EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsIllinois Laws flagIllinois Laws
Illinois flag

Illinois

Illinois Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of November 1, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed November 2, 202613 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 21 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Illinois Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules

Illinois requires all-party consent before recording a private conversation under 720 ILCS 5/14-2. The law's pivotal word is "surreptitiously": secretly recording a private conversation where participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy is a felony, but openly recording a conversation you take part in does not meet the elements of the offense. Illegal recording is both a criminal felony and grounds for a civil lawsuit.

Illinois recording law at a glance

QuestionAnswer
Consent ruleAll-party consent required for private conversations
Main statute720 ILCS 5/14-2 (eff. Dec. 30, 2014, P.A. 098-1142)
When is recording illegal?Surreptitious recording of a conversation where participants reasonably expect privacy, without all-party consent
Criminal penalty (first offense)Class 4 felony: 1 to 3 years, up to $25,000 fine
Criminal penalty (subsequent offense)Class 3 felony: 2 to 5 years, up to $25,000 fine
Civil penaltyInjunction, actual damages, and punitive damages (720 ILCS 5/14-6)
Hidden cameras / video voyeurismClass 4 felony to record someone without consent in a restroom, locker room, changing room, tanning facility, hotel bedroom, or their home (720 ILCS 5/26-4); Class 3 if the victim is under 18 or the offender must register as a sex offender; placing the camera is a Class A misdemeanor
Recording police in publicPermitted and First Amendment-protected (ACLU v. Alvarez; 720 ILCS 5/14-2(e))

For a deeper explanation of any row, see the in-depth guides below.

Illinois requires every party's consent to secretly record a private conversation; a first offense is a Class 4 felony with 1 to 3 years in prison and a fine up to $25,000.
Illinois is all-party for private conversations, but the law reaches only secret recording where people reasonably expect privacy.
Illinois audio recorder and headphones resting on a stack of legal documents

Recording in-person conversations in Illinois

Illinois is an all-party consent state, but the statute is more targeted than that label suggests. Under 720 ILCS 5/14-2, a person commits eavesdropping when they use an eavesdropping device "in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of overhearing, transmitting, or recording all or any part of any private conversation" without the consent of all parties.

Two elements must both be present. First, the recording must be made surreptitiously: hidden, concealed, or done without the knowledge of the other participants. Second, the target must be a "private conversation," defined in 720 ILCS 5/14-1(d) as an oral communication where at least one party intended privacy and circumstances objectively justified that expectation.

If the recording is open, the surreptitious element is absent and no violation occurs. If the conversation is held in public, with no reasonable expectation of privacy, the private-conversation element is absent and no violation occurs. Both conditions must be satisfied for the statute to apply.

How Illinois arrived here: People v. Melongo and People v. Clark

Illinois's prior eavesdropping statute covered any conversation without consent, including fully public exchanges. On March 20, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously struck down that version as unconstitutionally overbroad in a pair of companion rulings decided the same day, People v. Melongo, 2014 IL 114852, and People v. Clark, 2014 IL 115776, ruling that criminalizing the recording of public conversations violated the First Amendment. Melongo arose after a woman was prosecuted for recording phone calls with an administrator in the Cook County Court Reporter's Office and posting the recordings online; Clark arose from a recorded conversation with a judge and an attorney. Governor Quinn signed Senate Bill 1342 (P.A. 098-1142) in December 2014; the Act took effect on becoming law on December 30, 2014, creating the current framework: all-party consent remains the rule for private conversations, but the "surreptitiously" element and the privacy anchor were added to cure the constitutional defect.

What counts as a private conversation

Private conversations include a discussion in a closed office, a phone call between two people, a whispered exchange in a restaurant, a therapy session, or a meeting in a private home. Conversations that are not private include a speech at a public meeting, a loud argument on a sidewalk audible to passersby, officer commands during a public arrest, and statements at any proceeding open under the Illinois Open Meetings Act, 5 ILCS 120.

Holding public office does not by itself remove a conversation from the statute. Whether a conversation is private turns on the circumstances, not the speaker's job. Illinois expressly allows anyone who is not a police officer to record a law enforcement officer performing duties in a public place or where the officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy (720 ILCS 5/14-2(e)), but no similar provision covers other officials. Recording a judge, prosecutor, or other official in an open courtroom or public meeting is usually lawful because the conversation is not private, while secretly recording a private conversation with one of them on duty is a Class 3 felony under 720 ILCS 5/14-4(b).

The fear-of-crime exception

720 ILCS 5/14-3(i) allows a party to a conversation to record it without all-party consent when they have reasonable suspicion that another party is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a criminal offense against them or a member of their immediate household, and there is reason to believe the recording may capture evidence of that offense. The exception is available only to people who are not law enforcement officers or their agents.

Recording phone calls in Illinois

Phone calls are private conversations under 720 ILCS 5/14-1(d): parties ordinarily expect calls to remain between themselves. Secretly recording a landline, cell, or VoIP call without the consent of everyone on it is therefore a felony. The offense requires secret recording (720 ILCS 5/14-1(g) defines surreptitious as made by stealth, deception, secrecy, or concealment), so telling everyone at the start that you are recording takes the call outside the statute.

The safest practice is to announce at the start of the call that you are recording and obtain verbal agreement before the substantive conversation begins. Because the statute reaches only surreptitious recording, a clear announcement at the start means the recording is not secret. If any party objects, stop recording immediately.

No Illinois statute or appellate decision settles which state's law governs a call between Illinois and another state. If you are in Illinois, assume Illinois law applies to you, and the safest practice for any interstate call is to tell everyone at the start that you are recording.

Our recording consent checker can help you compare Illinois's rule with the other party's state before a multi-state call.

For detailed rules on business call recording and AI transcription tools that may trigger BIPA, see the Illinois Phone Call Recording Laws spoke page.

Illinois dome security camera in the corner of an office ceiling

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Video recording on your own property is generally lawful, subject to the placement rules discussed below. The key boundary is the expectation of privacy.

Authorized placement

Outdoor security cameras pointed at your own property, doorbell cameras covering a shared driveway or public sidewalk, and nanny cams in living areas where no privacy expectation exists are all lawful without consent from visitors. Illinois does not require advance notice for cameras on your own property in areas where people have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Prohibited placement

720 ILCS 5/26-4 makes it a Class 4 felony to knowingly make a video recording or transmit live video of another person without consent in a restroom, tanning bed facility, locker room, changing room, or hotel bedroom, or to record another person in their residence without consent. The offense escalates to a Class 3 felony if the victim is under 18 or if the offender is required to register as a sex offender. Placing a hidden camera in one of those places with intent to record someone without consent is a Class A misdemeanor.

The audio caveat

A camera with a microphone that captures private conversations triggers the eavesdropping statute, 720 ILCS 5/14-2, on top of the voyeurism statute. A nanny cam recording conversations in a home is recording a private conversation where all parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy: all-party consent is required for the audio portion.

For additional guidance on camera placement and BIPA liability, see Illinois Security Camera Laws and Illinois Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws.

Penalties for illegal recording in Illinois

Criminal penalties for eavesdropping are set in 720 ILCS 5/14-4 (P.A. 098-1142, eff. Dec. 30, 2014):

Illinois eavesdropping penalties run from a Class 4 felony with 1 to 3 years in prison for a first offense to a Class 2 felony with 3 to 7 years for repeat eavesdropping on officials.
Every eavesdropping offense in Illinois is a felony, and secretly recording police, prosecutors or judges in private carries a higher class.
OffenseClassPrison termMax fine
Basic eavesdropping, first offenseClass 4 felony1 to 3 years$25,000
Basic eavesdropping, subsequent offenseClass 3 felony2 to 5 years$25,000
Eavesdropping on law enforcement / state's attorney / AG / judge, first offenseClass 3 felony2 to 5 years$25,000
Eavesdropping on law enforcement / state's attorney / AG / judge, subsequent offenseClass 2 felony3 to 7 years$25,000
Corporate defendantSame classesSame prison termsUp to $50,000

Civil liability

In addition to criminal prosecution, the victim of illegal eavesdropping may sue under 720 ILCS 5/14-6 for an injunction, actual damages, and punitive damages. The statute also allows actual and punitive damages against any landlord, building owner or operator, or common carrier by wire that aided, abetted, or knowingly permitted the eavesdropping. Section 14-6 does not itself provide for attorney fees.

Illinois glass-walled conference room with figures behind translucent doors

Recording the police in Illinois

Illinois offers two independent layers of protection for openly recording police in public, making it one of the strongest positions in the country on this issue.

Constitutional protection: ACLU v. Alvarez

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held in ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012), that the First Amendment protects the right to openly record police officers performing their duties in public places. Illinois is within the Seventh Circuit, making this ruling directly controlling precedent. Any attempt to re-criminalize open recording of police in public would face a First Amendment challenge under Alvarez.

Statutory codification

After Alvarez, Illinois added an explicit statutory exemption at 720 ILCS 5/14-2(e) (P.A. 99-352, eff. Jan. 1, 2016), providing that nothing in the eavesdropping article prohibits a person who is not a law enforcement officer from recording a law enforcement officer performing official duties in a public place or in circumstances with no reasonable expectation of privacy, though an officer may take reasonable action to maintain safety and control of the scene.

Section 14-2(e) protects recording an officer performing duties in public or where the officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy, whether or not the officer notices the recording. Secretly recording a private police conversation, such as a closed-door discussion, is still eavesdropping and carries the enhanced penalties under 720 ILCS 5/14-4(b). Recording law enforcement radio or secured communications is not protected.

Practical guidance: record openly with your device visible, stay in a location where you have a lawful right to be, and do not interfere with officers' duties. See Illinois Laws on Recording Police for a full analysis.

Special topics in Illinois

Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)

Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14, requires written consent before collecting, using, or storing biometric identifiers such as voiceprints, fingerprints, and facial geometry scans. Any recording tool that generates these identifiers from Illinois participants triggers BIPA obligations independently of the eavesdropping statute. BIPA provides a private right of action in which a prevailing plaintiff may recover liquidated damages of $1,000 per negligent violation and $5,000 per reckless or intentional violation (or actual damages, if greater), with no requirement to prove actual harm. These awards are not automatic: the Illinois Supreme Court has said BIPA damages are discretionary rather than mandatory (Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., 2023 IL 128004). Class action exposure can be substantial: a proposed settlement of the Clearview AI biometric privacy class action, valued at about $51.75 million, was approved by the district court in 2025, but the Seventh Circuit vacated that approval in July 2026 and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Cruz v. Fireflies.AI Corp., No. 3:25-cv-03399-SEM-DJQ (filed December 2025), alleged that an AI meeting assistant's speaker-recognition feature collected voiceprints without BIPA-compliant written consent from non-account-holder participants. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on March 11, 2026, so it is no longer pending. A complaint is an allegation, not a court ruling, so the case remains useful as an illustration of the BIPA theory plaintiffs are testing against AI meeting tools operating in Illinois, not as a decided legal standard.

Workplace recording: NLRB standards

Employer no-recording policies in Illinois are subject to federal labor law scrutiny under the Stericycle standard. In Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), the NLRB held that a challenged rule is presumptively unlawful if it has a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their Section 7 rights, evaluated from the perspective of an economically dependent employee. The employer can rebut that presumption by proving the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest that it cannot advance with a more narrowly tailored rule. Stericycle remains the Board's standard for judging workplace rules, though the current Board has signaled it may revisit it. Blanket no-recording policies that sweep in employees documenting unsafe conditions or discussing wages may be found presumptively unlawful.

NLRB Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued GC Memorandum 25-07 (June 25, 2025), directing regional offices to treat surreptitious recording of collective bargaining sessions as a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith under NLRA Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3). Separately, such recording also violates 720 ILCS 5/14-2 under state law. GC Memo 25-07 is prosecutorial guidance, not binding precedent. See Illinois Workplace Recording Laws for the full analysis.

HIPAA and FERPA overlays

Healthcare providers face a dual-consent obligation: the HIPAA Privacy Rule (45 CFR 164.502 and 164.508) governs the content of patient communications, while 720 ILCS 5/14-2 governs the act of recording. Both must be satisfied. Educational institutions face the same dual structure under FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99): a recording is an education record only if it is directly related to a student and maintained by the school, and the school generally needs written consent before disclosing it. FERPA does not itself require consent to make a recording; the eavesdropping statute governs that. See Illinois Medical Recording Laws and Illinois School Recording Laws.

Federal overlay (ECPA, FCC, CFPB)

Federal law applies alongside Illinois's stricter state standard, not in place of it. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) extended TCPA prior-express-consent requirements to AI-generated voice-cloning calls: Illinois's all-party consent standard is stricter and controls for intrastate recordings. The FCC's One-to-One Consent Rule was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (Jan. 24, 2025), and the FCC accepted that ruling nationwide. The FCC's former call-recording rule, 47 CFR 64.501, was removed in 2017, so no federal beep-tone rule applies; Illinois's all-party rule governs. CFPB Regulation F (12 CFR 1006.100(b)) requires debt collectors to retain call recordings for three years: Illinois all-party consent must be obtained before any such recording is made.

Illinois wooden gavel on a sound block on a judge bench
  • Signed Aug. 15, 2025, effective Jan. 1, 2026: P.A. 104-0171 (HB1278) amended the Victims' Economic Security and Safety Act (VESSA), 820 ILCS 180, to prohibit employer retaliation against employees who use employer-issued devices to record crimes of violence against themselves or a family member. This is an employer-retaliation prohibition only: it does not amend 720 ILCS 5/14-2 or change consent requirements.
  • Jan. 16, 2026 (signed; no eavesdropping changes): HB1836 was introduced to let the Attorney General authorize one-party-consent eavesdropping in felony investigations, but a Senate amendment replaced the whole bill with the Clean Slate Act on criminal records. Governor Pritzker signed that version as P.A. 104-0459, effective June 1, 2026. The enacted law does not amend the eavesdropping statute and does not change Illinois recording law.
  • June 2, 2026 (pending in the House): SB1796 was introduced to change the body camera and eavesdropping laws, but a Senate committee amendment replaced it with a Freedom of Information Act change letting agencies charge up to $40 an hour to search for and redact body camera recordings, with exceptions for the people recorded, news media, and others. The Senate passed that version on May 21, 2026; it was re-referred to the House Rules Committee on June 2, 2026 and has not been enacted.
  • Dec. 2025 (voluntarily dismissed Mar. 2026): Cruz v. Fireflies.AI Corp. filed as a BIPA class action targeting AI meeting-assistant speaker-recognition. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on March 11, 2026, before any ruling on the merits.

Illinois recording laws in depth

By type of recording

By place or relationship

For a national comparison, see the United States Recording Laws hub and the guide to one-party vs. all-party consent states.

More Illinois 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 Illinois attorney.

More Illinois Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Neither label fits precisely. Illinois requires all-party consent under 720 ILCS 5/14-2, but only for conversations where participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Conversations in public settings where no privacy expectation exists, such as a police officer doing their job in public or an official speaking at an open meeting, can be recorded without consent, but secretly recording a private conversation with an official is still a felony. The 'two-party consent' label is commonly used but technically imprecise: the law covers all parties, not just two.

Can I record a phone call in Illinois?

Not secretly, unless everyone on the call consents. Phone calls are treated as private conversations under 720 ILCS 5/14-1(d) because participants ordinarily expect them to remain between themselves, and secretly recording one without everyone's consent is a Class 4 felony for a first offense. The statute targets surreptitious recording, so telling everyone at the start that you are recording takes the call outside it. The safest approach is to announce you are recording at the start of the call and obtain verbal agreement from everyone before continuing.

Can I secretly record someone if I think they are committing a crime?

Yes, under the fear-of-crime exception at 720 ILCS 5/14-3(i). A party to a conversation may record without all-party consent if they have reasonable suspicion that another party is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a criminal offense against them or a member of their immediate household, and there is reason to believe the recording may capture evidence of that offense. The exception is not available to law enforcement officers or their agents.

What is the penalty for illegal recording in Illinois?

Under 720 ILCS 5/14-4, a first-offense eavesdropping violation is a Class 4 felony (1 to 3 years in prison, up to $25,000 fine). A subsequent offense is a Class 3 felony (2 to 5 years). Secretly recording a private conversation of a law enforcement officer, State's Attorney, the Attorney General, or a judge performing official duties is a Class 3 felony for a first offense (2 to 5 years) and a Class 2 felony for a subsequent offense (3 to 7 years). Recording a police officer doing their job in public is expressly allowed by 720 ILCS 5/14-2(e).

Can I record police in Illinois?

Yes. The Seventh Circuit held in ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012), that openly recording police performing public duties is protected by the First Amendment. Illinois codified this right at 720 ILCS 5/14-2(e) (P.A. 99-352, eff. Jan. 1, 2016). Alvarez involved open recording, and the injunction the court ordered covered openly recording officers on duty in public places, though the court said it was not suggesting the First Amendment protects only open recording. Record openly and do not interfere with officers' duties.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Illinois?

Yes, for video coverage of areas where people have no reasonable expectation of privacy (your doorstep, driveway, or exterior). Under 720 ILCS 5/26-4, placing a camera in a restroom, tanning facility, locker room, changing room, or hotel bedroom with intent to record someone without consent is a Class A misdemeanor, and actually recording or live-streaming someone there, or in their own home, without consent is a Class 4 felony (Class 3 if the victim is under 18 or the offender must register as a sex offender). Nanny cams with active microphones recording private home conversations also trigger the all-party consent requirement under 720 ILCS 5/14-2 for any audio they capture.

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

Probably not without consent. A private meeting in a closed office is a 'private conversation' under 720 ILCS 5/14-1(d), and secretly recording it is a Class 4 felony. If you reasonably suspect someone in the conversation is committing or about to commit a criminal offense against you, and the recording may capture evidence of it, the fear-of-crime exception at 720 ILCS 5/14-3(i) may apply. Consult an attorney before recording workplace conversations without consent.

Does BIPA apply to AI meeting recorders used with Illinois participants?

Potentially yes. BIPA (740 ILCS 14) requires written consent before collecting biometric identifiers such as voiceprints. Cruz v. Fireflies.AI Corp. (filed December 2025) alleged that an AI meeting assistant's speaker-recognition feature collected voiceprints without BIPA-compliant consent, but the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on March 11, 2026, so it is no longer active. Organizations using AI meeting tools with Illinois participants should still confirm whether the tool generates voiceprints and whether BIPA-compliant consent has been obtained.

Updates

Clarified that BIPA damages are awarded at a court's discretion, added the employer rebuttal test and current status of the NLRB Stericycle standard, and corrected a statement that 47 CFR 64.501 sets a federal beep-tone rule (it was removed in 2017).

Corrected the civil remedies (720 ILCS 5/14-6 has no attorney-fee provision), the scope of the felony tier for recording officials and of the 14-2(e) police exemption, the evidence requirement in the fear-of-crime exception, the phone-call and interstate-call rules, the hidden-camera penalty tiers, and FERPA, and updated the status of HB1836 (signed as the Clean Slate Act, no eavesdropping changes), HB1278 (effective Jan. 1, 2026), and SB1796 (passed the Senate as a FOIA fee bill, not enacted). Narrowed the enhanced penalty for recording officers to secret recording of their private conversations, stated the video-recording law's actual places and its misdemeanor for planting a camera, updated the Clearview AI settlement to reflect the Seventh Circuit's July 2026 vacatur, and removed an unsupported claim about implied consent.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Corrected the descriptions of People v. Melongo and ACLU v. Alvarez to match what the opinions actually say about who was recorded and what the Seventh Circuit decided.

Corrected the effective date of P.A. 98-1142 to December 30, 2014 (it took effect on becoming law, not January 1, 2015) everywhere it appeared, repaired five broken or misrouted links to the Illinois Compiled Statutes and the Biometric Information Privacy Act, and confirmed the Cruz v. Fireflies.AI docket was voluntarily dismissed on March 11, 2026.

Corrected the citation for Illinois's statutory right to record on-duty police: the page previously pointed to 720 ILCS 5/14-3(i) (which is actually the unrelated fear-of-crime recording exception); the real police-recording exemption is 720 ILCS 5/14-2(e). Also fixed the fear-of-crime exception's own citation, which had been mislabeled 14-3(h), and replaced a dead Open Meetings Act citation link.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Restructured page per recording-redo template spec: condensed 5,500-word dense article to readable format with short paragraphs; added AEO lede, at-a-glance table, and in-depth index; split consent-rule, phone-call, hidden-camera, and police sections; consolidated special-topics (BIPA, NLRB/Stericycle, HIPAA/FERPA, federal overlay) into tight subsections; revised civil-remedy list (720 ILCS 5/14-6); confirmed penalty classes and consent elements against primary sources; preserved all statute citations; refreshed FAQ with 8 questions; updated hero and inline images.

Corrected penalty classifications to current 720 ILCS 5/14-4 (P.A. 98-1142, eff. Dec. 30, 2014): basic eavesdropping is a Class 4 felony (1-3 years) for a first offense and Class 3 felony (2-5 years) for a subsequent offense; eavesdropping on law enforcement is a Class 3 felony (2-5 years) for a first offense and Class 2 felony (3-7 years) for a subsequent offense. Updated lede, KeyTakeaways, summary table, Penalties section and table, and FAQ answers accordingly.

Refreshed per post-Clark dossier. Added Federal Law Overlay section (FCC 24-17, FCC One-to-One vacatur, 47 CFR 64.501, DOJ JM 9-7.302, CFPB Reg F). Added Special Contexts section (HIPAA dual-consent, FERPA dual-consent, BIPA, Cruz v. Fireflies.AI pending litigation). Added Current Developments 2025-2026 section (P.A. 104-0171 VESSA amendment, HB1836 effectively dead, SB1796 stalled). Added 12-spoke Topic Index. Corrected penalty framing to Class 2 felony / up to 5 years per 720 ILCS 5/14-4. Corrected fear-of-crime citation to 14-3(h). Fixed broken link markup from prior AI wearables section. Title and meta rewrite per dossier proposal. Word count expanded from 3,387 to approximately 5,500 words.

Refreshed per post-Clark dossier. Added Federal Law Overlay section (FCC 24-17, FCC One-to-One vacatur, 47 CFR 64.501, DOJ JM 9-7.302, CFPB Reg F). Added Special Contexts section (HIPAA dual-consent, FERPA dual-consent, BIPA, Cruz v. Fireflies.AI pending litigation). Added Current Developments 2025-2026 section (P.A. 104-0171 VESSA amendment, HB1836, SB1796). Added 12-spoke Topic Index.

Added wearable recording device guidance covering AI voice recorders (Plaud), smart glasses (Meta Ray-Bans), and Illinois BIPA biometric privacy implications.

Previous version published with post-Clark statutory analysis and police recording section.

Sources and References

  1. 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1) (eff. Dec. 30, 2014, P.A. 098-1142)(ilga.gov).gov
  2. 720 ILCS 5/14-1(d) (eff. Dec. 30, 2014, P.A. 098-1142)(ilga.gov).gov
  3. ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012)(rcfp.org)
  4. Illinois P.A. 104-0171 (HB1278), amending 820 ILCS 180/ (VESSA), signed Aug. 15, 2025, eff. Jan. 1, 2026(hinshawlaw.com)
  5. Illinois HB1836, 104th General Assembly, bill status (Governor approved Jan. 16, 2026; P.A. 104-0459)(ilga.gov).gov
  6. Illinois SB1796, 104th General Assembly (passed Senate May 21, 2026; re-referred to House Rules Committee June 2, 2026)(ilga.gov).gov
  7. Cruz v. Fireflies.AI Corp., No. 3:25-cv-03399-SEM-DJQ (filed Dec. 18, 2025) (voluntarily dismissed without prejudice Mar. 11, 2026)(commlawgroup.com)
  8. FCC 24-17, Declaratory Ruling, CG Docket No. 23-362 (Feb. 8, 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
  9. FCC Second Report and Order, CG Docket No. 21-402; Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025) (vacating rule), mandate issued Apr. 30, 2025(wiley.law)
  10. 47 C.F.R. Part 64 (former § 64.501, removed Nov. 20, 2017)(ecfr.gov).gov
  11. DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302; Attorney General Memorandum (May 30, 2002)(justice.gov).gov
  12. Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023)(kutakrock.com)
  13. NLRB GC Memo 25-07 (June 25, 2025)(nlrb.gov).gov
  14. 12 CFR § 1006.100(b) (CFPB Regulation F)(consumerfinance.gov).gov
  15. 45 CFR § 164.502; HHS OCR, HIPAA Privacy Rule Summary (hhs.gov); HHS OCR Guidance on Audio-Only Telehealth (2022)(hhs.gov).gov
  16. FERPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR §§ 99.3, 99.30; USDOE Student Privacy Policy Office guidance (studentprivacy.ed.gov)(studentprivacy.ed.gov).gov
  17. 720 ILCS 5/14-3, Exemptions from eavesdropping prohibition(ilga.gov).gov
  18. 720 ILCS 5/14-4, Penalties for eavesdropping (P.A. 098-1142, eff. Dec. 30, 2014)(ilga.gov).gov
  19. 720 ILCS 5/14-6, Civil remedies for eavesdropping(ilga.gov).gov
  20. 720 ILCS 5/26-4, Unauthorized video recording and live video transmission(ilga.gov).gov
  21. ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012)(courtlistener.com)
  22. People v. Clark, 2014 IL 115776 (Ill. Sup. Ct. 2014) (striking down prior eavesdropping statute)(courtlistener.com)
  23. Illinois P.A. 098-1142 (SB 1342), creating current 720 ILCS 5/14-2 (eff. Dec. 30, 2014)(ilga.gov).gov
  24. Illinois P.A. 104-0171 (HB1278), amending 820 ILCS 180 (VESSA), signed Aug. 15, 2025, eff. Jan. 1, 2026(ilga.gov).gov
  25. Illinois P.A. 104-0459 (HB1836, Clean Slate Act), eff. June 1, 2026 (does not amend the eavesdropping statute)(ilga.gov).gov
  26. 740 ILCS 14, Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)(ilga.gov).gov
  27. Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023)(nlrb.gov).gov
  28. 5 ILCS 120, Illinois Open Meetings Act(ilga.gov).gov
  29. Cruz v. Fireflies.AI Corp., No. 3:25-cv-03399 (C.D. Ill.) (filed Dec. 18, 2025; voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), case terminated Mar. 11, 2026)(courtlistener.com)
Share: