poses Challenges for Employers|date=2015-01-27|work=Littler Mendelson P.C.|access-date=2018-06-20|language=en}}</ref> (listening to, transmitting, or recording non-electronic private conversations require consent by all parties)<ref name=":3"/><ref name="ilga.gov">{{Cite web|url=http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K14-2|title=Illinois General Assembly - Illinois Compiled Statutes|website=www.ilga.gov|language=en|access-date=2018-06-20}}[one-party recording of electronic communications is allowed by 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(3)]</ref> * Maryland<ref>{{cite web|url=https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gcj/10-402.html|title=Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Section 10-402|website=Justia Law|access-date=15 May 2019}}</ref> * Massachusetts<ref name="dmlp.org"/> (only "secret" recordings are banned, but is the only state without a "public location" exception.<ref name="dmlp.org-mass">{{cite web|title=Massachusetts Recording Law|url=http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-law|publisher=[[Digital Media Law Project]]|date=8 May 2013|access-date=28 September 2017}}</ref> Despite having a 1968 law imposing general bans on taping wire and oral communications, it was later ruled to violate the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] in the conditions espoused in a case filed by [[Project Veritas]] in 2018.<ref>{{cite news |title=Project Veritas case: Judge Patti B. Staris rules Americans can secretly record public officials |url=https://apnews.com/article/james-okeefe-archive-massachusetts-f2d98abcd59a8094158f4e181960a628 |work=AP NEWS |publisher=Associated Press |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211110033315/https://apnews.com/article/james-okeefe-archive-massachusetts-f2d98abcd59a8094158f4e181960a628 |archive-date=10 November 2021 |date=10 December 2018 |url-status=dead |language=en}}</ref>) * Montana (requires notification only)<ref name=mt>{{cite web|url=http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-213.htm|title=45-8-213. Privacy in communications|author=Montana Legislative Services|access-date=2015-03-09|archive-date=2015-02-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150226233347/http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-213.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref> * New Hampshire<ref>[http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-2.htm RSA 570-A:2 - NH General Court] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130923163252/http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-2.htm |date=23 September 2013 }}</ref> *Oregon* (One party for electronic communications, two party for in-person conversations. Law was ruled in 2023 to violate the First Amendment in a case filed by Project Veritas,<ref>{{Cite web |title=PROJECT VERITAS V. SCHMIDT (No.22-35271) |url=https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/07/03/22-35271.pdf}}</ref> but this was overturned on appeal, leaving the Oregon law in place.) * Pennsylvania<ref>{{cite web |title=18 Pa.C.S.A. §5703 |url=https://www.palegis.us/statutes/consolidated/view-statute?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chapter=57§ion=3&subsctn=0 |website=Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes |publisher=Pennsylvania General Assembly |access-date=6 August 2025 |ref=18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5704(4) |url=https://www.palegis.us/statutes/consolidated/view-statute?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chapter=57§ion=4&subsctn=0 |website=Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes |publisher=Pennsylvania General Assembly |access-date=6 August 2025 |ref=18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5704(4)}}</ref> * Washington (however, section three of the Washington law states that permission is given if any of the parties announces that they will be recording the call in a reasonable manner if the recording contains that announcement).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030|title=RCW 9.73.030: Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.|website=apps.leg.wa.gov|access-date=15 May 2019}}</ref>
===One-party consent states=== One-party consent states are:<ref name=RCFP/>
{{Div col}} * Alabama * Alaska * Arizona * Arkansas * Colorado * Connecticut (for in-person conversations or phone calls recorded by a participant of the conversation) * District of Columbia<ref>''See'', ''e.g.'', [https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/23-542 D.C. Code § 23–542(b)(3)], ''Democracy Partners v. Project Veritas Action Fund'', 453 F. Supp. 3d 261, 285 (D.D.C. 2020)</ref> * Georgia * Hawaii * Idaho * Illinois (one-party only for parties to electronic conversations or to record law enforcement officers in public) * Indiana * Iowa * Kansas * Kentucky * Louisiana * Maine * Michigan* (one-party only if the recording party is a participant in the conversation) * Minnesota * Mississippi * Missouri * Nebraska * Nevada<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-200.html#NRS200Sec650|title=NRS: CHAPTER 200 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON|publisher=www.leg.state.nv.us|access-date=2018-10-26}}</ref> * New Jersey * New Mexico * New York<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/new-york-recording-law|title=New York Recording Law|date=26 April 2016|publisher=Digital Media Law Project|access-date=28 September 2017}}</ref><ref>N.Y. Penal Law sections 250.00 (1), found at [http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO: New York Laws]. Retrieved 26 April 2016.</ref> * North Carolina * North Dakota * Ohio * Oklahoma * Oregon* (one-party for electronic communications, two-party for in-person conversations) * Rhode Island (although consent is not required when the recorded party does not have a reason to expect privacy) * South Carolina * South Dakota (one-party only if the recording party is a participant in the conversation, or has consent of one participant in the conversation)(S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20 (2012)) * Tennessee * Texas * Utah<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/state-state-guide/utah|title=Message from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press on COVID-19|publisher=[[Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press]]|access-date=6 December 2018 |language=en |date=28 August 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title77/Chapter23A/77-23a-S4.html |publisher=[[Utah State Legislature]]|access-date=14 March 2020|title=77-23a-4. Offenses -- Criminal and civil -- Lawful interception.}}</ref> * Vermont * Virginia (two-party consent required to be used in court for civil proceedings, but not criminal cases<ref>{{cite web|url=https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/chapter14/section8.01-420.2/ |title=§ 8.01-420.2. Limitation on use of recorded conversations as evidence. |publisher=[[Virginia General Assembly]] |access-date=7 October 2024}}</ref>) * West Virginia * Wisconsin (two-party consent required to be used in court) * Wyoming {{Div col end}}
Some states distinguish between electronic and in-person communication. For example, Illinois and Oregon are one-party consent states for electronic communication but require all-party consent for live, in-person communication, with a few exceptions.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/state-state-guide/oregon|title=Oregon|publisher=[[Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press]]|date=1 August 2012|access-date=28 September 2017}}</ref>
The [[California Supreme Court]] ruled in 2006 that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that one-party state caller is subject to the Californian requirement of consent from all callers (cf. ''Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc.'', 39 Cal. 4th 95<ref>[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S124739.PDF California courts document on ''Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060823045528/http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S124739.PDF |date=2006-08-23 }}</ref>). However, non-disclosure recordings by one of the parties can legally be made if the other party is threatening [[kidnapping]], [[extortion]], [[bribery]], [[human trafficking]], or other felony violence. Also included in the exception is misdemeanor [[obscenity]] and threats of injury to persons or property via an electronic communication device (usually a telephone) if directed in whole or in part towards a conversation participant or family members.<ref>California Penal Code § 633.5</ref>
Following the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in ''People v. Clark/Melongo'' on 20 March 2014, which struck down Illinois' two-party consent law, Illinois was a one-party consent state.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/2014/115776.html|title=People v. Clark|work=Justia Law|access-date=2018-06-20|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2014/114852.pdf|title=People v. Melongo}}</ref> However, the state legislature amended the statute and, as of 30 December 2014, Illinois is once again a two-party consent state for non-electronic communications.<ref name=":3"/><ref name="ilga.gov"/>
The [[Michigan Court of Appeals]] ruled in 1982 that participants in a conversation may record a discussion without getting the permission of other participants.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/07/michigan-pol-reportedly-tried-to-fake-male-prostitute-scandal-to-hide-affair/?intcmp=hpbt4|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150809173003/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/07/michigan-pol-reportedly-tried-to-fake-male-prostitute-scandal-to-hide-affair/?intcmp=hpbt4|url-status=dead|archive-date=9 August 2015|title=Michigan pol reportedly tried to fake male prostitute scandal to hide relationship|agency=[[Fox News]]|date=7 August 2015|access-date=28 September 2017}}</ref> The ruling stated that eavesdropping only applies to "a third party not otherwise involved in the conversation being eavesdropped on". This is because the law uses the wording, "the private discourse of others", rather than the wording, "the private discourse of others ''or with others''{{-"}}.<ref name="publicdocs">{{cite web|date=21 August 2003|url=http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20030821_C234723_55_161O.234723.OPN.COA.PDF|title=State of Michigan Court of Appeals|publisher=publicdocs.courts.mi.gov|access-date=28 September 2017}}</ref> Michigan law is often misinterpreted as requiring the consent of all parties to a conversation.<ref name=dmlp>{{cite web|url=http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/michigan-recording-law|title=Michigan Recording Law | Digital Media Law Project|publisher=dmlp.org|access-date=28 September 2017}}</ref> In 2019, a US District Court acknowledged the 1982 Michigan Court of Appeals Case, but predicted the [[Michigan Supreme Court]] would decide that participants in a conversation may not record a discussion without the consent of all parties; accordingly, it ruled that Michigan required consent of all parties, creating a split among different courts.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://casetext.com/case/michigan-v-project-veritas-5|title=Michigan v. Project Veritas|date=14 Jun 2019|access-date=28 November 2023|archive-date=25 June 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220625145116/https://casetext.com/case/michigan-v-project-veritas-5|url-status=dead}}</ref> However, in 2021, the US District Court reversed itself by reconsideration, in part due to a request made by the [[Michigan Attorney General]], and resolved the split among the courts by changing its ruling such that Michigan allows a party in a conversation to record a discussion without getting the permission of other participants.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://casetext.com/case/aft-mich-v-project-veritas-4|title=AFT Mich. v. Project Veritas|date=8 Nov 2021|access-date=28 November 2023}}{{dead link|date=August 2025|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>
===Accepted forms of notification recording by a telephone company=== The [[Federal Communications Commission]] defines accepted forms of notification for telephone recording by telephone companies as:<ref>{{cite web|title=Subpart E--Use of Recording Devices by Telephone Companies|url=https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title47-vol3/pdf/CFR-2010-title47-vol3-sec64-501.pdf|publisher=United States Government Publishing Office|access-date=28 September 2017}}</ref> * prior verbal (oral) or written notification of all parties to the telephone conversation; * verbal (oral) notification before the recording is made (this is the most commonly used type); * an audible beep tone repeated at regular intervals during the call.
=== SCOTUS === In ''[[Rathbun v. United States (1957)|Rathbun v. United States]]'', the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled in regard to interstate or foreign communication that "the clear inference is that one entitled to receive the communication may use it for his own benefit or have another use it for him. The communication itself is not privileged, and one party may not force the other to secrecy merely by using a telephone. It has been conceded by those who believe the conduct here violates Section 605 [of the Federal Communication Act] that either party may record the conversation and publish it." See ''United States v. Polakoff'', 113 F. 2d 888, 889.
=== Copyright === Recordings of telephone calls may be protected as [[Sound recording copyright|sound recordings]] under federal copyright law. Under {{USC|17|101}}, "a work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted" can be copyrighted as long as "a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission." Thus, if a phone call is being recorded "by or under the authority of the author", a wiretapper would infringe the copyright in the audio transmission even if they recorded it directly rather than accessing the copyright owner's recording of it.<ref name="swatch-sdny-dismiss">{{cite court |url=https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914fb5dadd7b049349ad0c6 |litigants=Swatch Group v. Bloomberg |vol=808 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=634 |court=S.D.N.Y. |date=2011}}</ref>
In ''Swatch Group Management Services Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P.'' (2014), the [[The Swatch Group|Swatch Group]] sued [[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]] for obtaining a recording of an [[earnings call]] without authorization and disseminating it to paid subscribers. Swatch asserted a copyright in the recording of its senior executives' comments (as a [[work for hire]]<ref name="SRU000990871">{{cite web |url=https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/voyager_24588620 |title=The Swatch Group Earnings Call -- Key Figures 2010. (Registration number SRU000990871) |website=Copyright Public Records System |date=2011-03-02 |publisher=[[United States Copyright Office]] |access-date=2025-09-10}}</ref>) but not in the questions posed by the outside analysts on the call. However, the [[Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] found that Bloomberg's dissemination of the recording was [[fair use]].<ref name="reuters-swatch-grp">{{Cite web |url=https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/3-555-6865?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true |title=Second Circuit Affirms SDNY Fair Use Decision in Swatch v. Bloomberg |date=2014-01-28 |work=Practical Law Intellectual Property & Technology |publisher=[[Thomson Reuters]] |access-date=2025-09-10}}</ref><ref name="swatch-v-bloomberg-2d">{{Cite court |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/12-2412/12-2412-2014-01-27.html |litigants=Swatch Group v. Bloomberg |reporter=No. 12-2412 |court=2d Cir. |date=2014}}</ref>
==See also== *[[Covert listening device]] *[[Eavesdropping]] *[[Phone hacking]] *[[Secure telephone]] *[[Telephone tapping]]
==References== {{Reflist}}
==External links== *[http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/recordcalls.html FCC Consumer facts on recording calls] *[https://web.archive.org/web/20120111100456/http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs9-wrtp.htm Privacy Rights Clearinghouse / UCAN] *[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511- Federal law 18 U.S.C. 119, Sec. 2511(2)(d)] *Guidelines for Recording of Customer Telephone Calls
{{DEFAULTSORT:Telephone recording laws}} [[Category:Privacy law]] [[Category:Telecommunications law]] [[Category:Telephone tapping]]