Call recording laws: what the statutes actually say, quoted

Almost everything written about call recording laws is a summary of a summary. So this is the wording itself: six statutes, quoted verbatim, each linked to the source I read it in. Where the rule is genuinely unsettled, I say so instead of rounding it off.

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. It is a reading list with the relevant sentences pulled out.

The split that everything else hangs off

Ask whether call recording is legal and you get two different answers, because there are two rules in circulation. One says the recording is fine if you are in the conversation. The other says everyone in the conversation has to agree. Every law about recording phone calls quoted below picks one of them.

US federal law is the first kind. From 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d):

It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act.

Two things people miss in that sentence. It covers you because you are a party — your own consent is the consent. And it has a tail. The permission goes away if the recording is made in order to commit a crime or a tort. Recording someone in order to blackmail them was never protected by the one-party rule.

Canada lands in the same place by a different route. Criminal Code s. 184(2)(a) exempts:

a person who has the consent to intercept, express or implied, of the originator of the private communication or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it

Originator or recipient. If you are one of them, your own consent counts.

The state statutes are not asking the same question

This is where published summaries of call recording laws by state start to disagree with each other, and the disagreement is not sloppiness. The statutes use different tests.

Florida asks about consent. § 934.03(2)(d):

It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04–934.09 for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.

California asks whether the conversation was confidential. Penal Code § 632(a) punishes a person who, “intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication”, records it. And § 632(c) defines that as a communication carried on in circumstances “as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto”, excluding public gatherings and open proceedings. So in California the first question is not consent at all. It is whether the other person could reasonably expect the conversation to stay private.

Massachusetts asks whether you did it secretly. Under Chapter 272 § 99, “interception” means:

to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device by any person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication

The operative word is secretly. A recording everyone knows about is not an interception under that definition to begin with.

Three states, three different tests. That is why you should not trust a list that sorts fifty states into two buckets — and why “eleven all-party states” or “twelve” both get published, depending on which test the author counted. Read the statute that applies to you.

Washington wrote down the thing everyone actually needs

Most statutes tell you consent is required and leave you to work out what counts. RCW 9.73.030 — one of the strictest, requiring “the consent of all the participants” — then says exactly how to get it:

consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.

That is a complete recipe, and it is the practical answer to nearly all of this. Say you are recording. Say it before anything else, so the announcement lands on the recording. Let the other person’s answer land there too.

Do that and you satisfy the strict rule and the permissive one at once, in every jurisdiction quoted on this page. The telephone recording laws that look frightening in summary are mostly satisfied by one sentence spoken out loud.

Europe: a different body of law asking a different thing

Wiretap statutes ask whether you may record. Data protection law asks what you may then do with a recording that contains someone else’s voice — and those are separate questions that people routinely merge.

The GDPR carves out private life entirely. Article 2(2)(c) says the Regulation does not apply to processing:

by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity

A recording you make and keep for yourself sits in that gap. The gap closes when the recording stops being personal — when you share it, publish it, or use it for work. At that point you are processing someone else’s personal data and you need a lawful basis for it. The UK’s regime carries the same exemption across.

Note what this does not do: it says nothing about whether the recording was lawful to make. Two separate questions, two separate answers.

What this means if you record calls on a Mac

I build a Mac app that records calls, so here is the part where my interest is declared and the advice is still the same.

The obligation is yours, not your software’s. Apple’s own FaceTime recording plays a notice both people hear. Third-party tools generally announce nothing, and a tool that records the audio arriving at your machine is invisible to the other side by construction. That invisibility is a feature for the meeting and a liability for you: nothing will remind the other person, so you have to.

Removing the bot does not remove the notice. The appeal of recording locally instead of sending a notetaker into the call is that no uninvited participant shows up in the list. But the participant was never what the law cared about. The call recording legislation quoted above is about consent to record, and a quieter method of recording is still recording.

Where the file lives is a different question from whether you may record. A recording that never leaves your machine avoids handing a third party your conversation — that is a real answer to the data protection half. It is not an answer to the consent half, and no amount of local processing makes it one.

When the stakes are real, get the yes on the tape. Not in a follow-up email, not implied by the fact that you said it last week. On the recording, at the start, in their voice.

---

If you want the mechanics rather than the law, recording a call on a Mac and transcribing it locally is covered on the call recording page, and the FaceTime-specific route — including what Apple’s built-in notice does and does not do — is in how to record a FaceTime call.

Questions people ask

Is call recording legal?

It depends on where each person is, and the split is between two rules. Whether call recording is legal for you turns on which of them applies. US federal law permits recording when you are a party to the conversation — 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) — and so does Canada's Criminal Code, which accepts the consent of either the originator or the intended recipient. Several US states instead require every party to agree. Announcing the recording, on the recording, satisfies both rules everywhere I checked.

Which US states require everyone's consent to record a call?

Published lists disagree, and the reason is that the statutes are not asking the same question. Florida requires prior consent of all parties. California prohibits recording a confidential communication without everyone's consent — the test turns on whether the conversation was confidential. Massachusetts bans secret recording, which is a different test again. Check the statute for your state rather than a list, and treat any count of eleven or twelve states as a rough summary.

Does telling the other person that I am recording make it legal?

It is the single thing that helps most. Washington's statute spells it out: consent is considered obtained when one party announces to all the others, in any reasonably effective manner, that the conversation is about to be recorded — and if the conversation is being recorded, that announcement has to be recorded too. Say it before anything else and let their answer be on the recording.

Do call recording laws apply if the recording is just for my own notes?

In the EU and UK the GDPR does not cover processing by a person in the course of a purely personal or household activity, so a recording you keep to yourself sits outside it. That protection is about data protection law, not about wiretap law, and it ends when you share or publish the recording.

Is recording a Zoom call different from recording a phone call?

Legally the same questions apply — you are recording a conversation with other people in it. What changes is the practical bit: a bot joining the meeting is visible to everyone, while software recording the audio on your own machine is not. Removing the bot removes the notice, not the obligation to give one.

Does it matter that the recording never leaves my computer?

For wiretap law, no. Those statutes ask about consent to record, not about where the file is stored. Where it does matter is data protection: a recording that stays on your own machine is not being handed to a third party, which removes one set of obligations without touching the consent question.