Consent checker and legal reference
Call recording laws by state
Choose where you and the other person are. Get a cautious recording recommendation, a disclosure script, and the primary sources behind it. No sign-up is required.
Last reviewed: . Free to use. No signup required.
Most searched states
Open each state reference for its consent summary, sources, and verification limits.
Check two states and create a disclosure
This reference is not legal advice. The labels describe conservative recording practices. They do not determine which law applies to your call. Confirm the current law with qualified counsel, including each participant's actual location and any industry-specific rules. A phone number's area code does not establish a person's location.
Safest practice for the selected locations
All-party practice
Use the safer practice: tell everyone that you want to record and obtain explicit consent from every participant before recording. Keep recording off if anyone declines.
This tool uses the more protective practice label for the two selected jurisdictions. It does not determine which law governs an interstate call. Read each state's telephone and exception notes. Federal consent does not settle state requirements; the federal exception also excludes a criminal or tortious purpose. At least one selected record has a source or interpretation that needs verification. Confirm it with counsel before relying on the result.
A selected entry needs further verification. Read its notes and confirm the law before recording.
Read this disclosure before recording
With your permission, I would like to record this call to keep an accurate record of our sales conversation. Is that okay with everyone on the call?
Read this request while recording is off. Wait for an explicit agreement from every participant. If anyone declines, leave recording off. Ask again when a new participant joins. This sample wording does not guarantee legal compliance; confirm the applicable rules and your actual recording purpose.
This tool gives general guidance. It does not approve a call or change your recording settings. Ask every participant, including anyone who joins later. If a person declines, do not record.
US recording consent map
The map shows the safest practice recorded in this reference. All-party shading includes states with conflicting rules or important phone-call exceptions. Read the state notes before treating a color as a legal conclusion.
- Connecticut: all-party
- Delaware: all-party
- District of Columbia: one-party
- Maryland: all-party
- Massachusetts: all-party
- New Hampshire: all-party
- New Jersey: one-party
- Rhode Island: one-party
- Vermont: one-party
Colors are a cautious practice guide, not a legal determination. Read each state's phone-call scope and source notes. The table provides a text alternative.
Map geometry: us-atlas / US Census Bureau, ISC license. Alaska and Hawaii are rescaled insets.
Start with the federal rule
For a person not acting under color of law, the federal statute permits interception when that person is a party to the communication or one party has given prior consent. This exception does not apply when the purpose is to commit a criminal or tortious act in violation of federal or state law. It does not settle stricter state requirements.
Read the official text: Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d).
This reference was checked against the official 2024 U.S. Code edition. Later amendments have not been confirmed. Confirm them before relying on this reference.
For an interstate call, the stricter practice is a risk-reduction recommendation. It is not a choice-of-law decision. Confirm the actual location of every participant. A phone number's area code does not prove where its owner is.
All 50 states and Washington, DC
One-party means a participant can usually give the required consent. All-party practice means get everyone's agreement before recording. Each state page explains the statute, scope, exceptions, and remaining checks.
Source review limits. 20 entries have a stated verification limit. Open the state page and primary source before relying on it. A source link alone does not confirm every exception or court interpretation.
| State | Safest practice | Official statute | Important detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | One-party | Ala. Code §§ 13A-11-30(1), 13A-11-31, 13A-11-35, 13A-11-36 | The device ban applies whether or not the recorder is present. |
| Alaska | One-party | Alaska Stat. §§ 42.20.310, 42.20.320(a)(5), 42.20.330 | The eavesdropping-device definition expressly covers telephone conversations. |
| Arizona | One-party | Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-3005(A)(1), 13-3012(7) | The consent rule covers both wire and electronic communications. |
| Arkansas | One-party (provisional) | Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120Needs verification | Check the current official telephone recording provisions before recording. |
| California | All-party | Cal. Penal Code §§ 632(a), 632.7(a), 637.2; Smith v. LoanMe, Inc., 11 Cal. 5th 183 (2021)Needs verification | Smith v. LoanMe holds that § 632.7 applies to participants as well as third parties. Merely being a participant does not remove the consent requirement. Its confidentiality discussion confirms that the § 632 and § 632.7 rules differ. |
| Colorado | One-party | Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-9-303, 18-9-305(1) | The telephone provision also covers recording electronic communications and knowing use or disclosure of unlawfully obtained contents. |
| Connecticut | All-party | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-570d, 53a-187, 53a-189 | The all-party category is a conservative private-call practice. It does not mean that every participant recording is a criminal offense. The civil and criminal rules differ, and the civil statute expressly offers notice or tone alternatives. |
| Delaware | All-party | 11 Del. C. §§ 1335(a)(4), 2402(c)(4), 2409 | Delaware has overlapping all-party privacy language and one-party wiretap language. The all-party category is a conservative calling practice, not a claim that § 2402 has no participant exception. |
| District of Columbia | One-party | D.C. Code § 23-542 | Knowing use or disclosure of illegally intercepted contents is prohibited; this does not apply after the contents become public information or common knowledge. |
| Florida | All-party | Fla. Stat. §§ 934.02, 934.03(2)(d), 934.03(4), 934.10 | The expectation-of-privacy wording in § 934.02(2) defines oral communications. It should not be treated as a blanket public-place exception for wire telephone calls. For ordinary calls, use the all-party prior-consent rule. |
| Georgia | One-party (provisional) | Ga. Code Ann. §§ 16-11-62, 16-11-66, 16-11-69Needs verification | Check the current official telephone recording provisions before recording. |
| Hawaii | One-party (provisional) | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3)(A)Needs verification | Review the official statute before recording a telephone call. |
| Idaho | One-party (provisional) | Idaho Code § 18-6702(2)(d)Needs verification | Review the official statute before recording a telephone call. |
| Illinois | All-party | 720 ILCS 5/14-1, 14-2, 14-3, 14-4, 14-6Needs verification | The conservative all-party label concerns private telephone conversations. The official indexed text uses both privacy and surreptitious-recording limits. Do not transfer this call rule directly to email or text without checking the separate electronic-communication provisions. |
| Indiana | One-party (provisional) | Ind. Code §§ 35-31.5-2-176; 35-33.5-5-5(b)Needs verification | Confirm how the cited law applies to the planned telephone call. |
| Iowa | One-party | Iowa Code §§ 808B.2(1), (2)(c); 727.8(2), (3)(a) | The separate eavesdropping law exempts recording by a message’s sender or recipient. |
| Kansas | One-party | Kan. Stat. § 21-6101(a)(1), (a)(5), (b)(1), (d) | The law separately restricts wire or wireless interception equipment used without consent from the person who controls the communications facilities. |
| Kentucky | One-party | Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 526.010, 526.020, 526.070 | The definition covers any part of a wire communication recorded through an electronic, mechanical, or other device. |
| Louisiana | One-party | La. Rev. Stat. §§ 15:1303(C)(4), (B); 15:1302(9)(b) | The law expressly includes the radio portion of cordless, portable, and cellular telephone calls. |
| Maine | One-party | Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 709–711; tit. 17-A, § 511 | The telephone rule comes from the definition of interception. For a nonparticipant, authority from the sender or receiver must be prior. |
| Maryland | All-party | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. §§ 10-402(a), (b), (c)(3), 10-410 | The ordinary participant exception requires prior consent from all parties. Being a participant alone is insufficient under § 10-402(c)(3). A general notice-only alternative is not stated in this provision. |
| Massachusetts | All-party | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(B)(4), (C)(1), (D) | The all-party label is a conservative practice. The actual statute regulates secret interception and authority from all parties. This entry does not claim a separate judicial rule about notice because no official notice case was reviewed. |
| Michigan | All-party | Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 750.539a, 750.539c, 750.539hNeeds verification | Sullivan concerned a recorded telephone conversation and held that participant recording falls outside “private discourse of others.” Lewis v. LeGrow, 258 Mich. App. 175, 185 (2003), repeats that interpretation. Keep the participant exception visible when using an all-party classification. |
| Minnesota | One-party | Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 | Section 626A.02(2)(g) has a narrow exception for a cordless handset-to-base radio communication whose initial interception was inadvertent. This does not replace the consent rule for ordinary call recording. |
| Mississippi | One-party (provisional) | Miss. Code §§ 41-29-531, 41-29-533Needs verification | Review required. Telephone-specific scope was not verified against current official statute text. |
| Missouri | One-party | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 | The official statute page includes a case annotation stating that a call between a cellular phone and a regular wire phone is a wire communication. The private-party consent exception should not be generalized to all in-person recordings. |
| Montana | All-party | Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213(1)(c), (2)(a), (3), (4)(a) | This is a knowledge and warning rule for conversations, not an absolute requirement to collect affirmative consent from everyone. The all-party category is a conservative calling practice. The official 2025 statute makes the prior-warning exception explicit. |
| Nebraska | One-party (provisional) | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290Needs verification | Telephone-specific provisions need official-source verification. |
| Nevada | All-party | Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 200.620, 200.650, 200.690Needs verification | Ditech states that § 200.620 requires both parties participating in a telephone call to consent, and cites Lane v. Allstate Insurance Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 1179 (1998). Sharpe v. State, 131 Nev. 269, 274–275 (2015), treats cellphone calls and text messages as wire communications under Nevada’s wiretap statutes. |
| New Hampshire | All-party | N.H. Rev. Stat. §§ 570-A:1, 570-A:2(I), (I-a), (II), 570-A:11 | Telecommunications and private in-person oral communications have separate definitions in § 570-A:1. The all-party telephone requirement is not removed merely because the recorder takes part in the call. |
| New Jersey | One-party (provisional) | N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2A:156A-3, 2A:156A-4 and 2A:156A-24Needs verification | The practice label follows the RCFP telephone-communications summary. It is not a verified legal approval for a landline, mobile, electronic or interstate recording. |
| New Mexico | One-party (provisional) | N.M. Stat. § 30-12-1Needs verification | Telephone, wireless, and browser-call coverage require verification before relying on this classification. |
| New York | One-party (provisional) | N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05Needs verification | Telephone and electronic-communication definitions require verification before relying on this classification. |
| North Carolina | One-party (provisional) | N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-286, 15A-287, 15A-296Needs verification | Wire, oral, and electronic-communication scope requires verification before relying on this classification. |
| North Dakota | One-party | N.D. Cent. Code §§ 12.1-15-02, 12.1-15-04 | The law uses a wire-or-oral framework. Its wire definition includes a carrier wire, cable, or similar connection used in whole or in part; the definition does not expressly name cellphone calls. |
| Ohio | One-party (provisional) | Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52Needs verification | Telephone-specific provisions need official-source verification. |
| Oklahoma | One-party | Okla. Stat. tit. 13, §§ 176.2–176.4 | The consent exception expressly covers wire and electronic communications. The statutory definition of wire communication includes aural transfers through transmission facilities and switching connections. |
| Oregon | All-party | ORS 165.535; ORS 165.540(1)(a), (1)(c), (2)–(9); ORS 165.543 | ORS 165.540(1)(a) allows participant recording and third-party recording with at least one participant’s consent for telecommunications or radio communications. The separate conversation rule requires prior information to all participants, rather than their express agreement, and has exceptions. The Ninth Circuit’s January 7, 2025 en banc decision upheld the challenged conversation rule; the older 2023 RCFP guide reflects a superseded panel decision. |
| Pennsylvania | All-party | 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 5703, 5704(4), 5704(15), 5725 | The all-party category is a conservative ordinary-call practice. Section 5704(15) is a limited purpose and retention exception, not general permission to record, publish or reuse sales calls. No judicial implied-consent rule is asserted because the official case was not reviewed. |
| Rhode Island | One-party (provisional) | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21; § 12-5.1-13 (research leads)Needs verification | The telephone-recording rule still needs review against the official code text. |
| South Carolina | One-party | S.C. Code §§ 17-30-15, 17-30-20, 17-30-30, 17-30-50, 17-30-135 | The wire-communication definition covers voice transfers through transmission and switching connections. It also includes electronic storage of the communication. |
| South Dakota | One-party | S.D. Codified Laws §§ 23A-35A-1, 23A-35A-20, 23A-35A-21 | Wire communication includes transmission by wire, cable, radio, or another connection. The rule for communications uses the consent of either the sender or receiver. |
| Tennessee | One-party (provisional) | Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-601–603Needs verification | The rules for telephone communications need official-source verification. |
| Texas | One-party | Tex. Penal Code § 16.02(c)(4), (f); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.004 | The recording provision covers wire, oral and electronic communications. Article 18A.001 defines wire communication as a voice transfer made wholly or partly through wire, cable or similar facilities, including a switching station. |
| Utah | One-party | Utah Code §§ 77-23a-4(7)(b), (10); 77-23a-11 | The definitions exclude the radio link between a cordless telephone handset and its base unit from both wire communication and electronic communication. |
| Vermont | One-party (provisional) | 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), (4)(a); 18 U.S.C. § 2520Needs verification | The one-party category is the federal baseline for this entry. It does not establish that every type of call can be recorded in Vermont. Sector-specific rules and other applicable law can still restrict recording. |
| Virginia | One-party | Va. Code § 19.2-62 | The same party-consent exception expressly covers wire, electronic, and oral communications. A nonparticipant needs one party’s prior consent. |
| Washington | All-party | RCW 9.73.030(1)–(4), 9.73.060, 9.73.080 | The statute covers private communications, including telephone calls within or outside the state. Recorded effective notice is an express route to statutory consent. This differs from rules that require a separate affirmative agreement in every case. |
| West Virginia | One-party | W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3 | The consent rule expressly includes wire and electronic communications. Consent must be prior when the recorder is not a party. |
| Wisconsin | One-party (provisional) | Wis. Stat. § 968.31Needs verification | Review required. Telephone-specific scope was not verified against current official statute text. |
| Wyoming | One-party | Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-702 | The misdemeanor provision specifically names cellular and cordless telephone radio portions. The consent exception still expressly covers wire, oral, and electronic communications. |
Download and cite the data
Download the same state records used on this page. The exports include citations, review dates, and verification notes. They are a reference dataset, not a legal opinion.
Redialler, “Call recording laws by state,” reviewed 2026-10-08. https://redialler.com/recording-laws-by-state. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.
Recording-law reference data by Redialler (https://redialler.com/recording-laws-by-state), reviewed October 8, 2026. Read the license. When you change the data, identify your changes and keep its source and review notes.
Embed a state consent reference
Add a state reference to your site. The widget has no scripts, cookies, analytics, or signup form. It links to the cited statute and the full Redialler reference.
The iframe uses a fixed height. Increase it if your site uses a narrow column. The dataset is CC BY 4.0; keep the attribution and verification notes.
Related tools and guides
Frequently asked questions
Which rule should I follow when a call crosses state lines?
This checker recommends the more cautious practice for the selected states. It does not decide which state's law a court will apply. Ask every participant for consent before recording, and ask counsel about your specific facts.
Does federal law allow one-party consent?
18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) generally permits a private person to intercept a communication when they are a party or one party has given prior consent, unless the purpose is to commit a criminal or tortious act. State law can impose stricter requirements.
Are two-party consent and all-party consent the same?
Two-party consent is a common label for all-party consent. If there are three or more participants, the relevant all-party requirement covers all participants. The table uses a cautious practice label because some states distinguish phone calls, private conversations, and civil or criminal rules.
Does reading a disclosure guarantee lawful recording?
No. The sample scripts ask for an explicit answer before recording starts. Consent, privacy, purpose, and other exceptions depend on the applicable law and facts. If anyone declines, do not record the call.
Can I use and cite this recording consent dataset?
Yes. The JSON and CSV are available under CC BY 4.0. Attribute the data to Redialler, link to this page and the license, include the review date, and identify your changes. Check the cited primary sources before relying on the data.
Keep your calling work in Attio.
Set up your calling workspace in minutes. Questions about your CRM or team? Talk to us before you start.