---
title: "Call Recording Laws by State and Country: Free Checker"
description: "Free call recording laws checker: one-party or all-party consent in all 50 states, DC and 13 countries, what to announce, and what AI transcription changes."
url: https://skipcall.io/en/tools/call-recording-laws-by-state
language: en
---
[Free tools](https://skipcall.io/en/tools)

# Call recording laws by state and country

Pick where you are and where the other person is, or paste their number: a green, amber or red light, what you have to announce, and what AI transcription changes. All 50 states, DC and 13 countries, with the statute behind every rule.

Know before you hit record

## Your call

The answer updates with every choice.

You are calling from

The other person is in

Or paste their phone number

The tool reads the country code and, in North America, the area code to find the state.

Examples

Calls are transcribed or summarized by AI

Automatic transcripts, summaries, or an AI notetaker on the call.

Your vendor may reuse your calls to train its models

Look for “improve our services” or “training” in its terms.

Everything runs in your browser: your choices are not sent anywhere.

Red light

## Only with everyone’s consent

Recording without the other person’s consent exposes you to criminal and civil liability. Get it first.

Rule applied: the stricter of the two, California.

Between two states, courts generally apply the more protective law (Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 2006).

You

New York

One-party consent

A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose.

[N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/250.05)

Other party

Rule applied

California

All-party consent

CIPA requires everyone’s consent for a confidential conversation (§ 632) and, for any call involving a cell phone, regardless of confidentiality (§ 632.7). Section 631, which targets third-party eavesdropping, is the basis of the lawsuits against AI transcription vendors.

**Penalties: **Civil action: the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages (§ 637.2), which makes class actions attractive.

[Cal. Penal Code § 632](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN\&sectionNum=632)

## What to do

In order, before your next recorded call.

1. 1

   Announce the recording at the very startRequired

   Before anything is recorded: at pickup, by the rep or with a recorded message. Not at the end of the call, and not in a follow-up email.

2. 2

   Get every participant’s consentRequired

   A clear announcement, then consent: a spoken yes or, where California accepts it, staying on the line after the announcement. A spoken yes is the safest.

3. 3

   Make opting out realRequired

   Offer to continue without recording, and check that your tool can stop recording mid-call. An announcement with no real way to say no protects very little.

4. 4

   Say the call is transcribed and summarized by AIRequired

   “This call is recorded” does not cover transcripts or AI summaries. Name them in the announcement, or at least in the policy it points to.

5. 5

   Settle the training questionRequired

   Check whether your contract lets the vendor reuse your calls for its own models. Turn it off if you can; if not, disclose it clearly.

6. 6

   Tell your reps tooRequired

   Give written notice to everyone whose calls are recorded, before you switch it on.

Now write what to say

The call recording notice generator writes the opening announcement, the privacy policy paragraph and the register entry, in the language of your calls.

[Generate my notice](https://skipcall.io/en/tools/call-recording-notice-generator)

Recording a call and being allowed to make it are two different questions. For calling hours, do-not-call lists and consent to telemarketing, use the [cold calling compliance checker](https://skipcall.io/en/tools/cold-calling-compliance-checker).

## If the call is transcribed by AI

- California: lawsuits target AI transcription vendors

  Class actions under CIPA § 631 argue that an AI transcription vendor is a third party eavesdropping on the call. Courts refused to toss those claims in Ambriz v. Google (February 2025) and in the Otter.ai case (order of August 13, 2026), because the vendor allegedly reuses conversations for itself. SB 690, signed September 30, 2026, leaves both sections untouched. Nothing has been decided on the merits, but the fix is well known: disclose AI transcription explicitly, get consent, and bar model training by contract.

## If the vendor trains its models on your calls

- Not sure? Check the contract

  Search the vendor’s terms for “training”, “improve our services” or “model improvement”. Until you know, the tool assumes it does.

- This is what matters most in California

  In Ambriz v. Google and in the Otter.ai case (August 13, 2026), it was the vendor reusing conversations for its own models that made it a potential third party to the call. A tool that acts only for you is treated as your extension. A contract that rules out training on your calls cuts that risk sharply.

## Statutes and sources

Checked November 6, 2026

- [N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/250.05)
- [RCFP, Reporter’s Recording Guide](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/new-york/)
- [Cal. Penal Code § 632](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN\&sectionNum=632)
- [Cal. Penal Code § 632.7](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN\&sectionNum=632.7)
- [Cal. Penal Code § 631](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN\&sectionNum=631)
- [Cal. Penal Code § 637.2](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN\&sectionNum=637.2)
- [18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511)
- [Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 39 Cal.4th 95 (2006)](https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/kearney-v-salomon-smith-barney-33656)
- [In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, No. 25-cv-06911-EKL (N.D. Cal., Aug. 13, 2026)](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf)
- [IAPP: Ambriz v. Google, In re Otter.ai Privacy Litigation](https://iapp.org/news/a/dressing-old-laws-in-class-action-suits-applying-anti-wiretapping-laws-to-ai-transcription-services)
- [California SB 690 (2026)](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB690)

Information, not legal advice

This tool summarizes statutes and court decisions as of the date checked. It does not know your industry (healthcare, financial services and debt collection have their own rules) or your contracts. Have counsel validate your practice before rolling it out.

## Save or share this answer

The link reopens the tool with the same answers.

**Skipcall records, transcribes and summarizes your sales calls.** Right from the power dialer, with the summary on the contact record. Announcing the recording is up to you: this page tells you how.

[Try Skipcall](https://app.skipcall.io/signup) [See recording and transcription](https://skipcall.io/en/features/enregistrement-transcription)

## Is it legal to record a phone call?

It depends on two places: where you are, and where the other person is. Call recording laws fall into three families, and the stricter of the two ends sets what you have to do.

In the US, federal law lets a participant record without telling anyone, but twelve states require everyone’s consent. In the EU, the UK and Canada, criminal law usually lets a participant record, but a business recording its calls is processing personal data, so it must give notice first and let people object. Germany, Switzerland and Portugal go further: recording without consent is a crime there, even for someone on the call.

For a sales team, the takeaway is simple: as soon as your calls leave your own one-party state or country, announcing the recording and letting people opt out becomes the working rule.

Green light

One-party consent

You are on the call, so your consent is enough. Thirty-eight states, DC and, under criminal law, Canada.

Amber light

Prior notice

Recording is allowed if you announce it first and let people object. France, the UK and most EU countries.

Red light

All-party consent

Everyone must be told and agree. California, Florida, Illinois and nine other states, plus Germany, Switzerland and Portugal.

## Call recording laws by state: the full table

Federal law sets one-party consent (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia follow it; twelve require more. Each row gives the state statute and what sets it apart.

[AL](?vers=US-AL#outil) [AK](?vers=US-AK#outil) [AZ](?vers=US-AZ#outil) [AR](?vers=US-AR#outil) [CA](?vers=US-CA#outil) [CO](?vers=US-CO#outil) [CT](?vers=US-CT#outil) [DE](?vers=US-DE#outil) [DC](?vers=US-DC#outil) [FL](?vers=US-FL#outil) [GA](?vers=US-GA#outil) [HI](?vers=US-HI#outil) [ID](?vers=US-ID#outil) [IL](?vers=US-IL#outil) [IN](?vers=US-IN#outil) [IA](?vers=US-IA#outil) [KS](?vers=US-KS#outil) [KY](?vers=US-KY#outil) [LA](?vers=US-LA#outil) [ME](?vers=US-ME#outil) [MD](?vers=US-MD#outil) [MA](?vers=US-MA#outil) [MI](?vers=US-MI#outil) [MN](?vers=US-MN#outil) [MS](?vers=US-MS#outil) [MO](?vers=US-MO#outil) [MT](?vers=US-MT#outil) [NE](?vers=US-NE#outil) [NV](?vers=US-NV#outil) [NH](?vers=US-NH#outil) [NJ](?vers=US-NJ#outil) [NM](?vers=US-NM#outil) [NY](?vers=US-NY#outil) [NC](?vers=US-NC#outil) [ND](?vers=US-ND#outil) [OH](?vers=US-OH#outil) [OK](?vers=US-OK#outil) [OR](?vers=US-OR#outil) [PA](?vers=US-PA#outil) [RI](?vers=US-RI#outil) [SC](?vers=US-SC#outil) [SD](?vers=US-SD#outil) [TN](?vers=US-TN#outil) [TX](?vers=US-TX#outil) [UT](?vers=US-UT#outil) [VT](?vers=US-VT#outil) [VA](?vers=US-VA#outil) [WA](?vers=US-WA#outil) [WV](?vers=US-WV#outil) [WI](?vers=US-WI#outil) [WY](?vers=US-WY#outil)

One-party consent One-party consent · Unsettled All-party consent

Tap a state to open the tool on it.

### The 12 all-party consent states

Calling a prospect in any of them is enough to bring its law into your call, even if your office is elsewhere.

- [California](?vers=US-CA#outil)
- [Connecticut](?vers=US-CT#outil)
- [Delaware\*](?vers=US-DE#outil)
- [Florida](?vers=US-FL#outil)
- [Illinois](?vers=US-IL#outil)
- [Maryland](?vers=US-MD#outil)
- [Massachusetts](?vers=US-MA#outil)
- [Montana](?vers=US-MT#outil)
- [Nevada](?vers=US-NV#outil)
- [New Hampshire](?vers=US-NH#outil)
- [Pennsylvania](?vers=US-PA#outil)
- [Washington](?vers=US-WA#outil)

\* Unsettled

### The 38 one-party consent states, plus DC

A participant may record without telling anyone. Announcing it is still the working rule as soon as you call across state lines.

- [Alabama](?vers=US-AL#outil)
- [Alaska](?vers=US-AK#outil)
- [Arizona](?vers=US-AZ#outil)
- [Arkansas](?vers=US-AR#outil)
- [Colorado](?vers=US-CO#outil)
- [District of Columbia](?vers=US-DC#outil)
- [Georgia](?vers=US-GA#outil)
- [Hawaii](?vers=US-HI#outil)
- [Idaho](?vers=US-ID#outil)
- [Indiana](?vers=US-IN#outil)
- [Iowa](?vers=US-IA#outil)
- [Kansas](?vers=US-KS#outil)
- [Kentucky](?vers=US-KY#outil)
- [Louisiana](?vers=US-LA#outil)
- [Maine](?vers=US-ME#outil)
- [Michigan\*](?vers=US-MI#outil)
- [Minnesota](?vers=US-MN#outil)
- [Mississippi](?vers=US-MS#outil)
- [Missouri](?vers=US-MO#outil)
- [Nebraska](?vers=US-NE#outil)
- [New Jersey](?vers=US-NJ#outil)
- [New Mexico](?vers=US-NM#outil)
- [New York](?vers=US-NY#outil)
- [North Carolina](?vers=US-NC#outil)
- [North Dakota](?vers=US-ND#outil)
- [Ohio](?vers=US-OH#outil)
- [Oklahoma](?vers=US-OK#outil)
- [Oregon](?vers=US-OR#outil)
- [Rhode Island](?vers=US-RI#outil)
- [South Carolina](?vers=US-SC#outil)
- [South Dakota](?vers=US-SD#outil)
- [Tennessee](?vers=US-TN#outil)
- [Texas](?vers=US-TX#outil)
- [Utah](?vers=US-UT#outil)
- [Vermont](?vers=US-VT#outil)
- [Virginia](?vers=US-VA#outil)
- [West Virginia](?vers=US-WV#outil)
- [Wisconsin](?vers=US-WI#outil)
- [Wyoming](?vers=US-WY#outil)

\* Unsettled

Find a state (e.g. Florida)

| State | Rule | Statute | What to know |
| - | - | - | - |
| Alabama [Check](?vers=US-AL#outil) | One-party consent | [Ala. Code §§ 13A-11-30, 13A-11-31](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/alabama/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Alaska [Check](?vers=US-AK#outil) | One-party consent | [Alaska Stat. § 42.20.310](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/alaska/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Arizona [Check](?vers=US-AZ#outil) | One-party consent | [Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3005](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/arizona/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Arkansas [Check](?vers=US-AR#outil) | One-party consent | [Ark. Code § 5-60-120](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/arkansas/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| California [Check](?vers=US-CA#outil) | All-party consent | [Cal. Penal Code § 632](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN\&sectionNum=632) | CIPA requires everyone’s consent for a confidential conversation (§ 632) and, for any call involving a cell phone, regardless of confidentiality (§ 632.7). Section 631, which targets third-party eavesdropping, is the basis of the lawsuits against AI transcription vendors. |
| Colorado [Check](?vers=US-CO#outil) | One-party consent | [Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-9-303, 18-9-304](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/colorado/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Connecticut [Check](?vers=US-CT#outil) | All-party consent | [Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d](https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_925.htm) | Criminal law is one-party. Civil law is not: recording a call without everyone’s consent opens you to damages. Written consent, recorded verbal consent, a recorded notice at the start of the call or an automatic beep tone satisfies it. |
| Delaware [Check](?vers=US-DE#outil) | All-party consent Unsettled | Del. Code tit. 11, § 1335(a)(4) | Two statutes conflict: the wiretap law allows one-party consent (§ 2402), the privacy law requires all parties (§ 1335). When in doubt, follow the stricter rule. |
| District of Columbia [Check](?vers=US-DC#outil) | One-party consent | [D.C. Code § 23-542](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/district-of-columbia/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Florida [Check](?vers=US-FL#outil) | All-party consent | [Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(d)](https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/934.03) | All parties must give prior consent. The “no reasonable expectation of privacy” carve-out applies to in-person conversations, not to phone calls. |
| Georgia [Check](?vers=US-GA#outil) | One-party consent | [Ga. Code §§ 16-11-62, 16-11-66](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/georgia/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Hawaii [Check](?vers=US-HI#outil) | One-party consent | [Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3)(A)](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/hawaii/) | For phone calls, one party’s consent is enough. Installing a recording device in a private place, however, requires everyone’s consent (§ 711-1111). |
| Idaho [Check](?vers=US-ID#outil) | One-party consent | [Idaho Code § 18-6702(2)(d)](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/idaho/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Illinois [Check](?vers=US-IL#outil) | All-party consent | [720 ILCS 5/14-2](https://www.ilga.gov/Documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K14-2.htm) | Since the 2014 rewrite, the offense targets “surreptitious” recording of a private conversation without everyone’s consent. An announced recording is not surreptitious. Separately, BIPA applies if you create voiceprints. |
| Indiana [Check](?vers=US-IN#outil) | One-party consent | [Ind. Code §§ 35-33.5-5-5, 35-31.5-2-176](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/indiana/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Iowa [Check](?vers=US-IA#outil) | One-party consent | [Iowa Code §§ 808B.2(2)(c), 727.8](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/iowa/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Kansas [Check](?vers=US-KS#outil) | One-party consent | [Kan. Stat. § 21-6101(a)(1)](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/kansas/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Kentucky [Check](?vers=US-KY#outil) | One-party consent | [Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 526.010, 526.020](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/kentucky/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Louisiana [Check](?vers=US-LA#outil) | One-party consent | [La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1303](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/louisiana/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Maine [Check](?vers=US-ME#outil) | One-party consent | [Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 709, 710](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/maine/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Maryland [Check](?vers=US-MD#outil) | All-party consent | [Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402(c)(3)](https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcj\&section=10-402\&enactments=false) | Every party’s consent is required for a phone call, whether or not the parties expect privacy. |
| Massachusetts [Check](?vers=US-MA#outil) | All-party consent | [Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99) | The law bans secret recording: if everyone knows the call is being recorded, no affirmative consent is needed (Curtatone v. Barstool Sports, 2021). A clear announcement therefore works. |
| Michigan [Check](?vers=US-MI#outil) | One-party consent Unsettled | [Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-750-539c) | The statute speaks of eavesdropping without everyone’s consent, but an appellate court held that a participant may record their own conversation (Sullivan v. Gray). The state supreme court has not ruled: give notice. |
| Minnesota [Check](?vers=US-MN#outil) | One-party consent | [Minn. Stat. § 626A.02, subd. 2(d)](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/minnesota/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Mississippi [Check](?vers=US-MS#outil) | One-party consent | [Miss. Code § 41-29-531(e)](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/mississippi/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Missouri [Check](?vers=US-MO#outil) | One-party consent | [Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402.2(3)](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/missouri/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Montana [Check](?vers=US-MT#outil) | All-party consent | [Mont. Code § 45-8-213(1)(c)](https://archive.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0450/chapter_0080/part_0020/section_0130/0450-0080-0020-0130.html) | Recording a call “without the knowledge of all parties” is unlawful. A person who has been warned of the recording falls under the statutory exception: the announcement is enough. |
| Nebraska [Check](?vers=US-NE#outil) | One-party consent | [Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/nebraska/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Nevada [Check](?vers=US-NV#outil) | All-party consent | [Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620](https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-200.html) | The statute reads like one-party, but the Nevada Supreme Court requires all-party consent for phone calls (Lane v. Allstate, 1998). In-person conversations remain one-party (§ 200.650). |
| New Hampshire [Check](?vers=US-NH#outil) | All-party consent | [N.H. Rev. Stat. § 570-A:2](https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-2.htm) | All parties must consent. Courts accept implied consent when the person knew the call was being recorded. |
| New Jersey [Check](?vers=US-NJ#outil) | One-party consent | [N.J. Stat. §§ 2A:156A-3, 2A:156A-4](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/new-jersey/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| New Mexico [Check](?vers=US-NM#outil) | One-party consent | [N.M. Stat. § 30-12-1](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/new-mexico/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| New York [Check](?vers=US-NY#outil) | One-party consent | [N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/250.05) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| North Carolina [Check](?vers=US-NC#outil) | One-party consent | [N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-286, 15A-287](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/north-carolina/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| North Dakota [Check](?vers=US-ND#outil) | One-party consent | [N.D. Cent. Code §§ 12.1-15-02, 12.1-15-04](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/north-dakota/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Ohio [Check](?vers=US-OH#outil) | One-party consent | [Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/ohio/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Oklahoma [Check](?vers=US-OK#outil) | One-party consent | [Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.4](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/oklahoma/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Oregon [Check](?vers=US-OR#outil) | One-party consent | [Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540](https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors165.html) | For phone calls, one party’s consent is enough. Oregon sometimes appears on all-party lists because of its in-person conversation rule, which requires telling every participant: a Ninth Circuit panel struck it down in 2023, but the full court upheld it in 2025 (Project Veritas v. Schmidt). |
| Pennsylvania [Check](?vers=US-PA#outil) | All-party consent | [18 Pa. C.S. §§ 5703, 5704(4)](https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM\&ttl=18\&div=0\&chpt=57\&sctn=4\&subsctn=0) | All-party consent is required for phone calls, whatever the expectation of privacy. Courts find consent when the person knew or should have known the call was being recorded. |
| Rhode Island [Check](?vers=US-RI#outil) | One-party consent | [R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/rhode-island/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| South Carolina [Check](?vers=US-SC#outil) | One-party consent | [S.C. Code § 17-30-30](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/south-carolina/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| South Dakota [Check](?vers=US-SD#outil) | One-party consent | [S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/south-dakota/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Tennessee [Check](?vers=US-TN#outil) | One-party consent | [Tenn. Code §§ 39-13-601, 39-13-604](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/tennessee/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Texas [Check](?vers=US-TX#outil) | One-party consent | [Tex. Penal Code § 16.02](https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.16.htm) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Utah [Check](?vers=US-UT#outil) | One-party consent | [Utah Code § 77-23a-4](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/utah/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Vermont [Check](?vers=US-VT#outil) | One-party consent | [18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511) | Vermont has no call recording statute: the federal one-party rule applies. |
| Virginia [Check](?vers=US-VA#outil) | One-party consent | [Va. Code § 19.2-62](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/virginia/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Washington [Check](?vers=US-WA#outil) | All-party consent | [Rev. Code Wash. § 9.73.030(1)(a), (3)](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030) | All-party consent is required, but the law treats it as obtained once one party announces the recording to everyone, provided the announcement itself is recorded. |
| West Virginia [Check](?vers=US-WV#outil) | One-party consent | [W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/west-virginia/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Wisconsin [Check](?vers=US-WI#outil) | One-party consent | [Wis. Stat. § 968.31](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/wisconsin/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Wyoming [Check](?vers=US-WY#outil) | One-party consent | [Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-702](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/wyoming/) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |

Checked November 6, 2026. Information, not legal advice.

## Call recording laws in other countries

Outside the US, the question is framed differently: criminal law often lets a participant record, but a business processes personal data and must give notice. In Europe, three countries make recording without consent a crime, even for a participant.

- ### Australia

  All-party consent Unsettled

  Rules vary by state and territory: several, including New South Wales, require all-party consent for a private conversation, with exceptions; others, such as Victoria, let a participant record. Expected practice: announce the recording at the start of the call.

  [Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979](https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A02124/latest/text) · [Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), s. 7](https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2007-064)

  [Check](?vers=AU#outil)

- ### Austria

  Prior notice

  The Criminal Code targets third-party eavesdropping and disclosing a recording without the speaker’s consent. A company that records must give notice at the start of the call (GDPR).

  [§ 120 StGB (Autriche / Austria)](https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/NormDokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen\&Gesetzesnummer=10002296\&Paragraf=120) · [RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj)

  [Check](?vers=AT#outil)

- ### Belgium

  Prior notice

  The Criminal Code only targets recording a communication you do not take part in (art. 314bis of the former code; the new Criminal Code, in force since September 1, 2026, carries the offense under a new number). A company that records must give notice at the start of the call (GDPR).

  [Code pénal belge de 1867, art. 314bis](https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/loi/1867/06/08/1867060850/justel) · [SPF Justice : entrée en vigueur du nouveau Code pénal le 1er septembre 2026](https://www.justice.belgium.be/fr/nouvelles/autres_communiques/1er_septembre_historique_entree_en_vigueur_du_nouveau_code_penal) · [RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj)

  [Check](?vers=BE#outil)

- ### Canada

  Prior notice

  The Criminal Code allows one-party consent. A business must still announce the recording and every purpose at the start of the call (PIPEDA); staying on the line is implied consent, and a customer who objects must be offered an alternative. In Quebec, the provincial private sector act also requires telling people why their information is collected.

  [Criminal Code / Code criminel, s. 184(2)(a)](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-184.html) · [OPC Canada: recording of customer telephone calls](https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/surveillance/02_05_d_14/) · [Québec, Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels dans le secteur privé (RLRQ c. P-39.1), art. 8](https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/P-39.1)

  [Check](?vers=CA#outil)

- ### France

  Prior notice

  No express consent is required, but the other party must be told at the start of the call (that it is recorded, why, and how to object). The CNIL rejects permanent, systematic recording unless a law requires it, and caps retention at six months. The Criminal Code presumes consent when recording is done openly and the person does not object.

  **Penalties:** Recording someone’s private or confidential words without consent: one year in prison and a €45,000 fine (art. 226-1). Under the GDPR, the CNIL can also impose administrative fines.

  [RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj) · [CNIL, L’écoute et l’enregistrement des appels sur le lieu de travail](https://www.cnil.fr/fr/lecoute-et-lenregistrement-des-appels-sur-le-lieu-de-travail) · [Code pénal, art. 226-1](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000042193566) · [Code du travail, art. L. 1222-4, L. 2312-38](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGITEXT000006072050)

  [Check](?vers=FR#outil)

- ### Germany

  All-party consent

  Recording another person’s non-public spoken words without authorization is a crime (§ 201 StGB), even as a participant. Ask for explicit consent before you start recording, and keep the answer on the recording.

  **Penalties:** Up to three years in prison or a fine.

  [§ 201 StGB](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__201.html) · [RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj)

  [Check](?vers=DE#outil)

- ### Ireland

  Prior notice

  Under the interception law, the consent of either the caller or the person called is enough. A company that records must give notice at the start of the call (GDPR).

  [Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983, s. 98](https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1983/en/act/pub/0024/sec0098.html) · [RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj)

  [Check](?vers=IE#outil)

- ### Italy

  Prior notice

  The Court of Cassation holds that a recording made by a participant is not an interception. A company that records must give notice at the start of the call (GDPR); disclosing the recording remains restricted.

  Corte di cassazione, Sezioni Unite, n. 36747/2003 · [Codice penale, art. 617](https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.decreto:1930-10-19;1398~art617) · [RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj)

  [Check](?vers=IT#outil)

- ### Netherlands

  Prior notice

  The Criminal Code only punishes recording a conversation you are not part of. A company that records must give notice at the start of the call (AVG, the Dutch name of the GDPR).

  [Wetboek van Strafrecht, art. 139a](https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2025-01-01#BoekTweede_TiteldeelV_Artikel139a) · [RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj)

  [Check](?vers=NL#outil)

- ### Portugal

  All-party consent

  The Criminal Code punishes recording another person’s words without consent, even words addressed to you. Get the other party’s consent before recording.

  **Penalties:** Up to one year in prison or a fine of up to 240 days.

  [Código Penal, art. 199.º](https://dre.pt/dre/legislacao-consolidada/decreto-lei/1995-34437675) · [RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj)

  [Check](?vers=PT#outil)

- ### Spain

  Prior notice

  The secrecy of communications cannot be invoked against a participant (STC 114/1984): only third-party recording is a crime. A company that records must still give notice at the start of the call under the GDPR.

  [Tribunal constitucional, STC 114/1984](https://hj.tribunalconstitucional.es/es/Resolucion/Show/367) · Código Penal, art. 197 · [RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj)

  [Check](?vers=ES#outil)

- ### Switzerland

  All-party consent

  A participant who records without the others’ consent commits an offense (art. 179ter). Exception: calls about orders, assignments, reservations or similar transactions in a business relationship (art. 179quinquies). A prospecting call does not necessarily qualify.

  **Penalties:** On complaint, up to one year in prison or a monetary penalty.

  [Code pénal suisse (CP), art. 179ter, 179quinquies](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/fr) · nLPD / FADP, art. 19

  [Check](?vers=CH#outil)

- ### United Kingdom

  Prior notice

  A business may record calls to establish facts, check compliance or monitor quality, provided it informs everyone who uses its system. The UK GDPR also requires telling the other party. Some regulated financial firms must record.

  [SI 2018/356, regs 3, 4](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/356/regulation/4/made) · [UK GDPR, art. 13](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/679/article/13)

  [Check](?vers=GB#outil)

## Calls across state lines or borders: the stricter rule wins

When the caller and the person called are under different laws, follow the stricter one. In the US, the leading case is Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (California Supreme Court, 2006): a brokerage recording calls from Georgia, a one-party state, to clients in California was held to California’s all-party rule.

Between countries, no single ruling settles it as clearly, but the logic is the same: the other person’s law protects the other person. A team in Austin calling Munich has to reckon with § 201 of the German Criminal Code, whatever Texas allows.

In practice, the tool always applies the stricter rule of the two ends. For a team calling several states or countries, the simplest approach is one announcement that satisfies the strictest case, used on every call.

## AI transcription and model training: what changes

1. Transcribing a call, summarizing it or pulling tasks out of it does not make a lawful recording unlawful. It does add a use, and usually a party: the vendor running the model. That is where the rules tighten.

2. In California, class actions under CIPA § 631 argue that a transcription vendor is a third party listening in without everyone’s consent. In Ambriz v. Google, the Northern District of California denied the motion to dismiss in February 2025, reasoning that the vendor had the capability to use the data for its own purposes. On August 13, 2026, the same court let the consolidated Otter.ai suits proceed under CIPA and the federal Wiretap Act: Otter allegedly uses conversations to train its models, which would make it a third party rather than a mere tool. SB 690, signed September 30, 2026, only targets website trackers and leaves these rules intact. Nothing has been decided on the merits, but the practice is set: disclose AI transcription explicitly, and bar the vendor by contract from reusing your calls.

3. In the EU, transcripts and summaries are additional personal data, to be disclosed and kept for a defined period. Training a model on calls is a purpose separate from the one you announced. And since February 2, 2025, the EU AI Act bans inferring employees’ emotions with AI in the workplace, so a “mood score” for reps is out. In Illinois, identifying speakers by their voice falls under BIPA, which requires a written release.

## How the tool reaches its answer

Each jurisdiction has a record: its rule (one-party, prior notice, all-party), its statutes, its nuances and, where the statute sets them, its penalties. For US states, the classification follows the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press’s Reporter’s Recording Guide, cross-checked against the official statutes for the twelve all-party states and the disputed cases. For countries, it relies on criminal codes, the GDPR and regulator guidance (France’s CNIL, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada). A pasted number is read against the area code table published with libphonenumber, Google’s phone numbering library. Checked November 6, 2026.

Four calls are deliberate. Delaware, whose two statutes conflict, is classed as all-party to be safe. Michigan stays one-party, but the tool recommends notice because the state supreme court has not ruled. Oregon is one-party for phone calls: its stricter rule only covers in-person conversations. Australia is classed as all-party because several states and territories require it. AI transcription never changes the color of the answer; it adds obligations, listed separately.

The tool does not know your industry. Healthcare, banking, insurance and debt collection often have rules of their own, which can require recording or restrict it.

## The most common mistakes

- ### Thinking from your own office

  Your HQ is in Austin? It does not matter if the prospect is in San Francisco: their state’s law is often the one that bites.

- ### Announcing at the end of the call

  Notice has to come before the recording. A mention afterward, or a follow-up email, does not replace the opening announcement.

- ### Saying “recorded” when it is also transcribed by AI

  AI transcription is another use, and usually another vendor. Name it.

- ### An announcement with no way to opt out

  If someone says no and the recording keeps running, the announcement works against you. Plan the procedure and test it.

- ### Forgetting your own reps

  People whose calls are recorded need written notice before you switch recording on, and several states have employee monitoring notice rules of their own.

## Keep going

Got your answer? Here is the logical next step, from the announcement to calling compliance.

- [Call recording notice generator The opening announcement and the GDPR wording, ready to copy, in seven languages.](https://skipcall.io/en/tools/call-recording-notice-generator)
- [Cold calling compliance checker Legal calling hours, holidays, do-not-call lists and telemarketing consent, country by country.](https://skipcall.io/en/tools/cold-calling-compliance-checker)
- [Call recording laws for business Consent, retention, employee notice, PCI pause-and-resume: the full compliance playbook.](https://skipcall.io/en/blog/call-recording-laws-business)
- [AI call transcription and summaries What transcription actually produces, how accurate it is, and how to use it.](https://skipcall.io/en/blog/ai-call-transcription-summaries)
- [Sales call scorecard Put your recordings to work: a printable scorecard to review calls.](https://skipcall.io/en/tools/sales-call-scorecard)
- [Cold calling laws by country The telemarketing rules of fourteen countries in one place.](https://skipcall.io/en/blog/cold-calling-laws-by-country)

## Information, not legal advice

This tool summarizes statutes and court decisions as of the date checked. It does not know your industry (healthcare, financial services and debt collection have their own rules) or your contracts. Have counsel validate your practice before rolling it out.

Checked November 6, 2026

## A calendar full of meetings starts with a call.

[Get started now](https://app.skipcall.io/signup) [Book a demo](https://skipcall.io/en/demo)

**No commitment** · Number live in 2 minutes

## Frequently asked questions

**Is it legal to record a phone call without telling the other person?**

In 38 states and the District of Columbia, yes: one party’s consent is enough, and that party can be you. In the twelve all-party states, such as California and Florida, no. Outside the US, a business generally has to give notice first, and in Germany, Switzerland and Portugal recording without consent is a crime.

**Which states are two-party consent states?**

Twelve states require all-party consent for phone calls: California, Connecticut (civil liability), Delaware (conflicting statutes, treated as all-party here), Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Michigan is often listed too, but its courts allow a participant to record; the tool flags it as unsettled.

**Which states are one-party consent states?**

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan (unsettled), Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. One-party consent covers you only when every person on the call is in one of them.

**Does the area code tell me which state law applies?**

It is a starting point, not proof. An area code shows where the line was issued, and cell numbers keep it when people move; the law that matters is where the person actually is during the call. Paste the number into the tool to get the state of the area code, then change it if you know the prospect is elsewhere. California’s § 632.7 specifically covers calls to and from cell phones.

**I am in a one-party state and call someone in California. Which law applies?**

Assume California’s. In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006), the California Supreme Court held a firm recording from Georgia to California’s all-party rule. CIPA allows $5,000 per violation in civil damages, which is why these cases often come as class actions.

**What are the penalties for recording a call illegally?**

It depends on the state. California allows civil damages of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, whichever is greater (Penal Code § 637.2). In Florida and Maryland, illegal recording is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison; in Pennsylvania, up to seven. Pennsylvania also allows civil damages of at least $1,000; Washington allows actual damages or $100 a day, capped at $1,000. Outside the US, Germany’s § 201 StGB provides up to three years in prison or a fine.

**Is “this call may be recorded” enough?**

In most all-party states, a clear announcement at the start followed by the person staying on the line is treated as consent; Washington adds that the announcement itself must be recorded. It is not enough if the call is also transcribed by AI and you do not say so, or if there is no real way to opt out. In Germany, Switzerland and Portugal, get an explicit yes.

**Do I need consent to use AI transcription or an AI notetaker on sales calls?**

You need to disclose it. In California, class actions argue that AI transcription vendors are third-party eavesdroppers under CIPA § 631, and in August 2026 a federal court let the suits against Otter.ai proceed, so disclose it explicitly and get consent. In the EU, transcripts and summaries are personal data that must appear in your GDPR notice. In Illinois, voiceprints fall under BIPA and need a written release.

**Can my call recording vendor use my calls to train its AI?**

Only if your contract allows it, and then you should disclose it. In California, the vendor reusing calls for its own models is exactly what kept the Otter.ai lawsuits alive in August 2026. In the EU, it is a separate purpose, and a processor that does it for itself becomes a controller. The cleanest answer is a contract clause that rules out training on your calls.