Massachusetts

Notice, not consent

Massachusetts turns on whether the recording was secret, not on whether the other side agreed: tell the participants and you may record.

Massachusetts is commonly listed as all-party (two-party) consent. That is the label you will find on most reference lists, and it is close enough to be useful and wrong enough to matter. What the statute actually does is above.

The part that catches people out

Our reading, not verified text. Everything in this section is editorial judgment about how the statute works. Unlike the statute above, the reading itself has not been checked against a source. The decisions named below have been checked against a court record and exist as cited — but what we say they hold is still our reading, not the court's words.

The Massachusetts test is SECRECY, not consent. Ch. 272 § 99 defines interception as to 'secretly hear, secretly record', so an openly disclosed recording is lawful even over a party's objection (Commonwealth v. Jackson — actual knowledge is enough), while a participant's secret recording is a crime (Commonwealth v. Hyde). Unlike most states the statute has no expectation-of-privacy limit, so it reaches recordings made in public places.

Where this comes from

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.

All jurisdictions · This page as JSON · How this is verified · Terms of reuse

Found an error, or a statute that has moved? Tell us — a citation with the correction gets it into the next revision.