OMNI LAW
Two-Party Consent States: The State-by-State Guide
One-party vs. all-party consent: the two rules
Most states let one participant record a conversation without telling anyone else. A minority require everyone’s agreement. Those states are usually called two-party consent states, though all-party consent is the accurate name: on a four-person call, all four have to agree. Twelve states appear in the all-party group in the table below — two of them with significant caveats noted in their rows — and the rest follow the one-party rule that federal law also uses. This page gives the 50-state table, explains how the two rules work, covers what happens when the people on a call sit in different states, and applies the rules to video meetings, transcript bots, and voice assistants. Every row cites the statute behind the rule so it can be checked at the source, and the table notes the states whose statutes carry limits that a one-word label would hide.
Federal law sets the floor. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), a person who is a party to a communication may record it, or give another person permission to record it, unless the recording is made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. That provision is why the one-party rule is described as the national default.
States may demand more, and twelve do. Their statutes require the consent of every party to the conversation, which is where the two-party label comes from. The label is imprecise in a way worth noticing: the requirement scales with the number of participants, so a conference call with six people needs six consents, not two. That is why practitioners say all-party consent instead.
A party is a person taking part in the conversation. These statutes are consent rules for participants, and that limit matters. Secret interception by an outsider who is not part of the conversation is prohibited by federal law and by state law across the country, whichever consent rule a state follows. The one-party and all-party distinction answers only the participant question: may someone who is in the conversation record it without telling the others?
Consent takes more than one form. It can be express, as when a caller says yes after a recorded line announcement, or, in many states, implied by staying on a call after a clear notice; Washington’s statute additionally requires that the announcement itself be recorded. Some statutes are written in terms of notification rather than consent, and Montana’s is one of them. Several statutes also draw a line between an in-person conversation and an electronic communication and treat them under different subsections. Those differences are set out state by state in the table.
The 50-state table: recording consent rules
Rules as of August 2026; statutes change, verify before relying on any row.
| State | Consent rule | Statute | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | One-party | Ala. Code §§ 13A-11-30 to 13A-11-31 | |
| Alaska | One-party | Alaska Stat. § 42.20.310 | |
| Arizona | One-party | Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3005 | |
| Arkansas | One-party | Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120 | |
| California | All-party | Cal. Penal Code § 632 | Applies to confidential communications. |
| Colorado | One-party | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303 | |
| Connecticut | One-party | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-187 to 53a-189 | Criminal statute is one-party, but a separate civil statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d) requires all-party consent to record telephone calls — treat business call recording with Connecticut parties as all-party. |
| Delaware | One-party | Del. Code tit. 11, § 2402 | Wiretap statute permits participant recording, but a separate privacy statute (11 Del. C. § 1335) counsels caution — the safe course is all-party consent. |
| District of Columbia | One-party | D.C. Code § 23-542 | |
| Florida | All-party | Fla. Stat. § 934.03 | |
| Georgia | One-party | Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-66 | |
| Hawaii | One-party | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42 | |
| Idaho | One-party | Idaho Code § 18-6702 | |
| Illinois | All-party | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 | |
| Indiana | One-party | Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-5 | |
| Iowa | One-party | Iowa Code § 808B.2 | |
| Kansas | One-party | Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6101 | |
| Kentucky | One-party | Ky. Rev. Stat. § 526.020 | |
| Louisiana | One-party | La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1303 | |
| Maine | One-party | Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 710 | |
| Maryland | All-party | Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402 | |
| Massachusetts | All-party | M.G.L. c. 272, § 99 | Addresses secret interception. |
| Michigan | See note | Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c | Often grouped with all-party states, though Michigan courts have read the statute more narrowly for participants; the cautious course is to treat it as all-party. |
| Minnesota | One-party | Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 | |
| Mississippi | One-party | Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-531 | |
| Missouri | One-party | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 | |
| Montana | All-party (notification) | Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213 | |
| Nebraska | One-party | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290 | |
| Nevada | All-party for phone calls | Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620 | Construed to require all-party consent for phone calls; in-person conversations fall under a separate one-party rule. |
| New Hampshire | All-party | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:2 | |
| New Jersey | One-party | N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:156A-4 | |
| New Mexico | One-party | N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1 | |
| New York | One-party | N.Y. Penal Law § 250.05 | |
| North Carolina | One-party | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287 | |
| North Dakota | One-party | N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02 | |
| Ohio | One-party | Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52 | |
| Oklahoma | One-party | Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.4 | |
| Oregon | See note | Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540 | In-person conversations and electronic communications are treated differently; obtaining consent for both is the safe course. |
| Pennsylvania | All-party | 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5704 | |
| Rhode Island | One-party | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 | |
| South Carolina | One-party | S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-30 | |
| South Dakota | One-party | S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20 | |
| Tennessee | One-party | Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601 | |
| Texas | One-party | Tex. Penal Code § 16.02 | |
| Utah | One-party | Utah Code § 77-23a-4 | |
| Vermont | One-party (follows the federal rule) | No general state wiretap statute identified. | |
| Virginia | One-party | Va. Code § 19.2-62 | |
| Washington | All-party | Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030 | |
| West Virginia | One-party | W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3 | |
| Wisconsin | One-party | Wis. Stat. § 968.31 | |
| Wyoming | One-party | Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-702 |
When callers are in different states
A recording statute does not wait for the other participant to be in the same state. When a caller in Texas, a one-party state, records a caller in Washington, an all-party state, two rules point in different directions, and the answer to which one governs is not uniform across courts. Some decisions look to where the recording device was located, others to where the person being recorded was located, and others to where the privacy intrusion was felt. A second question rides along with the first: a single call can produce a criminal question in one state and a civil claim in the other, and the two do not have to resolve the same way.
The practical answer for anyone recording across state lines is to follow the strictest rule that could apply, which usually means getting everyone’s consent. It costs one sentence at the start of the call, and it removes the choice-of-law question from the picture. The same approach applies to a recorded video meeting with attendees in several states: consent from all attendees satisfies the strictest state on the invitation list. Two habits make this workable in daily use. Ask where the other person is sitting before recording a call that might cross a border, and treat any call with an unknown location as an all-party call. For companies that record customer calls across states, our call recording compliance guide covers the multistate rules in depth.
Meetings, video calls, and voice assistants
The medium does not change the rule; the participants’ locations do. A recorded video meeting, an automated note-taker that joins the call, a transcript produced without stored audio, and a voice memo of an in-person conversation all raise the same consent question that a phone call raises.
Two features of current tools deserve attention. First, recording often begins the moment the host clicks record, before a late attendee has seen any notice, so the notice belongs in the invitation as well as in the meeting. Second, a transcript is a record of the conversation for consent purposes even when the audio is discarded. Voice assistants add a third wrinkle: the household member who set the device up has agreed to it, and a visitor speaking in the room has not. The safe practice matches the phone rule. Say it out loud, get agreement, and keep the notice where every participant can see it. When a meeting includes people who joined by phone, the spoken notice carries more weight than a banner they cannot see.
Penalties: what violating these laws costs
Both criminal exposure and civil damages exist under these statutes, and the mix varies by state. Two sourced examples show the shape. In Florida, intercepting or recording a communication without the consent the statute requires is a criminal offense under Fla. Stat. § 934.03, and Fla. Stat. § 934.10 gives the person recorded a civil action.
In California, Cal. Penal Code § 637.2 allows a private suit for the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, and states that actual damages are not a prerequisite to suing. Damages measured per violation, without proof of harm, are the reason these claims are filed in volume. Criminal classification varies widely across the states in the table, from misdemeanor treatment to felony treatment for a first offense, and several statutes raise the level for a repeat violation. Some states also make it a separate offense to disclose or use the contents of a recording that was made unlawfully, which means a single recording can generate more than one claim. Penalty detail for a particular state belongs on that state’s page rather than here.
Omni Law Team
Omni Law P.C. boasts a team of seasoned legal professionals.
Contact Omni Law P.C. for Transactional, Business, and
Corporate Legal Services.
Seeking knowledgeable guidance for your business? Omni Law P.C. focuses on providing flexible and affordable legal services to businesses, executives, and founders across various industries. Our experienced attorneys have a deep understanding of corporate transactions, intellectual property, commercial agreements, and emerging technologies We offer businesses the outside counsel they need to succeed.
Whether you require assistance with contract negotiation, trademark registration, or mergers and acquisitions, we provide strategic legal advice tailored to your unique needs. Contact us today at (323) 300-4184 to see how we can provide the legal support to help you achieve your business objectives.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does two-party consent mean?
Two-party consent means every participant in a conversation has to agree before it can be recorded. The term comes from the two-person call, but the requirement scales: five people on a call means five consents. Statutes and lawyers often use all-party consent for the same rule because it describes the requirement more accurately.
Which states require everyone's consent to record?
Twelve states appear in the all-party group in the table above, two of them with significant caveats: California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Several of those statutes carry limits noted in the table, including Nevada’s focus on phone calls and Montana’s notification framing.
What if the people on the call are in different states?
Follow the strictest rule that could apply. Courts have not answered uniformly which state’s law governs a call that crosses state lines, so consent from every participant is the approach that satisfies each candidate rule. If one participant is in an all-party state, treat the whole call as an all-party call.
Do these rules apply to video calls and recorded meetings?
Yes. The same consent rules reach video-meeting recordings, automated transcripts, and note-taking bots, because each one records a conversation. What determines the applicable rule is where the participants are, not the software being used. Putting the notice in the invitation and repeating it when recording starts covers late arrivals.
Is the one-party rule the same as federal law?
The one-party rule matches the federal provision in most respects. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), a party to a communication may record it absent a criminal or tortious purpose, and one-party states follow that pattern in their own statutes. State statutes can still add wrinkles, so the state citation in the table is the place to check.
Attorney Advertising. This page provides general information and is not legal advice. Reading it or contacting Omni Law P.C. does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statutes cited are current as of the “Last updated” date and may change; confirm current law before acting.