Two-Party Consent States: Which States Require Everyone to Agree Before You Record

The phrase two-party consent comes from a phone call between two people. Lawyers usually say all-party consent, because the rule covers a call with five people the same way. Everyone has to agree, however many there are.

The opposite rule is one-party consent. Under it, a conversation can be recorded when one participant consents, and that participant can be the person holding the recorder. Kilpatrick's chart puts 37 states and the District of Columbia in this group, along with federal law.

These rules sit in state criminal codes, usually under headings such as eavesdropping, wiretapping or interception. Many of them never mention call recording by name. That is one reason the same statute can be summarized two different ways by two careful sources.

The table follows the Kilpatrick chart, dated July 2024, for the list itself. The last column says whether the description comes from the statute text we opened on 12 November 2026 or from the chart alone. A chart from 2024 can be out of date, and the firm says so on the chart. Eight rows rest on the chart alone.

Michigan and Vermont are included because they are the most common sources of confusion. Michigan's statute uses all-party wording, yet the chart classes the state as one-party. Vermont, according to the chart, has not enacted a recording statute at all.

The research notes behind this article found published counts from 11 to 14. Seven states appear on nearly every list: California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Montana, Pennsylvania and Washington. The disagreement is about the rest.

Oregon shows why. Its statute, in the 2025 edition, allows a phone call to be recorded when at least one participant consents. The same section bars obtaining an in-person conversation unless all participants are specifically informed. A list about phone calls can fairly leave Oregon off, and a list about meetings can fairly include it.

Nevada is the reverse. The statute we opened makes it unlawful to intercept a wire communication unless one party consents and an emergency makes a court order impractical, which is why the chart lists Nevada as all-party for calls. A separate section lets one participant authorize the recording of an in-person private conversation.

Michigan's statute bars using a device to eavesdrop on a private conversation without the consent of all parties. Kilpatrick's chart still classes Michigan as a one-party state. The chart does not explain the difference in that row, so treat Michigan as a state to check with counsel before relying on either label.

The federal rule is in 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). It says a private person may intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication when that person is a party to it, or when one of the parties has given prior consent.

The same sentence carries an exception. The permission ends if the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act. That exception was central to a 2026 ruling about an AI notetaker, covered below.

Federal law is a floor. A state can be stricter, and the 13 states on the chart are. Meeting the federal rule does not answer a claim brought under California or Washington law.

A sales call from Texas to California involves a one-party state and an all-party state. The chart's guidance is that when the parties are in different states with different rules, the strictest standard generally applies, and that getting consent from all parties is the prudent course.

That is a general statement by a law firm. Courts decide the question case by case under each state's choice-of-law rules, and this article did not open those decisions. If your exposure depends on which state's law governs, that is a question for your lawyer.

The practical problem is that a business often does not know where the other person is. Area codes travel with mobile phones, and video meetings have no area code at all. Many teams apply the all-party rule to every recorded conversation for that reason.

Kilpatrick's chart lists the methods it attributes to the Federal Communications Commission: verbal or written consent given before the recording, a verbal notification before the recording begins, and an audible beep repeated at regular intervals. It calls the verbal notification the most common method.

Washington writes one method into the statute. Consent is considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties, in any reasonably effective manner, that the conversation is about to be recorded. Montana's law similarly does not apply to people who were given warning of the recording.

States differ on whether a beep alone is enough. The chart marks Florida and Massachusetts as requiring a verbal notification, and marks several other states as not expressly addressing the point. Where a state is silent, the chart's advice is to err on the side of caution.

California Penal Code 632 sets a fine of up to $2,500 per violation, or up to $10,000 for a repeat offender, along with possible jail time. Section 637.2 lets an injured person sue for the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages. The statute says the plaintiff does not need to have suffered actual damages.

Other states use a daily formula. The amounts below come from the Kilpatrick chart, except California's, which we read in the statute. Each should be checked against the current code before anyone relies on it.

A person in a meeting is a party to it. A software vendor that receives the audio may or may not be. On 13 August 2026 a federal court in California declined to dismiss wiretap claims against Otter, the maker of an AI notetaker, finding the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that Otter keeps and uses conversations for its own purposes.

That ruling accepted the allegations as true for the purpose of the motion. It did not find that Otter broke any law. It does show that the all-party question can reach the tool as well as the person who switched it on.

The same order dismissed a Washington Privacy Act claim because the plaintiff had not alleged enough facts to show his meeting was private. State statutes protect private or confidential conversations, and what counts as private is often where a case is decided.

No routine makes a recording lawful everywhere, and which statute applies to a given call is a legal question. These steps reflect what the statutes and the chart describe as notice and consent.

The routine assumes the strictest rule applies to every call. That costs a sentence at the start of each conversation and removes the need to work out where each person is.

• Put the recording notice in the calendar invitation or the call greeting, before the conversation begins.
• State aloud at the start that the conversation is being recorded, and name any AI service that is transcribing it.
• Ask whether anyone objects, and stop the recording for anyone who does.
• Repeat the notice when someone joins late.
• Keep a dated record of who was present, what they were told and how they answered.