Two-Party Consent States: Recording Rules by State

Two-party consent states are states where everyone in a private conversation has to agree before anyone records it. California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington follow that rule, and a handful of others apply it to some conversations but not all. Everywhere else, and under federal law, you only need one person's consent, and that person can be you.

If you record lectures, client calls or team meetings, the difference matters. The same recording can be routine in Texas and a crime in California. This guide lists the states, explains the exceptions that trip people up, and ends with a simple routine that keeps you on the right side of the law wherever you are.

This is general information, not legal advice. For a specific situation, talk to a lawyer licensed in the state involved.

What Two-Party Consent Actually Means

The name is a little misleading. "Two-party" suggests a phone call between two people, but these laws cover every participant. In a meeting with eight people, a two-party consent state expects all eight to know about the recording and agree to it. That is why lawyers usually call them all-party consent states.

Consent does not always have to be a spoken "yes". Many states accept implied consent: if you clearly announce that you are recording and people keep talking, their participation can count as agreement. Washington's statute says so directly, treating a clear announcement to everyone in the conversation as consent.

Most of these laws also only protect private conversations. In a number of states the rule applies where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so a speech in a public square is treated differently from a conversation in a closed office.

The Federal Baseline: One-Party Consent

Federal law sets the floor. Under the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511 makes it lawful to record a conversation you are part of, or one where a participant has given prior consent. The exception disappears if the recording is made to commit a crime or a tort.

So at the federal level, being in the conversation is enough. States can add stricter rules on top of that, and the two-party consent states did exactly that. Where a state rule is stricter, you follow the state rule.

Most states copied the federal model. The rest of this guide is about the minority that went further.

The Full List of Two-Party Consent States

The table below groups the states with a clear all-party rule. The statute citations and notes come from Justia's 50-state survey, which is the most complete public summary of recording laws.

Montana is the odd one out in wording. Its statute talks about knowledge rather than consent, so the question is whether people know they are being recorded, and the offence centres on a hidden device.

The penalties are real. Justia's summary puts Pennsylvania's offence at up to five years in prison in most cases, and several other states treat a violation as a felony.

States With Split or Unclear Rules

Six states do not fit neatly into either column. These are the ones that cause the most confusion, because a list online may put them on either side.

Connecticut is one-party for criminal purposes, but a civil statute lets people sue over a recorded private phone call unless everyone consented. For phone calls, treat it as all-party.

Delaware has one statute requiring all-party consent and a separate wiretap law with a one-party exception. Justia describes it as arguably all-party with some ambiguity, which is a good reason to ask everyone.

Michigan has an all-party eavesdropping statute, but the Court of Appeals ruled in Sullivan v. Gray that a participant is not an eavesdropper, so a party to a conversation may record it. The state Supreme Court has not settled the question.

Nevada is one-party for in-person conversations and all-party for phone calls, a split that comes from how its courts read the wire communication statute.

Oregon is the reverse: one-party for phone calls, all-party for in-person conversations. Recording a face-to-face meeting in Oregon needs everyone's consent unless a legal exception applies.

Vermont has no statute on the question at all. Its courts have ruled on narrow situations, but there is no clear general rule.

Is California, Florida or Texas a Two-Party Consent State?

These are the questions people search for most, so here are the direct answers.

Is California a two-party consent state?

Yes. California Penal Code 632 prohibits recording a confidential communication without the consent of all parties, and California is the strictest state in practice because of what follows a violation. Under Penal Code 637.2, anyone injured can sue for the greater of 5,000 dollars per violation or three times their actual damages, and they do not have to prove any actual damage to bring the claim.

Is Florida a two-party consent state?

Yes. Florida Statutes section 934.03 prohibits intercepting wire, oral or electronic communications, and the lawful path is consent from all parties. A separate section gives people a civil claim for damages.

Is Texas a two-party consent state?

No. Texas is a one-party consent state, so you can record a conversation you take part in without telling anyone. If the other person is in California or another all-party state, read the next section before relying on that.

Is Illinois a two-party consent state?

Generally, yes. Illinois requires everyone's consent to record a private conversation, meaning one where a participant intended it to be private in circumstances that reasonably justify that expectation.

Is New York a two-party consent state?

No. New York is a one-party consent state under Penal Law 250.05. As with Texas, a call with someone in an all-party state changes the picture.

When a Call Crosses State Lines

Phone calls and video meetings rarely stay inside one state. There is no single federal rule for which state's law wins, so the safe answer is to follow the strictest law that could apply.

The leading example is Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, decided by the California Supreme Court in 2006. A brokerage based in Georgia, a one-party state, routinely recorded calls with its clients in California. The court applied California law anyway, reasoning that using Georgia's rule would impair California's interest in protecting its residents' privacy.

The practical lesson is simple. If anyone on the call might be in an all-party state, get everyone's consent. On a video meeting with people in several states, you often cannot know where each person is sitting, which makes a clear announcement at the start the only reliable approach.

Recording Lectures and Classes

Students record lectures for good reasons: reviewing a fast lecture, catching what they missed, or studying in a second language. Classroom recording has its own rules on top of the consent laws, though.

California shows how specific this can get. Education Code 51512 bans recording devices in elementary and secondary school classrooms without prior consent from both the teacher and the principal. A pupil who breaks it faces school discipline, and anyone else commits a misdemeanor. A parallel provision, Education Code 78907, requires the instructor's prior consent for recording in community college classrooms.

Universities usually handle this through course policy rather than statute. The safest habit is to ask your instructor before the first recording and to check the syllabus for a recording policy. Most instructors say yes when you explain you are using it to study, and a quick email gives you a written record of the permission.

Once you have permission, the recording is only useful if you actually study from it. Our guide to turning lecture recordings into notes covers that part. Primo Notes records on your phone and returns a structured note and a transcript, so an approved lecture recording becomes study material without a separate transcription step.

Recording Meetings and AI Note Takers

AI note takers have put consent laws back in the headlines. In August 2025, a putative class action was filed in federal court in California against Otter.ai. In the case now titled In re Otter.ai Privacy Litigation, seven plaintiffs from California, Illinois and Washington allege that the Otter Notetaker joined Zoom and Microsoft Teams meetings as a silent participant and recorded people who never consented.

In a 2026 order, the court dismissed in part and let other claims move forward. These are allegations, not findings of liability. The case still carries a clear lesson: a tool joining the meeting does not transfer your consent obligations to the tool. The person who brought it in is still the one who has to make sure everyone knows.

All three of the plaintiffs' home states appear in the all-party table above, and those are the states where a recording made without everyone's knowledge is most exposed.

For meetings you run, the fix is procedural rather than technical. Say at the start that the meeting is being recorded and transcribed, give people a chance to object, and keep the announcement in the recording itself. Primo Notes records from your phone rather than joining the call as a participant, and it labels speakers automatically, so your announcement and each person's reply show up in the transcript as part of the record. If you record calls on Zoom, our walkthrough on recording Zoom meetings covers the rest of the workflow.

How to Record Legally in Any State

You do not need to memorise every statute. One routine satisfies the strictest state rules and costs you about ten seconds per recording:

• Announce it at the start: say that you are recording and why, before the substantive conversation begins, and make sure the announcement itself is captured.
• Ask for objections: give everyone a moment to say no, and stop or pause if anyone does.
• Assume the strictest state applies: if you do not know where every participant is, treat the conversation as if it were in California.
• Get permission in writing for classes: an email from the instructor is better than a verbal nod you cannot prove later.
• Never hide the device: Montana's statute, for one, centres on hidden recording devices.
• Keep recordings for their stated purpose: sharing a recording beyond what people agreed to can raise separate privacy problems.

If someone refuses, take notes by hand or ask a colleague to summarise instead. A missing recording is an inconvenience; an unlawful one can mean criminal charges or a lawsuit.

Conclusion

Two-party consent states require everyone in a private conversation to agree before it is recorded. The clear all-party states are California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington, while Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon and Vermont have split or unsettled rules. Federal law and most other states, Texas and New York included, only need one party's consent.

Calls across state lines are where people get caught, because a court can apply the stricter state's law, as California did in Kearney. Classrooms add their own layer, and AI note takers do not take over your duty to tell people.

The routine that works everywhere is short: announce the recording, invite objections, assume the strictest rule, and get written permission for lectures.