In short
California requires the consent of all parties to record a confidential communication, under Penal Code section 632. Recording a cellphone call without everyone's consent is separately covered by section 632.7. Anyone recorded unlawfully can sue for $5,000 per violation. On a call with a Californian, ask everyone first.
On recording calls, California law is the strict case in the United States: Penal Code section 632 makes it an offence to record a confidential communication "without the consent of all parties". A separate section, 632.7, covers recording calls involving a cellphone or cordless phone without everyone's consent, whether or not the call is confidential. And section 637.2 lets anyone recorded unlawfully sue for $5,000 per violation, without proving they were harmed.
Because California courts have applied these rules to calls recorded from other states, the working rule for any call or video meeting with someone in California is simple: ask everyone at the start, and record only if they agree. This guide explains the statutes, what "confidential" means, how the law reaches across state lines, and a routine that works. The state-by-state picture is in one-party and two-party consent states.
Recording calls in California: the law at a glance
| Section | What it covers | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Penal Code § 632 | Recording a confidential communication without all parties' consent | Fine up to $2,500 per violation, jail or prison, or both |
| Penal Code § 632.7 | Recording a call involving a cellular or cordless phone without all parties' consent | Same penalty structure as § 632 |
| Penal Code § 637.2 | Civil claim by the person recorded | Greater of $5,000 per violation or 3× actual damages |
| Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006) | Calls between California and another state | California law may apply to the out-of-state recorder |
Section 632: confidential communications
Penal Code § 632 (checked 25 September 2026) applies to a person who, "intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication", uses a recording device to eavesdrop on or record it, "whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device".
Three things follow for meetings:
- It covers calls and rooms alike. A Zoom or Teams meeting, a phone call and a conversation across a desk are all within its words.
- It is all parties, not two. On a call with eight people, all eight must consent.
- It is about recording, not listening. Being a participant does not help; the consent of the others is what the section asks for.
What "confidential" means
The section defines a confidential communication as one "carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto". It excludes public gatherings and proceedings, and circumstances in which the parties may reasonably expect to be overheard or recorded.
In Flanagan v. Flanagan (2002), the California Supreme Court held that confidentiality requires "nothing more than the existence of a reasonable expectation by one of the parties that no one is 'listening in' or overhearing the conversation" (as reported by FindLaw's copy of the opinion). A one-to-one call about a contract, a job interview, or an internal team meeting will usually meet that test. A public webinar usually will not.
The penalties
A violation is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 per violation, imprisonment in a county jail for up to a year or in state prison, or both. With a prior conviction under the same group of sections, the fine can reach $10,000 per violation.
Section 632.7: calls involving a cellphone
Section 632.7 covers a person who, "without the consent of all of the parties to a communication", intercepts or receives and intentionally records a communication transmitted between cellular or cordless phones, or between one of those and a landline. Unlike section 632, its wording does not require the call to be confidential. Many calls today involve at least one mobile phone, so this section is worth knowing even where a conversation might not count as confidential.
Whether a particular video-meeting app or a softphone falls within section 632.7's wording is a question this guide does not answer. Section 632 already covers most business meetings, and the routine below satisfies both.
Section 637.2: the civil claim
Section 637.2 lets a person injured by a violation sue for "the greater of" $5,000 per violation or three times their actual damages. It adds that the plaintiff does not need to have suffered, or been threatened with, actual damages.
That is why California recording claims are often brought as civil suits, including class actions, rather than prosecutions. For anyone recording routinely, a per-violation figure adds up quickly.
When someone on the call is in California
In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006), a Georgia-based firm recorded calls with clients in California. Georgia allows one party to record. The California Supreme Court held that "California law should apply in determining whether the alleged secret recording of telephone conversations … constitutes an unlawful invasion of privacy" (as reported by FindLaw). It allowed an injunction for the future while declining damages for past recordings made in reliance on Georgia law.
Courts elsewhere may take other views, but the practical lesson is widely accepted: if anyone on your call is in California, treat the whole call as needing everyone's consent. The same reasoning applies to other all-party states such as Florida. The general rule of following the strictest law that could apply is set out in is it legal to record a meeting?
Pending changes, dated
California's Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), which contains these sections, is the subject of frequent lawsuits over website tracking, and bills to change it are regularly introduced. As of 25 September 2026, SB 690 had passed the Legislature and been presented to the Governor. According to the bill's status page and legal commentary, the version sent to the Governor concerns private lawsuits over website and app tracking under a different section (638.51), and leaves sections 631 and 632 unaffected. Check the current status before relying on any summary, including this one.
A routine for calls with anyone in California
- Put it in the invitation. "I'd like to record this call for my notes; tell me if you'd rather I didn't."
- Start the recorder, then ask out loud, so the question and each person's answer are on the recording.
- Wait for everyone. Silence from one person on a large call is not the same as agreement. Ask again by name if needed.
- If anyone says no, stop. Take notes by hand.
- Ask again when someone joins late. Consent from the people present at the start does not cover a new participant.
- Keep it to its purpose. Share checked notes, not the audio, and delete the audio when you no longer need it.
How to ask for consent to record has more wording, including for recurring meetings.
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 California's all-party rule, the consent has to come from asking them.
- Nothing is saved until you press Allow when Notey notices a call. Recording without a click each time happens only through a choice you made first — arming the next call, "always record" for an app, or recording from ticked calendars — and each recording it starts is announced on screen with Stop beside it.
- Start first, then ask. Start the recording, ask everyone, and the exchange is part of the recording. If anyone says no, stop and delete the meeting.
- The red dot and elapsed timer show in the window, the menu bar and the floating button whenever audio is being kept. They are visible to you, not to the call.
- The audio stays on your Mac and is transcribed there. Only transcript text is sent for AI notes, when you ask or have write-ups on. See the privacy policy.
Frequently asked questions
Is California a two-party consent state?
Yes, in the sense that matters: Penal Code section 632 requires the consent of all parties to record a confidential communication, however many people are on the call. "Two-party" is the common name for that all-party rule.
Does California's law apply if I am in another state?
It may. In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006), the California Supreme Court applied California law to calls recorded in Georgia, a one-party state, when the other party was in California.
What counts as a confidential communication in California?
One carried on in circumstances that reasonably indicate a party wants it confined to the people in it. The California Supreme Court has read that as a reasonable expectation that nobody is listening in or recording. Public gatherings are excluded.
What is the penalty for recording a call without consent in California?
Criminally, a fine of up to $2,500 per violation, jail or prison, or both; more for repeat offences. Civilly, the person recorded can sue for the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, without having to prove harm.
Does announcing a recording count as consent in California?
Carrying on after a clear announcement is commonly treated as consent, but the statute does not define it that way. Ask, and let people say no.