Connecticut

Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained

AI-assisted, source-checkedBy Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 2026Reviewed August 7, 202612 min read

Key Takeaways

1Connecticut is a hybrid state: in-person conversations require only one-party (participant) consent under the criminal statute (§ 53a-187), while phone calls require all-party consent under the separate civil statute (§ 52-570d)
2A participant in a face-to-face conversation may record it without criminal liability; the participant exception does NOT apply to phone calls under § 52-570d
3Phone recordings made without all-party consent expose the recorder to civil liability under § 52-570d: damages, together with costs and a reasonable attorney's fee, in a Superior Court action
4Criminal eavesdropping under § 53a-189 is a Class D felony carrying up to five years imprisonment and a fine up to $5,000
5Civil damages under § 52-570d include damages together with costs and a reasonable attorney fee for each unlawful phone recording
6Hidden camera voyeurism under § 53a-189a is a Class D felony (Class C for minors under 16 or repeat offenses); § 53a-189b makes disseminating such recordings a separate Class D felony
7Employers must post written notice of electronic monitoring under § 31-48d; civil penalties run from $500 to $3,000 per violation

Connecticut uses a hybrid recording consent framework. In-person conversations follow a one-party (participant) standard under the criminal eavesdropping statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-187, confirmed by State v. DeMartin, 171 Conn. 524 (1976). Phone calls are separately governed by the civil statute, § 52-570d, which requires all-party consent. Eavesdropping by a non-participant is a Class D felony under § 53a-189, while a participant who records a phone call without all-party consent faces civil liability under § 52-570d rather than criminal prosecution.

Connecticut recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
In-person consent rule	One-party (participant) under § 53a-187
Phone call consent rule	All-party required under § 52-570d (civil)
Main criminal statute	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189
Criminal penalty	Class D felony: up to 5 years, up to $5,000 fine
Civil penalty (phone)	Actual damages + costs + attorney fees (§ 52-570d)
Phone recording remedy	Civil action for damages, costs, and attorney's fee under § 52-570d(c)
Hidden cameras / voyeurism	§ 53a-189a (Class D felony; Class C for minors or repeat)
Recording police in public	Not barred by state recording law; no binding circuit precedent

For a deeper look at each context, see the in-depth guides below.

smartphone showing a clean audio waveform on a wooden surface

Recording in-person conversations in Connecticut

For face-to-face conversations, Connecticut follows the participant doctrine under § 53a-187. The statute defines "mechanical overhearing of a conversation" as recording a conversation without the consent of at least one party by a person not present. A participant who is present and recording their own conversation satisfies the "at least one party" requirement and commits no criminal offense.

The Connecticut Supreme Court confirmed this in State v. DeMartin, 171 Conn. 524 (1976), holding that an officer who recorded their own conversation for use as evidence did not violate the eavesdropping statutes because they were a party to the communication. No subsequent Connecticut Supreme Court or Appellate Court decision has modified or overruled DeMartin.

There is no civil counterpart to § 52-570d covering in-person audio; that statute expressly applies only to "private telephonic communications." A participant who lawfully records a face-to-face conversation faces no civil liability under Connecticut recording law, though common-law privacy torts remain possible in extreme cases.

Recording becomes criminal when the recorder is not a participant. Placing a hidden device in a room to capture conversations without being present, or intercepting discussions you are not part of, falls within § 53a-187's prohibition and constitutes eavesdropping under § 53a-189.

Recording phone calls in Connecticut

Phone calls are subject to a stricter, separate standard. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d creates a private civil cause of action for recording a "private telephonic communication" without all-party consent. Unlike the criminal statute, § 52-570d has no participant exception, so even a party to the call who records without meeting the notice requirements faces civil liability. Telephone interception carries separate criminal exposure. Section 53a-187 defines "wiretapping" as intentionally overhearing or recording a telephonic communication by someone other than a sender or receiver, without the consent of either the sender or receiver; wiretapping is eavesdropping under § 53a-189, the same Class D felony that covers in-person mechanical overhearing. Because a party to a call is by definition a sender or receiver, a participant cannot commit criminal wiretapping of their own conversation, which is why unauthorized participant recording of a phone call exposes only civil liability under § 52-570d, not criminal charges.

Three methods satisfy the consent requirement under § 52-570d:

Written consent from all parties obtained before or at the start of the recording
A verbal notification recorded at the beginning of and as part of the call
An automatic beep-tone warning device at approximately 15-second intervals

The statute was amended in 2012 to expand coverage from specific instruments to "any means" of recording, capturing smartphones, VoIP software, and cloud-based tools.

Section 52-570d's remedy for a violation is civil, not evidentiary: any person aggrieved by an unlawful recording may bring a civil action in Superior Court to recover damages, together with costs and a reasonable attorney's fee. The statute's text does not itself render a noncompliant recording inadmissible as evidence.

For interstate calls, Connecticut courts have issued no definitive choice-of-law ruling. Commentators recommend treating any call involving a Connecticut party as subject to § 52-570d's all-party requirement. The federal baseline under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) permits one-party recording, but Connecticut's stricter civil rule governs in Connecticut proceedings.

For full treatment of phone call rules, see our dedicated Connecticut phone call recording laws page.

Connecticut desk phone handset lifted slightly off its cradle on an office desk with a coiled cord, warm lamp light

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Recording video on your own property in areas where visitors have no reasonable expectation of privacy (entryways, living rooms, front porches) is generally lawful in Connecticut. Doorbells, security cameras, and nanny cams in common living areas present no special legal problem.

The line is drawn at places of genuine privacy. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189a, the voyeurism statute, prohibits secretly observing, photographing, filming, or recording a person in a location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy (a bathroom, dressing room, bedroom, locker room) for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification. It applies whether the camera is in your own home or someone else's property.

Penalties are serious. A first offense under § 53a-189a is a Class D felony, carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine up to $5,000. If the victim is under 16, or for any subsequent offense, the charge rises to a Class C felony with a maximum of 10 years. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189b makes it a separate Class D felony to disseminate images obtained through unlawful surveillance under § 53a-189a.

An audio caveat: § 53a-189a targets visual surveillance, but a camera that also captures audio can trigger the criminal eavesdropping statutes (§§ 53a-187 and 53a-189) if no participant to a captured conversation consented. A nanny cam in a living room is generally fine; a device secretly capturing private conversations between non-consenting people creates eavesdropping exposure.

For comprehensive coverage, see our Connecticut voyeurism and hidden camera laws and Connecticut security camera laws pages.

Penalties for illegal recording in Connecticut

Criminal penalties apply when a non-participant records a conversation or call without any party's consent. Eavesdropping under § 53a-189 is a Class D felony.

Civil penalties under § 52-570d apply whenever a phone call is recorded without all-party consent, regardless of whether the recorder was a participant.

Violation	Statute	Penalty
Criminal eavesdropping (non-participant recording)	§ 53a-189	Class D felony: up to 5 years prison, up to $5,000 fine
Unlawful phone recording (any party, no all-party notice)	§ 52-570d	Civil action for damages + costs + reasonable attorney fee
Voyeurism (secret visual recording in private space)	§ 53a-189a	Class D felony (Class C for minors/repeat); up to 5 or 10 years
Disseminating voyeuristic material	§ 53a-189b	Class D felony: up to 5 years, up to $5,000 fine
Employer monitoring without written notice	§ 31-48d	Civil: $500 first offense, $1,000 second, $3,000 each subsequent

The § 52-570d civil cause of action allows recovery of damages together with costs and a reasonable attorney fee. Attorney fees shift to the violator, making civil enforcement practical even for modest actual damages.

wooden gavel on a sound block on a judge's bench

Recording the police in Connecticut

The Connecticut recording consent statutes do not bar recording people in public places. A person recording a police officer performing official duties in a public setting is a participant in an in-person interaction and commits no criminal eavesdropping offense under § 53a-187. No Connecticut state law prohibits openly recording police in public.

The Second Circuit has not issued a controlling First Amendment ruling confirming an affirmative civilian right to record police in Connecticut, a gap in circuit authority the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press notes. The practical posture is that recording police is not barred by state recording law, rather than affirmatively confirmed by on-point circuit precedent.

Practical guidelines: do not interfere with official duties, maintain a safe distance, and do not access restricted areas. Officers may not lawfully demand that you stop recording or delete footage, and may not confiscate a recording device without a warrant.

For in-depth analysis, see our Connecticut laws on recording police page.

Special topics in Connecticut

Employer electronic monitoring (§ 31-48d)

Section 31-48d requires every employer that engages in electronic monitoring (telephone calls, internet, computer use) to give prior written notice to all employees who may be monitored, including new hires, and to post notice conspicuously. A narrow covert-monitoring exception permits monitoring without prior notice when there are reasonable grounds to believe an employee is engaged in conduct that violates the legal rights of the employer or other employees, is criminal, or creates a hostile work environment. Satisfying § 31-48d does not, by itself, satisfy § 52-570d's all-party consent requirement as to third parties on a recorded call.

Federal overlay (ECPA and TCPA)

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) sets a federal one-party consent baseline permitting a party to record their own communication absent a criminal or tortious purpose, but Connecticut's stricter civil telephone rule under § 52-570d is independently enforced in state court regardless of federal permissibility. The TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227) and FCC 24-17 (CG Docket No. 23-362, Feb. 8, 2024) confirm that AI voice-cloning technologies are "artificial voices" within the TCPA's prerecorded-voice prohibition, requiring prior express consent for robocalls; this applies concurrently with § 52-570d. A separate ruling, FCC 24-24 (CG Docket No. 21-402), was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit on January 24, 2025 (Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, No. 24-10277) and is no longer operative law; the two rulings address different topics and must not be conflated.

NLRB workplace recording policies

The NLRB in Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) held that blanket employer no-recording policies are presumptively unlawful under NLRA Section 7 unless the employer shows a legitimate, substantial business interest. NLRB Acting GC Memorandum 25-07 (June 25, 2025) further treats surreptitious recordings of collective bargaining sessions as per se bad-faith bargaining. That memo is prosecutorial guidance, not a binding Board decision, and remains subject to revision under current NLRB leadership.

HIPAA and FERPA

Recording a call with a Connecticut healthcare provider requires compliance with both § 52-570d and the HIPAA Privacy Rule (45 C.F.R. §§ 164.502, 164.508). Audio recordings capturing student personally identifiable information held by Connecticut educational institutions are FERPA education records (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 C.F.R. Part 99) requiring prior written consent for disclosure absent an exception.

Connecticut two office chairs angled toward each other beside a window with a small voice recorder on the side table between them

Recent legal developments

2025 HB 7073 (eff. October 1, 2025): Changed when police may view body and dashboard camera recordings and when such footage may be disclosed. Does not amend civilian recording consent statutes.
2026 SB 472 / Public Act 26-73 (employer monitoring notice, eff. October 1, 2026): Enacted. Passed both chambers unanimously (Senate 36-0, House 150-0-1), transmitted to the governor May 22, 2026, and chaptered as Public Act 26-73. Amends § 31-48d to require employers to identify specific monitored workplace locations in their written notice and to give new hires a plain-language statement about which prohibited activities may trigger covert monitoring without prior notice.
2025 SB 1484 (AI employee monitoring, FAILED): Would have limited employer electronic monitoring and required disclosure of AI in employee assessments. Received favorable committee reports but was tabled in the Senate calendar and never reached a floor vote.
2025 SB 1295 (AI employment decisions, enacted): Extended consumer opt-out rights to automated employment decision systems using personal data to train LLMs. Does not amend §§ 53a-187, 52-570d, or 31-48d; no new audio or phone recording consent requirements.
FCC 24-24 vacated (Jan. 24, 2025): The Eleventh Circuit vacated the FCC's One-to-One Consent Rule. No longer operative law.
Core recording statutes unchanged: §§ 53a-187, 52-570d, and 31-48d remain unchanged as of June 2026.

Connecticut recording laws in depth

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Connecticut laws

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Recording laws change and apply differently to each situation. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed Connecticut attorney.

More Connecticut Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Connecticut a one-party or two-party consent state?

Neither, purely. Connecticut uses a hybrid framework where the medium determines the rule. For in-person conversations, the criminal eavesdropping statute (§ 53a-187) lets a participant record their own conversation without criminal liability. For phone calls, the civil statute (§ 52-570d) requires all-party consent via written notice, verbal notification at the start of the call, or an automatic beep tone every 15 seconds.

Can I record a phone call in Connecticut if I am a party to the call?

Not without notifying the other party first. Even though you are a participant, § 52-570d has no participant exception for telephone calls. Recording a phone call without proper notice exposes you to civil liability, including damages, costs, and a reasonable attorney's fee, under § 52-570d(c).

Is illegal recording a felony in Connecticut?

Yes. Criminal eavesdropping under § 53a-189, which applies when a non-participant records a conversation without any party's consent, is a Class D felony carrying up to five years imprisonment and a fine up to $5,000. Voyeurism under § 53a-189a is also a Class D felony (Class C when a minor under 16 is involved or for repeat offenses).

What can I sue for if someone illegally recorded my phone call?

Under § 52-570d, you can bring a civil action in Superior Court to recover damages, together with costs and a reasonable attorney fee, for each unlawful recording. The statute's text does not expressly provide for punitive damages or address the recording's admissibility as evidence.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Connecticut?

Generally yes, when used in areas where visitors have no reasonable expectation of privacy, such as entryways, living rooms, or public areas outside your home. The voyeurism statute § 53a-189a bars secretly recording anyone in a bathroom, bedroom, dressing room, or other place of genuine privacy. Cameras that also capture audio can trigger the eavesdropping statutes if no participant to the captured conversation consented.

Can my employer record my work calls in Connecticut?

Only with proper notice. Under § 31-48d, employers must give prior written notice of electronic monitoring and post it conspicuously, and must also satisfy § 52-570d's all-party consent requirement as to anyone on the other end of a recorded call. An exception permits covert monitoring when there are reasonable grounds to believe an employee is engaged in criminal conduct, conduct violating other employees' legal rights, or conduct creating a hostile work environment.

Can I record my boss or an HR meeting in Connecticut?

If the meeting is in person and you are a participant, you can record it under the criminal participant doctrine without risking criminal liability under § 53a-187 and DeMartin. If the meeting is on a phone call or video conferencing platform treated as a telephonic communication, § 52-570d's all-party consent requirement applies and you must notify all parties before recording.

Can I record police officers in Connecticut?

Yes. Connecticut recording law does not bar recording people in public places, including police on official duties; as a participant in a public interaction you commit no criminal eavesdropping offense. The Second Circuit has not issued a controlling First Amendment ruling specifically confirming an affirmative right to record police in Connecticut, but no state law prohibits it. Do not interfere with official duties or enter restricted areas.

Updates

August 9, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

August 7, 2026

Corrected the claim that § 52-570d makes an unlawfully recorded phone call inadmissible as evidence: the statute's text provides only a civil damages remedy (subsection (c)), with no evidentiary-exclusion provision.

August 7, 2026

Corrected the § 53a-189 eavesdropping penalty range: Connecticut's Class D felony sentencing statute (§ 53a-35a) sets a maximum of five years with no stated statutory minimum, not a '1 to 5 years' range.

August 7, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

August 3, 2026

Clarified that the Class D felony applies to eavesdropping by non-participants (§ 53a-189); a participant recording a phone call without all-party consent faces civil liability under § 52-570d, not criminal prosecution.

June 5, 2026

Restructured per recording-redo template: added AEO lede, at-a-glance table, canonical section order (in-person, phone, hidden cameras, penalties, police, special topics, recent developments, in-depth index). Condensed special-topics sections (employer monitoring, federal overlay, NLRB, HIPAA/FERPA) into concise subsections. Refreshed FAQ to 8 pairs. Audit fixes: (1) removed unconfirmed '§ 52-570d(d)' subsection reference - inadmissibility cited as '§ 52-570d' generally; (2) corrected civil damages to codified text 'damages, together with costs and a reasonable attorney fee' (removed unenacted 'nominal or otherwise' phrase throughout); (3) SB 472 corrected to enacted Public Act 26-73 effective October 1, 2026; (4) removed unconfirmed 2014 amendment claim, retaining only confirmed 2012 amendment; (5) § 53a-189 Class D felony penalty restored to '1 to 5 years' throughout. All banlist links removed; all inline images placed per meta.

May 9, 2026

Full refresh. Title and meta rewritten to surface hybrid one-party/all-party split in SERP snippet. Hybrid framing moved above the fold with quick-reference table. Statute citations corrected throughout: § 53a-189 identified as eavesdropping offense; § 53a-189a identified as unlawful surveillance/voyeurism (separate statute). All Justia URLs replaced with cga.ct.gov official links. FCC 24-17 (AI voice/TCPA, CG Docket 23-362, operative) and FCC 24-24 (One-to-One Consent, CG Docket 21-402, vacated by 11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025) distinguished throughout. SB 472 (2026) and SB 1484 (2025) correctly framed as failed legislation that did not become law. New H2 sections added: § 53a-189a/189b unlawful surveillance, federal law overlay (ECPA/TCPA/FCC), special contexts (HIPAA/FERPA/CFPB), pending and failed legislation, interstate recording, and Topic Index. FAQ expanded to 12 pairs. Citation count increased to 28.

March 23, 2026

Added wearable recording device guidance covering AI voice recorders, smart glasses, and Connecticut employer monitoring requirements under CGS § 31-48d.

The Law Behind This Article

This article rests on 8 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.

Connecticut General Statutes, Title 31 (Labor), Chapter 557

§ 31-48dEmployers engaged in electronic monitoring required to give prior notice to employees. Exceptions. Civil penalty.In forcecited in 17 of our articles

(a) As used in this section: (1) “Employer” means any person, firm or corporation, including the state and any political subdivision of the state which has employees; (2) “Employee” means any person who performs services for an employer in a business of the employer, if the employer has the right to control and direct the person as to (A) the result to be accomplished by the services, and (B) the details and means by which such result is accomplished; and (3) “Electronic monitoring” means the collection of information on an employer's premises concerning employees' activities or communications by any means other than direct observation, including the use of a computer, telephone, wire, radio, camera, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical systems, but not including the collection of information (A) for security purposes in common areas of the employer's premises which are held out for use by the public, or (B) which is prohibited under state or federal law.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at cga.ct.gov

Also relied on in: Employer Guide to Wearable Recording Device Policies (2026), Connecticut Audio Recording Laws: Mixed Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Connecticut Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026)

Connecticut General Statutes, Title 52 (Civil Actions), Chapter 925

§ 52-570dAction for illegal recording of private telephonic communications.In forcecited in 19 of our articles

(a) No person shall use any instrument, device or equipment to record an oral private telephonic communication unless the use of such instrument, device or equipment (1) is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication and such prior consent either is obtained in writing or is part of, and obtained at the start of, the recording, or (2) is preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning and is part of the communication by the recording party, or (3) is accompanied by an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at intervals of approximately fifteen seconds during the communication while such instrument, device or equipment is in use.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at cga.ct.gov

Also relied on in: Connecticut Landlord-Tenant Recording and Surveillance Laws (2026), Connecticut Medical Recording Laws: Patients, Doctors, and HIPAA Rules (2026), Connecticut Phone Call Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)

Connecticut General Statutes, Title 53a (Penal Code), Chapter 952

§ 53a-187Definitions. Applicability.In forcecited in 18 of our articles

(a) The following definitions are applicable to sections 53a-188 and 53a-189: (1) “Wiretapping” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication or a communication made by cellular radio telephone by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. The normal operation of a telephone or telegraph corporation and the normal use of the services and facilities furnished by such corporation pursuant to its tariffs shall not be deemed “wiretapping”. (2) “Mechanical overhearing of a conversation” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. (3) “Unlawfully” means not specifically authorized by law. For purposes of this section, “cellular radio telephone” means a wireless telephone authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to operate in the frequency bandwidth reserved for cellular radio telephones.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at cga.ct.gov

Also relied on in: Connecticut Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits (2026), Connecticut Laws on Recording in Public: What Is Legal (2026), Connecticut School Recording Laws: Students, Teachers, and Campus Rules (2026)

Code of Federal Regulations Title 45

§ 164.502Uses and disclosures of protected health information: General rules.In forcecited in 14 of our articles

(a) Standard. A covered entity or business associate may not use or disclose protected health information, except as permitted or required by this subpart or by subpart C of part 160 of this subchapter. (1) Covered entities: Permitted uses and disclosures. A covered entity is permitted to use or disclose protected health information as follows: (i) To the individual; (ii) For treatment, payment, or health care operations, as permitted by and in compliance with § 164.506; (iii) Incident to a use or disclosure otherwise permitted or required by this subpart, provided that the covered entity has complied with the applicable requirements of §§ 164.502(b), 164.514(d), and 164.530(c) with respect to such otherwise permitted or required use or disclosure; (iv) Except for uses and disclosures prohibited under § 164.502(a)(5)(i), pursuant to and in compliance with a valid authorization under § 164.508; (v) Pursuant to an agreement under, or as otherwise permitted by, § 164.510; and (vi) As permitted by and in compliance with any of the following: (A) This section. (B) Section 164.512 and, where applicable, § 164.509. (C) Section 164.514(e), (f), or (g).

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at ecfr.gov

Also relied on in: California Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), Delaware Recording Laws (2026): Two-Statute Consent Conflict

United States Code Title 18

§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 116 of our articles

As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means 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.1  So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Kentucky Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know

§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 400 of our articles

Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Also relied on in: Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use, Alabama Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Rules

United States Code Title 20

§ 1232gFamily educational and privacy rightsIn forcecited in 29 of our articles

No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy of denying, or which effectively prevents, the parents of students who are or have been in attendance at a school of such agency or at such institution, as the case may be, the right to inspect and review the education records of their children. If any material or document in the education record of a student includes information on more than one student, the parents of one of such students shall have the right to inspect and review only such part of such material or document as relates to such student or to be informed of the specific information contained in such part of such material. Each educational agency or institution shall establish appropriate procedures for the granting of a request by parents for access to the education records of their children within a reasonable period of time, but in no case more than forty-five days after the request has been made.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Also relied on in: Alaska School Recording Laws: Student Privacy, FERPA, and Classroom Rules (2026), Arkansas School Recording Laws: Student Privacy, FERPA, and Classroom Rules (2026), DC School Recording Laws: Student Privacy, FERPA, and Classroom Rules (2026)

United States Code Title 47

§ 227Restrictions on use of telephone equipmentIn forcecited in 35 of our articles

As used in this section— The term “automatic telephone dialing system” means equipment which has the capacity— to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and to dial such numbers. The term “established business relationship”, for purposes only of subsection (b)(1)(C)(i), shall have the meaning given the term in section 64.1200 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2003, except that— such term shall include a relationship between a person or entity and a business subscriber subject to the same terms applicable under such section to a relationship between a person or entity and a residential subscriber; and an established business relationship shall be subject to any time limitation established pursuant to paragraph (2)(G)).1  So in original. Second closing parenthesis probably should not appear.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Also relied on in: Massachusetts Recording Laws (2026): Two-Party Consent Rules, New Hampshire Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Arkansas Phone Call Recording Laws: Landline, Cell, and VoIP Rules (2026)

Search our full record of US law — 1.79 million sections, every state + federal →