Recording calls in Illinois: the eavesdropping law, and voiceprints under BIPA

On recording calls, Illinois law draws the line at secrecy. The eavesdropping statute, 720 ILCS 5/14-2, makes it an offence to record a private conversation "in a surreptitious manner" — in secret — without the consent of all the other parties, even if you are one of the people talking. Recording openly, with everyone aware, falls outside that wording. A first offence is a Class 4 felony.

Illinois also has the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which is not about recording at all but about voiceprints and other biometric identifiers. It matters to anyone using a notetaker that recognises voices. This guide covers the eavesdropping statute, why its 2014 rewrite matters, the penalties, and where BIPA comes in. The national picture is in one-party and two-party consent states.

Recording calls in Illinois: the law at a glance

What 720 ILCS 5/14-2 says

Section 14-2(a)(2) makes it an offence when a person "uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of transmitting or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all other parties to the private conversation" (FindLaw's copy, checked 25 September 2026).

Other paragraphs of the same subsection cover people who are not parties, electronic communications, and using or disclosing what was recorded.

The two words that decide most cases

Section 14-1 defines both (FindLaw's copy):

• Private conversation: "any oral communication between 2 or more persons … when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation."
• Surreptitious: "obtained or made by stealth or deception, or executed through secrecy or concealment."

Put together: the offence is secret recording of a conversation someone reasonably expected to be private. A business call with a client, a one-to-one with a manager and an internal team meeting will usually be private in that sense. A recording announced at the start of the call is hard to describe as made by stealth or concealment.

Why the 2014 rewrite matters

Older summaries describe Illinois as banning almost any recording without everyone's consent. That was the earlier statute. On 20 March 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court struck it down in two decisions, People v. Melongo and People v. Clark. In Melongo the court held "the recording provision is unconstitutional on its face because a substantial number of its applications violate the first amendment"; Clark reached the same conclusion on overbreadth.

The legislature then rewrote the statute around private conversations and surreptitious recording, which is the version described above. If you read an older article that predates that rewrite, treat it with care.

Penalties, exemptions and the civil claim

Under section 14-4, eavesdropping is a Class 4 felony for a first offence and a Class 3 felony for a second or later one. Recording certain officials, such as police officers or judges performing their duties, carries higher classes.

Section 14-3 lists exemptions. Two examples: a party may record where they reasonably suspect another party is committing a crime against them or their immediate household, and certain telemarketing monitoring is allowed with the consent of one active party. Neither is a general permission for recording meetings.

Section 14-6 gives the person recorded a civil claim for an injunction, actual damages and punitive damages.

Calls with people in other states

A call from Illinois to someone in California or Florida may bring those states' stricter rules in, and a call from a one-party state to someone in Illinois may bring in Illinois's. Recording calls in California explains how California's Supreme Court applied its law to a recording made elsewhere. The approach that works everywhere is to tell everyone and let them object. Is it legal to record a meeting? covers the layers.

BIPA: voiceprints are a separate question

Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14/) lists a "voiceprint" among biometric identifiers. Private entities that collect one need, among other things, a public written retention and destruction policy and a written release from the person, after telling them in writing what is collected, why and for how long. The Act allows people to sue for liquidated damages per violation, and a 2024 amendment provides that collecting the same identifier from the same person by the same method more than once is a single violation.

Recording a meeting is not the same as creating a voiceprint. A notetaker that learns to recognise a person across meetings stores a mathematical representation of their voice, which is much closer to one. Voice recognition and privacy covers BIPA, GDPR and other biometric rules in detail; this guide does not repeat it.

A routine for calls with anyone in Illinois

1. Announce the recording at the start, with the recorder running, so the announcement is on the recording and nothing about it is concealed.
2. Ask whether anyone objects, and stop if they do.
3. Ask again when someone joins late.
4. Leave voice recognition off unless every person it would recognise has agreed, in writing where BIPA may apply.
5. Keep the audio only as long as needed, and share notes rather than recordings.

How to ask for consent to record has wording for these.

How Notey fits into this

Notey records your microphone and the sound your Mac plays, on your own Mac. Nothing joins the call, and the other people see no recording notice from their meeting app. Under a law aimed at secret recording, the announcement has to come from you.

• Nothing is saved until you press Allow when Notey notices a call, unless you chose a rule in advance, such as arming the next call. Each recording it starts is announced on screen, to you, with Stop beside it.
• The red dot and elapsed timer are visible to you, not to the call.
• Voice recognition is off by default. A voice is saved only when you name someone, suggestions are labelled and never applied by themselves, the People screen lists everyone stored, and Forget this voice deletes a person's voiceprints. The privacy policy says a voiceprint may be biometric data under BIPA and that you are responsible for the notice or consent your jurisdiction requires.
• The audio stays on your Mac and is transcribed there.

Frequently asked questions

Is Illinois a two-party consent state?

For secret recordings, effectively yes. Since the 2014 rewrite, 720 ILCS 5/14-2 bars a party from surreptitiously recording a private conversation unless all other parties consent. A recording made openly, with everyone aware, is not surreptitious.

What makes a recording surreptitious in Illinois?

The statute defines it as obtained or made by stealth or deception, or through secrecy or concealment. Announcing the recording at the start of a call is the opposite of that.

What is the penalty for eavesdropping in Illinois?

A first offence is a Class 4 felony and a second or later one a Class 3 felony, with higher classes for recording certain officials on duty. The person recorded can also sue for actual and punitive damages.

Why was the Illinois eavesdropping law changed in 2014?

In March 2014 the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the earlier version, which covered recording almost any conversation without everyone's consent, as overbroad under the First Amendment. The legislature then narrowed it to private conversations recorded surreptitiously.

Does recording a meeting create a voiceprint under BIPA?

A recording on its own is not the same as a voiceprint. A notetaker that learns to recognise voices stores something closer to one, which BIPA covers. Keep voice recognition off unless people have agreed in writing.