Create a call recording notice
Choose your state and add your company name to get recording guidance and sample notices for your team.
Options and help
Ask about your state.
The assistant answers from the state entry selected above and general recorded-line practice, and says when something is uncertain.
Your message and the current tool inputs and settings are sent to the assistant and not stored. Remove customer names and numbers from both. Check replies before acting.
Try an example
Browse all 50 states and DC
Choose your state to see whether one party or every party must consent before a call is recorded, then get the greeting, outbound and text notices to use on your team's calls. 11 all-party, 37 one-party, 3 mixed across all 50 states and DC. Last reviewed September 20, 2026.
Download all 50 states and DC as CSV or JSON, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0. Credit: Pinpoint (usepinpoint.ai), with a link to this page.
This dataset is general information for sales teams and is not legal advice, and reading it creates no attorney client relationship. Call recording laws change through amendment and court decisions, several states remain unsettled, and the rule can differ for in person conversations, cellular calls, or civil versus criminal exposure. When a call crosses state lines, courts may apply the law of either state, so the safe operating assumption is that the stricter all party rule governs the call. Federal law permits recording with one party's consent, but it is a floor rather than a ceiling and does not displace stricter state requirements. Confirm current requirements with your own counsel before setting or changing your team's recording policy. This is general information, not legal advice.
| State | Consent | Statute | Rule and what to do |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | one-party | Ala. Code §§ 13A-11-30, 13A-11-31 | Alabama's criminal eavesdropping offense applies to a person who is not present or otherwise not a party to the conversation, so a participant may record a call. Consent of one party, including the employee on the line, is generally sufficient. Alabama permits recording on the strength of the employee's own consent, but your team should still play a recorded line notice at the start of every inbound and outbound call so calls with out of state customers stay defensible. |
| Alaska | one-party | Alaska Stat. § 42.20.310 | Alaska's eavesdropping statute reaches recording a private conversation without the consent of a party to it, so a participant may record. Alaska courts have read the statute narrowly and it is generally treated as a one party consent state. Keep an automated recorded line notice on every inbound and outbound call so your team never has to argue whether a particular call was a private conversation. |
| Arizona | one-party | Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-3005, 13-3012 | Arizona makes intercepting a communication a felony but expressly exempts a party to the conversation, so one party consent applies. An employee on the call may record it. One party consent covers your team's own calls, but a standard recorded line announcement at the start of each call is still the cleanest evidence that notice was given. |
| Arkansas | one-party | Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120 | Arkansas prohibits recording a conversation unless the person recording is a party to it or has the consent of a party. The employee taking the call supplies that consent. Treat the employee's consent as a backstop only and announce the recorded line at the start of every inbound and outbound call. |
| California | all-party | Cal. Penal Code §§ 632, 632.7 | California treats a telephone call as a confidential communication and requires the consent of all parties before it may be recorded, with separate protection for calls involving cellular or cordless phones. Violations are criminal and also support statutory damages in civil suits. Play an audible recorded line notice before anything substantive is discussed on every inbound and outbound call and stop recording if the customer objects, because each unconsented call can carry statutory damages. |
| Colorado | one-party | Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-9-303, 18-9-304 | Colorado's wiretapping statute prohibits recording a telephone conversation without the consent of at least one party, so a participant may record. Eavesdropping on a conversation the recorder is not part of remains a separate offense. A recorded line notice at the start of each call is not required here but should be standard, since one call with a customer in a stricter state can create exposure. |
| Connecticut | mixed | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-570d, 53a-189 | Connecticut's criminal eavesdropping statute follows the one party rule, but a separate civil statute makes a person liable for recording a telephone conversation unless all parties consent, and it accepts a verbal notice at the start of the call, a recorded consent, or a periodic beep tone as compliance. Because of that civil exposure, Connecticut is usually operated as an all party state. Treat Connecticut as all party: announce the recorded line at the start of every inbound and outbound call, or use the statutory beep tone, and keep the announcement inside the stored recording. |
| Delaware | all-party | Del. Code tit. 11, §§ 1335, 2402 | Delaware's privacy statute forbids intercepting a communication without the consent of all parties, while its wiretap statute allows a party to record, and a federal court reading the wiretap statute has permitted one party recording. Mainstream guides still classify Delaware as an all party state because the conflict is unresolved. Given the conflict between Delaware's two statutes, announce the recorded line at the start of every inbound and outbound call and preserve that announcement with the recording. |
| District of Columbia | one-party | D.C. Code § 23-542 | District of Columbia law allows a party to a telephone call, or a person acting with a party's prior consent, to record it. One party consent applies unless the recording is made for a criminal or tortious purpose. One party consent applies, but a uniform recorded line notice on every call is the simpler policy for a team that routinely takes calls from Maryland numbers. |
| Florida | all-party | Fla. Stat. § 934.03 | Florida requires the consent of all parties to record a telephone conversation in which the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and violations are criminal. Consent is generally treated as given when a caller is clearly told the call is recorded and continues the conversation. Announce that the call is recorded before anything substantive is said, on every inbound and outbound call, and log in the CRM when a customer declines. |
| Georgia | one-party | Ga. Code Ann. §§ 16-11-62, 16-11-66 | Georgia's wiretap law exempts a party to the conversation, so one participant's consent permits recording a telephone call. Recording a call the person is not part of remains a felony. One party consent is enough for your team's own calls, but a recorded line notice at the start of each call remains the recommended standard. |
| Hawaii | one-party | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42 | Hawaii permits interception where one party to the communication has given prior consent, unless the recording is made for a criminal or tortious purpose. A participating employee may record. Announce the recorded line at the start of every call as a matter of policy even though the employee's consent is legally sufficient. |
| Idaho | one-party | Idaho Code § 18-6702 | Idaho allows a person who is a party to a communication, or who acts with a party's prior consent, to record it. One party consent applies to telephone calls absent a criminal or tortious purpose. Keep a uniform recorded line announcement on every inbound and outbound call so the same script also works when the customer is calling from a stricter state. |
| Illinois | all-party | 720 ILCS 5/14-1, 5/14-2 | Illinois rewrote its eavesdropping law in 2014 after the prior version was struck down, and the current statute requires the consent of all parties to record a private conversation, meaning one where the parties reasonably expect privacy. A call that is clearly announced as recorded is generally not private for this purpose, but obtaining all party consent is the accepted practice. Announce the recorded line at the start of every inbound and outbound call so the conversation is not treated as private, and document any customer objection. |
| Indiana | one-party | Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-5 | Indiana's wiretap act prohibits interception of a telephone call by a person who is not a sender or receiver of it, so a participant may record. One party consent applies. Use the same recorded line notice on every call rather than relying on the employee's consent alone. |
| Iowa | one-party | Iowa Code § 808B.2 | Iowa permits recording where the person recording is a party to the communication or one party has given prior consent, absent a criminal or tortious purpose. A recorded line notice at the start of every inbound and outbound call is the recommended standard even though one party consent applies. |
| Kansas | one-party | Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6101 | Kansas treats it as a breach of privacy to intercept a telephone conversation without the consent of the sender or receiver, so the consent of one party is sufficient. Announce the recorded line at the start of each call, since your team gains nothing from silent recording and loses the record that notice was given. |
| Kentucky | one-party | Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 526.010, 526.020 | Kentucky's eavesdropping offense covers overhearing or recording a conversation without the consent of at least one party to it, so a participant may record. Keep the recorded line announcement on every inbound and outbound call so the notice is captured in the audio itself. |
| Louisiana | one-party | La. Stat. Ann. § 15:1303 | Louisiana allows a party to a wire or oral communication, or a person acting with a party's prior consent, to record it unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. Play a recorded line notice at the start of every call, which also covers your team when customers dial in from stricter states. |
| Maine | one-party | Me. Stat. tit. 15, § 710 | Maine's interception offense applies to recording without the consent of at least one party to the communication, so the employee taking the call may record it. Announce the recorded line on every inbound and outbound call and keep the announcement inside the stored recording. |
| Maryland | all-party | Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402 | Maryland requires the consent of all parties to record a private telephone conversation, and violations are criminal as well as civilly actionable. Maryland courts have recognized implied consent where a party is clearly told the call is recorded and continues the conversation. Play a clear recorded line notice at the start of every inbound and outbound call, give the customer a chance to respond, and stop recording if they refuse. |
| Massachusetts | all-party | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 | Massachusetts bans secret recording of a wire or oral communication, which in practice means every party must know the call is being recorded. The statute turns on secrecy rather than formal consent, so a clear notice at the start of the call is the accepted method of compliance. Never record a Massachusetts call silently: announce the recorded line at the start of every inbound and outbound call so no party can claim the recording was secret. |
| Michigan | mixed | Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c | Michigan's statute bars using a device to eavesdrop on a private conversation without the consent of all parties, and the Michigan Court of Appeals in Sullivan v. Gray read the prohibition to apply only to a third party, which would permit a participant to record. Other courts and commentators read the same statute to require all party consent, so Michigan is best treated as unsettled. Treat Michigan as an all party state and announce the recorded line at the start of every inbound and outbound call until the statute's reach is settled. |
| Minnesota | one-party | Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 | Minnesota permits interception where one party to the communication has given prior consent, unless the recording is made for a criminal or tortious purpose. Keep the recorded line notice on every call even though the employee's consent satisfies Minnesota law. |
| Mississippi | one-party | Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-531 | Mississippi allows a party to a communication, or a person acting with a party's prior consent, to record it absent a criminal or tortious purpose. Announce the recorded line at the start of every inbound and outbound call as a uniform policy. |
| Missouri | one-party | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 | Missouri permits recording a telephone call where the person recording is a party to it or one party has given prior consent, unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. A standing recorded line announcement on every call is simpler to operate than deciding call by call whose consent applies. |
| Montana | all-party | Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213 | Montana makes it an offense to record a telephone conversation without the knowledge of all parties, subject to narrow exceptions. A clear notice that the call is being recorded is the usual way to satisfy that knowledge requirement. State clearly that the call is recorded at the start of every inbound and outbound call so every party has the knowledge the statute requires. |
| Nebraska | one-party | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290 | Nebraska permits interception where the person recording is a party to the call or one party has given prior consent, absent a criminal or tortious purpose. Keep the recorded line notice at the start of every inbound and outbound call as standard practice. |
| Nevada | all-party | Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 200.620, 200.650 | The Nevada Supreme Court held in Lane v. Allstate that the state's wiretap statute requires the consent of all parties to record a telephone conversation, while in person conversations are governed by a separate one party rule. Every recorded phone call in Nevada should be treated as requiring all party consent. Announce the recorded line at the start of every inbound and outbound telephone call and keep the announcement in the recording, because Nevada requires all parties to consent to a recorded call. |
| New Hampshire | all-party | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:2 | New Hampshire requires the consent of all parties to record a telephone call, and unconsented interception is a felony in most circumstances. Notice at the start of the call followed by continued participation is the common way consent is obtained. Obtain explicit consent by announcing the recorded line at the start of every inbound and outbound call, and end the recording if the customer objects. |
| New Jersey | one-party | N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:156A-4 | New Jersey allows a party to a communication, or a person acting with a party's prior consent, to record it unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. Keep a uniform recorded line notice on every call even though a participating employee's consent is sufficient. |
| New Mexico | one-party | N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1 | New Mexico prohibits reading, interrupting or recording a telephone message without the consent of a sender or intended recipient, so one party consent applies. Announce the recorded line at the start of every inbound and outbound call as a standard, uniform practice. |
| New York | one-party | N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05 | New York's eavesdropping offense requires that the person recording not be a party to the conversation and lack the consent of a party, so a participant may record a call. A recorded line notice at the start of each call remains the recommended standard even though the employee's consent is sufficient. |
| North Carolina | one-party | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287 | North Carolina permits recording where the person recording is a party to the communication or one party has given prior consent, absent a criminal or tortious purpose. Keep the recorded line announcement at the start of every inbound and outbound call so the notice is preserved in the audio. |
| North Dakota | one-party | N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02 | North Dakota's interception offense applies to a person who is not a party to the communication and lacks the consent of a party, so a participating employee may record. Announce the recorded line on every call rather than depending on which participant consented. |
| Ohio | one-party | Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52 | Ohio permits interception where the person recording is a party to the communication or one party has given prior consent, unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. Keep a recorded line notice at the start of every inbound and outbound call as uniform team policy. |
| Oklahoma | one-party | Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.4 | Oklahoma allows a party to a communication, or a person acting with a party's prior consent, to record it absent a criminal or tortious purpose. Announce the recorded line at the start of every call so the same script covers customers dialing in from stricter states. |
| Oregon | mixed | Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540 | Oregon applies different rules by medium: a participant may record a telephone conversation under a one party rule, while recording an in person conversation requires that all participants be specifically informed. Sales calls are therefore permitted with the employee's consent, but in person conversations, such as office meetings, need an announcement. Announce the recorded line on every inbound and outbound call, and separately announce any recording of in person conversations, such as office meetings, which Oregon treats more strictly. |
| Pennsylvania | all-party | 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 5703, 5704 | Pennsylvania requires the prior consent of all parties to record a telephone call, and violations are a felony with civil damages also available. A recorded notice at the start of the call, with the customer continuing, is the accepted way to establish consent. Play a recorded line notice at the start of every inbound and outbound call, capture it in the recording, and stop recording if the customer declines. |
| Rhode Island | one-party | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 | Rhode Island permits interception where the person recording is a party to the communication or one party has given prior consent, absent a criminal or tortious purpose. Keep the recorded line notice on every inbound and outbound call as standard practice. |
| South Carolina | one-party | S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-30 | South Carolina allows a party to a communication, or a person acting with a party's prior consent, to record it unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. Announce the recorded line at the start of each call rather than relying on the employee's consent alone. |
| South Dakota | one-party | S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20 | South Dakota's interception offense does not reach a party to the communication or a person acting with a party's consent, so a participating employee may record. Keep a uniform recorded line announcement at the start of every inbound and outbound call. |
| Tennessee | one-party | Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601 | Tennessee permits recording where the person recording is a party to the communication or one party has given prior consent, absent a criminal or tortious purpose. Announce the recorded line at the start of every call so the notice is captured in the recording itself. |
| Texas | one-party | Tex. Penal Code § 16.02 | Texas permits interception where the person recording is a party to the communication or one party has given consent, unless the recording is made for a criminal or tortious purpose. Keep the recorded line notice on every inbound and outbound call, which also covers calls with customers located in stricter states. |
| Utah | one-party | Utah Code § 77-23a-4 | Utah allows a party to a communication, or a person acting with a party's prior consent, to record it absent a criminal or tortious purpose. Announce the recorded line at the start of each call as standard team policy. |
| Vermont | one-party | Vermont has no general statute governing the recording of telephone calls and is usually listed as a one party consent state. The Vermont Supreme Court has recognized a state constitutional privacy interest against surreptitious recording inside a home, so the rule is not fully settled and notice is prudent. Because Vermont's position rests on case law rather than a statute, announce the recorded line at the start of every inbound and outbound call. | |
| Virginia | one-party | Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-62 | Virginia permits interception where the person recording is a party to the communication or one party has given prior consent, absent a criminal or tortious purpose. Keep the recorded line notice on every call even though the employee's consent satisfies Virginia law. |
| Washington | all-party | Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030 | Washington requires the consent of all parties to record a private telephone conversation, and the statute expressly allows consent to be established by an announcement at the start that the call is being recorded, where the announcement itself is part of the recording. Violations support criminal penalties and civil damages. Announce at the start of every inbound and outbound call that the call is being recorded and keep that announcement in the recording, which is the method the statute itself endorses. |
| West Virginia | one-party | W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3 | West Virginia permits interception where the person recording is a party to the communication or one party has given prior consent, unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. Keep a uniform recorded line notice at the start of every inbound and outbound call. |
| Wisconsin | one-party | Wis. Stat. § 968.31 | Wisconsin permits recording where the person recording is a party to the communication or one party has given prior consent, absent a criminal or tortious purpose. Announce the recorded line at the start of each call rather than relying on one party consent alone. |
| Wyoming | one-party | Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-3-702 | Wyoming permits interception where the person recording is a party to the communication or one party has given prior consent, unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. Keep the recorded line notice on every inbound and outbound call as standard practice. |
Questions
What is the difference between one-party and all-party consent?
In a one-party consent state, one participant in the call, which can be your own rep, may consent to recording. In an all-party consent state, every participant must consent, which is why sales teams play a recorded-line notice at the start of the call.
Which states require all-party consent to record a phone call?
As of September 20, 2026, the states commonly treated as all-party for telephone calls are California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington. Connecticut, Michigan, Oregon have rules that differ by circumstance.
What should a sales team do about calls across state lines?
Follow the stricter rule. A recorded-line notice at the start of every inbound and outbound call satisfies all-party states and costs nothing in one-party states.
Is a recorded-line notice enough on its own?
For the recording, a clear notice at the start of the call is the standard practice; a customer who stays on the line after hearing it has been informed. Keep the notice in your greeting, your outbound script and your IVR, and confirm your policy with counsel. This is general information, not legal advice.