Massachusetts recording laws
All-party consent appears likely to be required. This is a summary of the reviewed rule for Massachusetts, 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 situationIn-person conversations
All-party consent appears likely to be required
Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99, recording a private face-to-face conversation in Massachusetts appears likely to require the agreement of every participant. The offence is recording "secretly", so a concealed recording is treated very differently from an open, announced one.
Conditions that matter
- A conversation can still be private in a public place when people reasonably expect not to be overheard or recorded.
- Give every participant a genuine opportunity to agree or decline before you start.
Telephone calls
All-party consent appears likely to be required
Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99, the Massachusetts consent exception requires the agreement of every party to the communication, not just yours. The offence is recording "secretly", so a recording nobody has been told about is the central risk. On that basis, consent from all participants appears likely to be required before recording a call.
Conditions that matter
- Give every participant a genuine opportunity to agree or decline before you start.
- For sensitive or important conversations, obtain a clear spoken or written "yes".
Internet calls and video meetings
All-party consent appears likely to be required
Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99, an internet call or video meeting is likely to fall within the Massachusetts rule requiring the agreement of every party before a recording is made.
Conditions that matter
- An internet call or video meeting may be treated as a wire or electronic communication rather than an in-person conversation, and the platform and its host may sit in a different place again.
- A platform's own recording indicator is not the same thing as each participant agreeing.
Recording when you are not part of the conversation
Recording by someone who is not a participant is restricted
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 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 Massachusetts 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
- The federal statute prohibits disclosing or using the contents of a communication you know was unlawfully intercepted, so publishing or forwarding a recording is a separate question from making it.
Worth knowing
- Massachusetts is unusual: the offence is recording "secretly", so the decisive question is whether the recording is hidden, not only whether everyone agreed. An open, clearly announced recording is treated differently from a concealed one.
- Federal courts have held the statute unconstitutional as applied to the secret recording of police officers performing their duties in public. That narrow holding does not extend to private conversations generally.
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.
Massachusetts General Laws ch. 272 § 99 — Interception of wire and oral communications
OfficialTurns on secrecy rather than consent: the offence is 'secretly' recording. Federal courts have held the statute unconstitutional as applied to the secret recording of police officers performing their duties in public.
Reporter's Recording Guide
Secondary cross-checkUsed only to identify issues and cross-check interpretations. Never the sole basis for a classification.
How this page was put together
§ 99 turns on secrecy rather than consent, which is why this record does not describe Massachusetts simply as an all-party-consent state.
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.
Other states
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.