Call Recording Laws in Massachusetts

Plain-English summary

Massachusetts is an all-party-consent state with one of the strictest wiretap statutes in the country. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 prohibits the secret interception of any wire or oral communication. The statute uses the word “secretly,” which Massachusetts courts have read to mean that recording with the other party’s actual knowledge is permitted, even without express verbal consent — but the moment the recording is hidden from a party, the statute is violated.

In Commonwealth v. Hyde, 434 Mass. 594 (2001), the Supreme Judicial Court held that a driver’s secret recording of a police traffic stop violated § 99 because it was made without the officer’s knowledge. In Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020), the First Circuit held that § 99 cannot be applied to bar the secret audio recording of government officials performing public duties in public spaces, on First Amendment grounds.

Case law of note

No appellate decision in Massachusetts has materially reshaped the participant-recording rule in recent decades. Lower-court decisions exist but do not change the analytical framework set by the statute and by general federal precedent under § 2511.

Edge cases and special rules

In-person vs. phone. Same — all-party. Secret recording prohibited even where one party knows.
Voicemail. Leaving a message creates the recording at the recipient’s direction; reviewing one’s own voicemail is not interception.
Vicarious consent. Several federal courts have recognized a parental-consent doctrine permitting a parent to consent on behalf of a minor child (Pollock v. Pollock, 154 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1998)). State law varies; no controlling Massachusetts appellate decision on the question.
Law enforcement. Court-authorized intercepts are governed by a separate framework and are outside the scope of this page.
Cross-border calls. Where any participant is in an all-party state, treat the stricter rule as the safer default. See cross-border calls.

Penalties and remedies

Criminal: Up to 5 years in state prison or 2.5 years in jail and/or $10,000.

Civil: Yes — § 99(Q) provides actual and exemplary damages plus attorney's fees.

Evidence: a recording made in violation of the Massachusetts statute is generally inadmissible in Massachusetts proceedings. Federal § 2515 separately bars use of unlawfully intercepted communications in federal proceedings.

Practical guidance

If you are recording an ordinary phone call: obtain audible consent from every party at the start of the call.
Suggested opening: See our consent script templates for jurisdiction-specific language.
If the other party objects: stop recording. Continued recording over an objection is a separate factual question that no consent statute helps you with.
What to keep: the date and time of the call, the parties’ phone numbers, a description of the consent given (express verbal, continued participation after notice, etc.), and the audio file itself.