Federal Call Recording Law in the United States

Federal law allows a participant in a phone call to record the call without telling anyone else on the line, as long as the recording is not made for the purpose of committing a crime or tort. That is the federal floor. Many states are stricter, and the stricter state rule usually controls when a state-law violation is also at issue.

What the statute actually says

The Federal Wiretap Act, as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, is codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2523. The provision that matters for ordinary call recording is § 2511(2)(d):

It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception, unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

Phrase by phrase:

“Person not acting under color of law.” The one-party-consent exception is for private actors. Government wiretaps are governed by a separate framework (Title III warrants, FISA, etc.) and are outside the scope of this page.
“Intercept.” Defined at § 2510(4) as the “aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.” Recording a call you are on is an interception.
“Wire, oral, or electronic communication.” Telephone calls are wire communications (§ 2510(1)); in-person conversations under a reasonable expectation of privacy are oral communications (§ 2510(2)); VoIP and email are electronic communications (§ 2510(12)).
“Party to the communication.” A participant in the call — not a third-party listener.
“One of the parties… given prior consent.” If you are not a party, you can still record with the consent of any one party.
“Criminal or tortious act…” exception. Even one-party consent does not protect a recording made to facilitate blackmail, extortion, harassment, defamation, or other illegal conduct. The Second Circuit in Caro v. Weintraub, 618 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2010), construed this exception narrowly: the “criminal or tortious” purpose must be independent of the recording itself.

What is and is not covered

Telephone calls. Squarely covered as wire communications.
VoIP and video calls (Zoom, Google Meet, FaceTime). Covered as electronic communications under the ECPA amendments.
In-person conversations. Covered as oral communications when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Whether a participant may record is governed by the same one-party-consent rule federally.
Voicemail and stored recordings. Access to stored communications is governed by the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2713.
Communications carriers. Carrier conduct is separately governed by FCC rules at 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.501–64.502.

How federal law interacts with state law

Federal law sets a national floor for participant recording. It does not preempt state laws that impose stricter requirements. The thirteen US states that require all parties to consent — California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington (the analysis varies; see each state page) — impose criminal and civil liability for recordings that would be permitted under § 2511(2)(d). On a call between people in different states, the law of any state with a sufficient interest may apply, and many courts have applied the stricter state’s rule. See our cross-border calls analysis.

Notable case law

Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001)

The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment shields the publication of an illegally intercepted communication by a media outlet that did not participate in the interception and where the communication concerned a matter of public significance. Bartnicki is about publication, not interception: it does not authorize the interception itself, which remains unlawful under the statute.

Boehner v. McDermott, 484 F.3d 573 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (en banc)

Distinguished Bartnicki where the publisher had knowingly received an intercepted communication in violation of a confidentiality obligation. Civil liability under § 2511 could attach.

Caro v. Weintraub, 618 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2010)

The “criminal or tortious purpose” exception in § 2511(2)(d) requires that the criminal or tortious purpose be independent of the act of recording. A plaintiff cannot bootstrap by claiming the recording itself was the tort.

In re Pharmatrak, 329 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2003)

Consent under § 2511(2)(d) must be specific to the communication at issue and may be vitiated where the consenting party was misled about the scope of the interception.

Penalties and remedies

Criminal

Willful violation of § 2511(1) is a federal felony punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine (§ 2511(4)(a)). Prosecutions of individuals for ordinary call recording are uncommon; federal prosecutors typically pursue § 2511 in connection with broader conduct (organized intercepts, professional eavesdropping, recordings made in furtherance of another crime).

Civil

Section 2520 creates a private right of action for victims of unlawful interception, disclosure, or use. Available remedies include actual damages, statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, punitive damages where appropriate, equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The statute of limitations is two years from the date the claimant first had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation (§ 2520(e)).

Suppression of evidence

Section 2515 bars admission of the contents of an unlawful interception in any federal or state proceeding. Suppression is mandatory where the recording was made in violation of the statute and the proponent is the violator or someone in privity with the violator.

FCC rules and carrier obligations

The FCC’s call-recording rule for telecommunications carriers is at 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 et seq. Carriers may not record interstate or international calls except with prior notice to all parties — satisfied by a verbal announcement, a written notice, or an audible beep tone repeated at regular intervals. This is a carrier obligation, not a private-party obligation, but it explains why business calls routinely include the “this call may be recorded for quality and training purposes” preamble.

Practical guidance

If you are a participant in a call, federal law allows you to record it. Whether your state allows it is a separate question.
If you are recording a call that crosses state lines, treat the stricter state’s rule as the safer default. The most common conservative practice is to obtain audible consent at the start of the call.
If your purpose for recording is itself unlawful — to threaten, defame, or coerce — the one-party-consent exception does not protect you.
If you are recording for use in litigation, take the time to confirm both that the recording was lawful and that no privilege (attorney–client, marital) attaches to the conversation.