Reference

Recording consent by jurisdiction

Insurance investigators, SIU staff and claims professionals deciding whether a recorded statement or a recorded call is lawful before they make it.

Whether one participant's consent is enough to record a conversation, or every participant must agree, in each U.S. jurisdiction — with the controlling statute and a dated link to the government text it was read from.

51 of 51 jurisdictions. Jurisdictions appear here only once their statute has been fetched from a published source and verified. A jurisdiction that is absent has not yet been verified and is deliberately not guessed at. Indiana, Mississippi, Tennessee are published from a fixed edition rather than a live source — marked in the table and explained on their own pages.

Every jurisdiction we have verified

JurisdictionWhose consentStatuteVerified
Alabama One party Ala. Code §§ 13A-11-30, 13A-11-31 2026-09-21
Alaska One party * Alaska Stat. § 42.20.310 2026-09-21
Arizona One party Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3005 2026-09-21
Arkansas One party Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120 2026-09-21
California All parties Cal. Penal Code § 632 2026-09-21
Colorado One party Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303 2026-09-21
Connecticut Depends * Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d 2026-09-21
Delaware One party * Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 2402(c)(4) 2026-09-21
District of Columbia One party D.C. Code § 23-542 2026-09-21
Florida All parties * Fla. Stat. § 934.03 2026-09-21
Georgia One party * Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-66(a) 2026-09-21
Hawaii One party Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3)(A) 2026-09-21
Idaho One party Idaho Code § 18-6702 2026-09-21
Illinois All parties * 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/14-2(a) 2026-09-21
Indiana One party * Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-176 2026-09-21
Iowa One party Iowa Code § 727.8 2026-09-21
Kansas One party Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6101 2026-09-21
Kentucky One party * Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 526.010 2026-09-21
Louisiana One party * La. Stat. Ann. § 15:1303 2026-09-21
Maine One party * 15 M.R.S. §§ 709(4), 710 2026-09-21
Maryland All parties * Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402(c)(3) 2026-09-21
Massachusetts Tell them * Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 2026-09-21
Michigan Depends * Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c 2026-09-21
Minnesota One party Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 2026-09-21
Mississippi One party * Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-531 2026-09-21
Missouri One party Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 2026-09-21
Montana Tell them * Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213 2026-09-21
Nebraska One party Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290 2026-09-21
Nevada Depends * Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 200.620, 200.650 2026-09-21
New Hampshire All parties * N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:2 2026-09-21
New Jersey One party * N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:156A-4 2026-09-21
New Mexico One party * N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1 2026-09-21
New York One party * N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00(2), 250.05 2026-09-21
North Carolina One party N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287 2026-09-21
North Dakota One party N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02 2026-09-21
Ohio One party Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52 2026-09-21
Oklahoma One party Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.4(5) 2026-09-21
Oregon Depends * Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540 2026-09-21
Pennsylvania All parties * 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5704 2026-09-21
Rhode Island One party R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 2026-09-21
South Carolina One party S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-30 2026-09-21
South Dakota One party S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20 2026-09-21
Tennessee One party * Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601(b)(5) (2024) 2026-09-21
Texas One party Tex. Penal Code § 16.02 2026-09-21
Utah One party Utah Code Ann. § 77-23a-4 2026-09-21
Vermont Depends * No statute — Vt. Const. ch. I, art. 11; State v. Geraw, 2002 VT 3; State v. Brooks, 157 Vt. 490 (1991) 2026-09-21
Virginia One party Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-62 2026-09-21
Washington All parties * Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030 2026-09-21
West Virginia One party W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3 2026-09-21
Wisconsin One party Wis. Stat. § 968.31 2026-09-21
Wyoming One party Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-3-702 2026-09-21

* The one-word answer is not the whole answer here — the rule may turn on the medium, on who is doing the recording, or on whether the recording was secret. Open the jurisdiction before relying on the column. These are the ones that get people into trouble.

Three that are commonly got wrong

Alaska

The statute is oddly narrow: AS 42.20.310 bans using an eavesdropping device to hear or record an ORAL conversation, and a participant is not eavesdropping. Read it

Connecticut

Criminal eavesdropping is one-party (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189). The separate civil statute § 52-570d requires, for recording a telephonic communication, the consent of all parties, or prior verbal… Read it

Delaware

Two Delaware statutes point in opposite directions on the same act. The wiretap chapter, § 2402(c)(4), is plainly one-party. Read it

Federal floor

Federal law permits recording with one party's consent unless the recording is made to commit a crime or tort. Federal law is the FLOOR; a state may and many do require more. Where an interstate call touches two states with different rules, the safe assumption is the stricter one. See 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d).

Reference information, not legal advice. Statutes change and courts read them differently; confirm the current text with the linked primary source and counsel licensed in the jurisdiction before relying on it.

Cite this page

"Recording consent by jurisdiction", The Insurance Investigator's Playbook, https://theclaimsplaybook.net/law/recording-consent

Reuse with attribution and a link. Not licensed for AI model training — see terms.

Whole table as JSON · How this is verified · Terms of reuse