In short
In most US states, a person who takes part in a conversation may record it without the others agreeing. That is one-party consent, and it is also the federal rule.
A smaller group of states requires all-party consent (often called two-party consent): everyone in the conversation must agree to the recording, or at least know about it.
This guide lists the states that require everyone's consent or knowledge, with the statute for each, and the details that change how each rule works in practice: whether it covers phone calls, in-person conversations or both, whether the conversation has to be private, and whether knowing is enough. The wider question, including data-protection law and workplace rules, is in the pillar guide, is it legal to record a meeting?
The federal baseline
The federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), says it is not unlawful for a person to record a communication they are a party to, or one where a party has given prior consent, unless the recording is made to commit a criminal or tortious act. So under federal law your own consent, as a participant, is enough.
State law can be stricter, and in the states below it is.
States that require everyone's consent
These states' statutes require the consent or knowledge of all parties to a private conversation, on the phone and in person. Checked 25 September 2026.
| State | Statute | What it covers | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | Penal Code § 632 | Confidential communications | Excludes circumstances where people may reasonably expect to be overheard or recorded |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. § 934.03 | Wire, oral and electronic communications | "All of the parties" must give prior consent; oral communications need an expectation of privacy |
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 | Private conversations recorded surreptitiously | Rewritten in 2014 after courts struck down the earlier, broader version |
| Maryland | Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402 | Wire, oral and electronic communications | All parties must give prior consent |
| Massachusetts | G.L. ch. 272, § 99 | Wire and oral communications recorded secretly | Turns on secrecy: a recording everyone knows about is not "secret" |
| Montana | MCA § 45-8-213 | Conversations recorded with a hidden device | Does not apply to people who were warned of the recording |
| New Hampshire | RSA 570-A:2 | Telecommunications and oral communications | Consent of all parties |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704(4) | Wire, electronic and oral communications | All parties must give prior consent |
| Washington | RCW 9.73.030 | Private communications and conversations | An announcement to all parties counts as consent, if the announcement is itself recorded |
States with a split or unsettled rule
These states are often listed as all-party states, but the rule is narrower or disputed. Treat them with care rather than assuming either way.
| State | Statute | The nuance |
|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | Gen. Stat. § 52-570d | Phone calls: all parties must consent, or be warned by a recorded notice or a repeating tone. The statute is civil, giving a right to sue. In-person recording is treated as one-party |
| Delaware | 11 Del. C. § 2402 and § 1335(a)(4) | The wiretap statute allows one-party consent; a separate privacy statute requires all parties' consent. Commentators report no court has resolved the conflict |
| Michigan | MCL § 750.539c | The statute bars eavesdropping without all parties' permission, but the Court of Appeals in Sullivan v. Gray (1982) held that it does not cover a participant recording. The state Supreme Court has not settled the point |
| Nevada | NRS 200.620 and 200.650 | In person: one party may authorise a recording. Phone calls: the Nevada Supreme Court in Lane v. Allstate (1998) read the statute as requiring all parties' consent |
| Oregon | ORS 165.540 | Phone calls: one participant's consent. In-person conversations: every participant must be "specifically informed" — notice, not agreement. Upheld by the Ninth Circuit in 2025 |
Other states are generally one-party states, though some have their own rules for hidden devices, private places or particular kinds of communication. If you record regularly in a state not listed here, read its statute.
The nuances that change the answer
"Private" or "confidential" conversations
Most of these laws apply only where someone could reasonably expect the conversation to stay private. California excludes situations where people "may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded". A one-to-one call about a contract is private; a public webinar usually is not. Where a particular meeting falls is a question for the courts in that state.
Consent versus knowledge
Some statutes ask for consent, others for knowledge. Massachusetts targets secret recording. Montana applies to hidden devices and does not apply to people who were warned. Oregon's in-person rule requires people to be informed, not to agree. In practice, telling everyone at the start covers the knowledge rules, and a clear chance to object is what the consent rules add.
Announcements
Washington's statute says an announcement to all parties counts as consent, as long as the announcement is recorded too. Connecticut accepts a recorded verbal notification at the start of a call. That is why recording your own announcement, with the recorder already running, is a good habit.
Calls between states
When the people on a call are in different states, more than one law may apply. In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006), the California Supreme Court held that § 632 applied to calls recorded in Georgia, a one-party state, when the clients were in California. The common advice is to follow the strictest rule that could apply to anyone on the call.
What to do with this
- Work out, roughly, where each participant is.
- If anyone is in a state in either table, treat the meeting as needing everyone's agreement.
- Announce the recording at the start, after the recorder has started, so the announcement is on the recording.
- Give people a real chance to say no, and stop if they do.
- Put the notice in the calendar invitation for scheduled meetings as well.
How to ask for consent to record has wording for each of these. For calls with people in Canada, see recording conversations in Canada.
How Notey fits into this
Notey records your microphone and your Mac's audio from your own computer. Nothing joins the call, so the other participants get no notice from their meeting app that you are recording. Under an all-party or knowledge rule, the notice has to come from you.
Notey shows a red dot and an elapsed timer in its window, the menu bar and the floating button whenever audio is being kept. That tells you a recording is running; it does not tell anyone else. It also does not start keeping audio on its own: when it notices a call it asks, and nothing is saved until you press Allow, unless you set up a rule in advance, such as arming the next call, which it shows on screen. Start the recording first, then say you are recording, and your announcement is part of the recording.
Frequently asked questions
How many states are two-party consent states?
It depends on how you count. About ten states clearly require everyone's consent or knowledge for private conversations, and a few more apply an all-party rule only to phone calls, only to in-person conversations, or have statutes that conflict. The table in this guide lists each with its statute.
Is "two-party consent" the same as "all-party consent"?
Yes. The laws say "all parties", so on a call with six people, all six count. "Two-party" is the common name because many conversations have two people.
What if I am in a one-party state and the other person is in a two-party state?
More than one state's law may apply. California's Supreme Court has applied California's all-party rule to calls recorded in a one-party state. Most guidance says to follow the stricter rule.
Does announcing the recording count as consent?
In some states the statute says so. Washington treats an announcement to all parties, recorded as part of the recording, as consent. Elsewhere, courts have often treated carrying on after a clear notice as implied consent, but that is decided case by case.
Does federal law require everyone's consent?
No. The federal Wiretap Act allows a party to a conversation to record it, unless they do so to commit a crime or a tort. State law can be stricter, and the stricter state rules are the ones in the table.