Country guide

US recording laws, state by state

Last checked Jul 26, 2026 · general legal information, not legal advice

Overall position

The answer depends on the specific circumstances. This is a summary of the reviewed rule for United States, not a conclusion about your situation — the conditions below are where most of the answer actually lives.

Reviewed rule available · last checked 2026-07-26 · next review due 2027-01-26

Check your own situation

The rule below is only part of it. Who else is on the conversation, where they are, and what you plan to do with the recording all change the answer. The checker runs in your browser — nothing is uploaded.

Check recording rules for this situation

In-person conversations

The answer depends on the specific circumstances

Federal law defines an "oral communication" at 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2) by reference to an expectation that it is not subject to interception, so the setting matters as well as who consented. State law then adds its own requirements, and several states require every participant's agreement for a face-to-face conversation.

Conditions that matter

Pick your state to see the requirement that applies to your conversation.

Telephone calls

The answer depends on the specific circumstances

The federal interception statute contains an exception at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) for a person who is a party to the communication, or who records with one party's prior consent, unless the recording is made for a criminal or tortious purpose. Federal law is a floor, not a ceiling: individual states set stricter requirements, and the state rule is usually the one that decides the situation.

Conditions that matter

Pick your state to get the rule that actually applies to you — the federal baseline alone does not answer the question.
Where participants are in different states, more than one state's rule may be relevant.

What this source does not resolve

Which state's law a court would apply to a call spanning two states is not something this tool can determine.

Internet calls and video meetings

The answer depends on the specific circumstances

Internet calls and video meetings are generally treated as wire or electronic communications under the federal statute. Because participants are often in different states, the stricter state requirement is frequently the practical constraint.

Conditions that matter

Pick the state you will be in, then add the states or countries the other participants will be in.

Recording when you are not part of the conversation

Recording by someone who is not a participant is restricted

18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) is aimed squarely at someone who is not part of the conversation capturing it. Recording people you are not talking to — for example by leaving a device running in a room — does not benefit from any participant exception in the United States and can carry criminal as well as civil consequences.

Conditions that matter

Consent obtained from one participant does not necessarily cover the others in this situation.
Harassment, stalking, trespass and child-protection rules can apply on top of the recording statute.

What this source does not resolve

Whether a specific arrangement counts as participating in the conversation is a fact question that should be put to a local lawyer.

Expectation of privacy

Whether the participants reasonably expected not to be recorded is part of the analysis here. That is a question about the circumstances, not about the room: a conversation can still be private in a café, an office, a car or a street when people reasonably expect not to be overheard. Being in a public place does not by itself remove the question.

Sharing and publishing the recording

18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c)–(d) separately prohibits disclosing or using the contents of a communication you know was obtained through an unlawful interception.
18 U.S.C. § 2515 can keep an unlawfully intercepted communication out of evidence.

Worth knowing

Federal law sets a minimum. A state may require more, and several do. Never rely on the federal baseline alone.

Calls that cross a border

When the other participants are somewhere else, more than one set of rules may be relevant, and which one a court would apply is a fact-specific determination this site does not make. Anyone telling you the strictest rule automatically governs is offering a rule of thumb rather than the law. The course that works either way is express consent from everyone — see recording across state lines.

Sources

Official sources first. Secondary guides are used to cross-check interpretations, never as the sole basis for a conclusion.

18 U.S.C. § 2511 — Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

Official

Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives · Statute · 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)

Federal one-party consent provision, subject to the exception for interception for a criminal or tortious purpose. States may impose stricter requirements.

Open sourceChecked 2026-07-26

18 U.S.C. § 2510 — Definitions (Wire and Electronic Communications Interception)

Official

Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives · Statute · 18 U.S.C. § 2510

Defines 'oral communication' by reference to an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception.

Open sourceChecked 2026-07-26

18 U.S.C. § 2515 — Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications

Official

Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives · Statute · 18 U.S.C. § 2515

Unlawfully intercepted communications may be excluded from evidence.

Open sourceChecked 2026-07-26

Reporter's Recording Guide

Secondary cross-check

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press · Secondary guide

Used only to identify issues and cross-check interpretations. Never the sole basis for a classification.

Open sourceChecked 2026-07-26

How this page was put together

Federal baseline only. Every substantive conclusion in this tool for a United States situation comes from the state record, not from this one.

This checker provides general legal information and a conservative risk assessment. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and cannot determine which law a court would apply. Laws, court decisions, workplace policies and the facts of a specific situation can change the result.

Compiled by the BlackBox team from the official sources listed. Not reviewed by a lawyer. If you find something out of date or wrong, tell us and we will correct it — see the research method and correction policy.

Every state and D.C.

Each page carries the state’s own statutory citation, the different treatment of calls and face-to-face conversations where there is one, the participant versus non-participant distinction, the conditions and exceptions, and the official source with the date it was checked. None of them reduces a state to a single word.

The right-hand labels are navigation aids, not conclusions. Open a state to see the conditions, which is where the answer actually lives.

States without a published guide

These are selectable in the checker but do not get an indexed page, because their records do not meet the standard for a substantive conclusion. The checker returns a cautious result for them rather than a permissive one.

Delaware — the answer depends on the specific circumstances. The wiretap chapter contains a party-to-the-communication exception, while the separate privacy offence refers to intercepting a private communication without the consent of all parties. The interaction between the two has been read differently in different cases, so this record does not resolve it.
Michigan — the answer depends on the specific circumstances. The statutory text is directed at eavesdropping on a private conversation by a person "not present", and Michigan courts have not spoken with one voice about whether a participant who records falls outside it. This record does not resolve the conflict.
Vermont — the answer depends on the specific circumstances. Because the position rests on decisions under Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution rather than on a statute, this record stays at limited status and does not describe participant recording as permitted.

After consent is handled

BlackBox records and transcribes on your device without automatically uploading conversations to BlackBox servers. That limits how far audio travels — it does not replace consent, workplace, privacy or disclosure obligations.

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play