Massachusetts

Massachusetts Recording Laws (2026): Two-Party Consent Rules

AI-assisted, source-checkedBy Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 2026Reviewed July 14, 202611 min read

Key Takeaways

1Massachusetts prohibits secret recording of any wire or oral communication under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99.
2All parties must know they are being recorded. The law focuses on secrecy, not formal consent: awareness of the recording eliminates the statutory violation.
3There is no participant exception. A conversation participant who secretly records commits the same felony as a third-party eavesdropper (Commonwealth v. Hyde, 434 Mass. 594 (2001)).
4Criminal penalties reach up to 5 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine for secret interception; civil damages start at $100 per day or $1,000, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.
5Hidden-camera voyeurism is a separate offense under Section 105, carrying up to 2.5 years in a house of correction and a $5,000 fine for adult victims.
6Recording police performing official duties in public is First Amendment-protected per Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins (1st Cir. 2020), covering both open and secret recording of on-duty officials in public spaces. The SJC confirmed in Commonwealth v. Grimaldi (June 2, 2026) that openly displayed bodycams with visible warning signs do not constitute willful secret recording.

Massachusetts prohibits secretly recording any wire or oral communication under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99. The law targets secrecy, not formal consent: if all parties know a recording is being made, no violation occurs. Illegal interception is a felony carrying up to five years in state prison and a $10,000 fine, with civil damages on top.

Massachusetts recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule	Secret recording prohibited (all-party awareness required)
Main statute	Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99
When is recording illegal?	When done secretly, without the knowledge of any party
Criminal penalty	Up to 5 years state prison and $10,000 fine (interception); up to 2 years house of correction and $5,000 fine (disclosure/use)
Civil penalty	$100/day or $1,000 minimum (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages and attorney fees
Hidden cameras	Prohibited in places of privacy under Section 105; non-consensual intimate images under Section 105C
Recording police	Protected by First Amendment (Project Veritas v. Rollins, 1st Cir. 2020; Grimaldi, SJC 2026)

For the full in-depth analysis, see the Massachusetts recording laws in depth section below.

Recording in-person conversations in Massachusetts

Massachusetts over-the-shoulder crop of two people seated across a small table mid-conversation, no faces visible

Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99(B)(4), "interception" means to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of any wire or oral communication. The word "secretly" is the operative element of every offense under the statute.

An "oral communication" under Section 99(B)(2) is "speech, except such speech as is transmitted over the public air waves by radio or other similar device." Speech broadcast over public radio waves falls outside the definition entirely.

The analysis for in-person conversations turns on two questions: Was the conversation a private oral communication (did the speakers have a reasonable expectation it would not be intercepted)? Was the recording done secretly? If both are true, Section 99 is violated.

Open recording eliminates the secrecy element. Placing a visible voice recorder on a table before a meeting is lawful. Hiding a phone in a pocket to record the same conversation is a felony. An announced recording satisfies the statute; no formal written consent is required.

Commonwealth v. Hyde, 434 Mass. 594 (2001) confirmed that Massachusetts has no participant exception. A conversation participant who secretly records commits the same offense as a third-party eavesdropper. Good intentions are not a defense: recording someone secretly to document wrongdoing remains a felony under Section 99.

Commonwealth v. Du, SJC-13557 (Nov. 27, 2024) held that the suppression remedy under Section 99(P) extends to both the audio and video components of an unlawful interception: where police secretly record an oral communication without a warrant, the entire recording must be suppressed, not just the audio track. The case also reinforces that actual secrecy drives the statutory analysis: a recording made with awareness of all parties present does not trigger the secrecy element.

Recording phone calls in Massachusetts

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

The same rule applies to telephone calls. Recording a phone call in Massachusetts without informing all participants violates Section 99. A verbal announcement at the start of the call is the safest approach. The automated message "this call may be recorded for quality assurance" satisfies the statute because it puts all parties on notice before the conversation begins.

When a call crosses state lines, apply Massachusetts law regardless of where the other party is located. The federal one-party consent baseline under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) does not override Massachusetts law for recordings made in-state.

For full rules on business call recording, VoIP, and interstate calls, see the Massachusetts Phone Call Recording Laws page.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 105 prohibits criminal voyeurism: placing a recording device to view or record an individual in a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy, or capturing intimate images for the purpose of sexual gratification or humiliation. The base offense for adult victims carries up to 2.5 years in a house of correction and a fine up to $5,000. When the victim is a minor, the penalty increases to up to 5 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine.

In July 2024, Massachusetts enacted St. 2024, ch. 118, creating Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 105C. Section 105C establishes both criminal and civil causes of action for non-consensual disclosure of intimate images. A first offense carries fines up to $5,000 and up to 2.5 years in a house of correction. This is separate from Section 99: it does not require proving audio interception, and it covers distribution as well as capture.

Silent video recording in public spaces is generally permitted because no wire or oral communication is being intercepted. A camera that also records audio falls under Section 99's secrecy prohibition. Employers and business owners who install security cameras with audio capability should post visible signage and notify employees.

For more detail, see Massachusetts Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws and Massachusetts Security Camera Laws.

Penalties for illegal recording in Massachusetts

lapel microphone clipped to a charcoal blazer

Violating Section 99 carries serious criminal and civil consequences. There is no reduced-penalty misdemeanor tier for the interception offense itself.

Criminal penalties

Offense	Max prison	Max fine
Secret interception (Section 99(C)(1))	5 years state prison, or 2.5 years house of correction	$10,000
Possession of intercepting device with intent (Section 99(C)(5))	2 years house of correction	$5,000
Disclosure of illegally intercepted communications (Section 99(C)(3))	2 years house of correction	$5,000
Using illegally intercepted communications (Section 99(C)(3))	2 years house of correction	$5,000

Civil liability under Section 99(Q)

An aggrieved party may recover actual damages, or a minimum of $100 per day of violation or $1,000 (whichever is greater) if actual damages are less. Courts may also award punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees. The per-day calculation can result in substantial exposure for ongoing violations.

The inadmissibility rule

Under Section 99(P), evidence obtained through illegal interception is inadmissible in any Massachusetts court proceeding, civil or criminal. This exclusionary rule is broader than the federal Fourth Amendment standard, which applies only to criminal proceedings. Illegally recorded evidence cannot be used in a divorce proceeding, a custody dispute, or a civil lawsuit in Massachusetts courts.

Recording the police in Massachusetts

Recording police officers performing official duties in a public place is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. This right traces to Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), where the First Circuit held that Simon Glik had a clearly established First Amendment right to openly film Boston police officers making an arrest on Boston Common, and that his arrest under Section 99 violated that right. The First Circuit extended this protection in Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020), holding that Section 99's ban on secret recording is unconstitutional as applied to recording on-duty government officials in public. Together, these cases extend First Amendment protection to both open and secret recording of on-duty officials in public spaces. Neither case creates a right to secretly record private citizens.

The SJC addressed a related question in Commonwealth v. Grimaldi (SJC-13842, decided June 2, 2026). State troopers used openly displayed bodycams and posted a large roadside sign announcing audio-visual recording at a sobriety checkpoint. The SJC held that the troopers did not commit a "willful" interception under Section 99 because willfulness requires "an intent to secretly record, i.e., an intent to record someone without their knowledge." The open display of cameras and visible warning sign negated the secrecy element. The ruling confirms that openly displayed police recording equipment at announced checkpoints does not violate the wiretap statute.

Officers cannot order you to stop recording or confiscate your device when you are recording them in a public space while they perform official duties.

For complete coverage, see Massachusetts Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Massachusetts

Massachusetts lapel microphone clipped to a charcoal blazer

Workplace recording

Massachusetts employees retain full Section 99 rights in the workplace. Employers who secretly record employee conversations without notification violate state law. Employees who secretly record workplace meetings are equally subject to Section 99, even when their purpose is to document alleged discrimination or harassment. Hyde leaves no room for a sympathetic-purpose exception. For full analysis, see Massachusetts Workplace Recording Laws.

Federal NLRA overlay

Under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), employer workplace recording prohibitions are presumptively unlawful under Section 7 of the NLRA unless the employer shows a legitimate justification that outweighs employee rights. A broadly written no-recording policy may violate the NLRA even if it complies with Section 99. NLRB GC Memorandum GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) provides prosecutorial guidance directing regional offices to treat surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se unfair labor practice; this is Tier 2 guidance, not binding Board precedent.

Website tracking and Section 99

Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital, 494 Mass. 824 (2024) (SJC-13542) held that website tracking technologies such as Google Analytics and Meta Pixel do not violate Section 99. The SJC ruled that Section 99 was designed to protect person-to-person communications and does not extend to automated data collection through web browsing. The decision does not affect the all-party awareness rule for audio or oral communications.

Federal law overlay (ECPA, TCPA)

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act permits a participant to record a conversation under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) without telling the other party, provided the recording is not for a criminal or tortious purpose. Massachusetts state law is stricter and prevails for recordings made in-state. The FCC One-to-One Consent Rule (FCC DA 24-17) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit; the mandate issued April 30, 2025, and the rule is not in force.

Medical recordings and HIPAA

A patient recording a conversation with a healthcare provider must do so openly under Section 99. If the provider is a HIPAA-covered entity, the recording may also implicate protected health information disclosure obligations under 45 CFR § 164.502. See Massachusetts Medical Recording Laws.

School recordings and FERPA

Recording an IEP or school meeting is subject to both Section 99 (open recording required) and FERPA (20 U.S.C. § 1232g) limits on capturing third-party student information. Advance written notice to the school satisfies the Section 99 openness requirement and IDEA procedural safeguards. See Massachusetts School Recording Laws.

Public body meetings

Massachusetts' open meeting law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30A, Section 20, lets any person record an open session of a public body, such as a city council, select board, or school committee meeting, after notifying the chair. The chair may set reasonable rules on the placement and operation of recording equipment so it does not disrupt the meeting, but cannot prohibit recording outright. This right applies only to open sessions; executive sessions remain closed to the public and are not covered.

Recent legal developments

June 2, 2026: Commonwealth v. Grimaldi (SJC-13842) decided. The SJC held that openly displayed bodycams with visible warning signage do not constitute willful secret recording under Section 99. "Willfulness" requires an intent to secretly record.
July 2024: St. 2024, ch. 118 enacted Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 105C, creating criminal and civil causes of action for non-consensual disclosure of intimate images.
2024: Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital, 494 Mass. 824 (2024) held that website tracking technologies (Google Analytics, Meta Pixel) do not violate Section 99.
Pending - S.1215: Received a favorable report from the Joint Committee on the Judiciary on October 9, 2025; currently in Senate Ways and Means. If enacted, would create a participant exception for recordings made to document workplace harassment, domestic abuse, or civil rights violations. Not enacted as of June 2026.

Massachusetts recording laws in depth

Want to know more about how Massachusetts law applies to your situation? The pages below provide dedicated, in-depth coverage of each major context.

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts attorney.

More Massachusetts Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Massachusetts is a 'secret recording' state, not a simple one- or two-party consent state. Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99, recording a private conversation is prohibited when done secretly, meaning without the knowledge of any party. If all participants know that recording is taking place, no violation occurs, even without formal verbal consent from each person. This standard is functionally stricter than most two-party consent states.

Can I record my own conversations in Massachusetts?

Only if you do so openly. Recording a conversation you are part of, without telling the other person, is a felony under Section 99. Commonwealth v. Hyde, 434 Mass. 594 (2001) confirmed that Massachusetts has no participant exception. A conversation participant who secretly records commits the same offense as a third-party eavesdropper.

What is the penalty for illegally recording someone in Massachusetts?

Criminal penalties for secret interception include up to 5 years in state prison (or 2.5 years in a house of correction) and a $10,000 fine. Civil liability allows an aggrieved party to recover a minimum of $100 per day of violation or $1,000 (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages and attorney fees. Illegally obtained recordings are also inadmissible in any Massachusetts court proceeding, civil or criminal, under Section 99(P).

Can I record police in Massachusetts?

Yes. Recording police performing official duties in a public place is protected by the First Amendment per Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020), covering both open and secret recording of on-duty officials in public spaces. The SJC confirmed in Commonwealth v. Grimaldi (SJC-13842, June 2, 2026) that openly displayed police bodycams with visible warning signs do not constitute willful secret recording under the wiretap statute.

Can my employer record me at work in Massachusetts?

Not secretly. Employers must notify employees before recording conversations under Section 99. Federal NLRA rules under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023) also make broadly written employer recording prohibitions presumptively unlawful unless the employer shows a legitimate justification. NLRB GC Memo 25-07 (June 2025) adds prosecutorial guidance on this standard.

Can secretly recorded conversations be used as evidence in Massachusetts?

No. Under Section 99(P), evidence obtained through illegal interception is inadmissible in any Massachusetts court proceeding, civil or criminal. This exclusionary rule is broader than the federal Fourth Amendment standard, which applies only to criminal cases. The rule covers divorce proceedings, custody disputes, and civil lawsuits.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Massachusetts?

Silent video cameras in your own home or pointed at public areas are generally permitted. The problem arises when the camera also captures audio: any audio recording must be done openly, with all parties aware, under Section 99. Cameras in bathrooms, locker rooms, or other places of privacy violate Section 105 (voyeurism) regardless of audio. Non-consensual distribution of intimate images is a separate offense under Section 105C.

What did Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital decide?

In Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital, 494 Mass. 824 (2024) (SJC-13542), the SJC held that website tracking technologies like Google Analytics and Meta Pixel do not violate the Massachusetts wiretap statute. The court ruled that Section 99 was designed to protect person-to-person communications and does not extend to automated data collection through web browsing. The decision narrowed Section 99's digital reach without affecting the all-party awareness rule for audio recordings.

Updates

August 9, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

August 7, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

June 5, 2026

Full restructure per template spec: condensed to core sections (lede, at-a-glance table, in-person, phone, hidden cameras, penalties, police, special topics), all verified legal facts preserved, special topics condensed to short subsections, in-depth index added, FAQ refreshed to 8 questions. Key fact correction: Grimaldi v. Schnabel (SJC-13842) was decided June 2, 2026 (previously listed as pending); SJC held open bodycam use with visible warning signs is not willful secret recording. Penalty table corrected to show Section 99(C)(1) offers alternative of 2.5 years house of correction (not only state prison). Du citation URL corrected (prior URL pointed to commonwealth-v-williams, a different case). No em-dashes, no banned-domain links. Audit 2026-06-05: Du citation corrected from '482 Mass. 247 (2019)' (nonexistent) to SJC-13557 (Nov. 27, 2024); holding description updated to accurately reflect suppression-remedy scope ruling; google Scholar link replaced with Suffolk University SJC archive; all other statutory cites and penalty figures verified against malegislature.gov primary source.

May 29, 2026

Accuracy fixes: (1) Section 99(B)(2) oral communication description corrected to actual statutory text; reasonable-expectation gloss now attributed to case law, not the statute. (2) Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins (1st Cir. 2020) holding corrected: the court held Section 99's secret-recording ban unconstitutional as applied to recording on-duty officials in public, covering both open and secret recording of police. (3) Penalty table corrected: Section 99(C)(3) disclosure/use offense is 2 years (house of correction), not 2.5 years.

May 9, 2026

Refresh: Title rewritten from 'Massachusetts Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties' to 'Massachusetts Recording Laws (2026): Secret Recording Rules' and meta_description rewritten to lead with AEO answer based on GSC click-failure diagnosis (page at pos 18 with 0 clicks across 12 tracked queries). Added Federal Law Overlay H2 (ECPA, FCC vacatur), Special Contexts H2 (HIPAA + FERPA), Topic Index H2 (12 MA subtopic spokes). Added Grimaldi v. Schnabel pending SJC case caveat. Added NLRB Stericycle and GC Memo 25-07 federal overlay in workplace section. Updated Vita citation to 494 Mass. 824 (2024) (SJC-13542). Added S.1215 Oct 2025 Judiciary favorable report milestone. Removed inline-1774131572082-13.png image reference (Phase 6 image agent will insert vision-verified replacements). Corrected Du citation to 482 Mass. 247 (2019). Updated Vita citation to full reporter form 494 Mass. 824 (2024) (SJC-13542); preserved the existing accurate web-tracking holding description (binder draft had incorrectly mischaracterized the case as hospital-employee secret recording; corrected before commit).

May 9, 2026

Refresh: Title rewritten and meta_description rewritten to lead with AEO answer. Added Federal Law Overlay section (ECPA, FCC vacatur), Special Contexts section (HIPAA and FERPA), Topic Index (12 MA subtopic spokes). Added Grimaldi v. Schnabel pending SJC case caveat. Added NLRB Stericycle and GC Memo 25-07 federal overlay in workplace section. Updated Vita citation to 494 Mass. 824 (2024) (SJC-13542). Added S.1215 Oct 2025 Judiciary favorable report milestone. Corrected Du citation to 482 Mass. 247 (2019).

March 23, 2026

Added wearable recording devices section and 2 FAQs

The Law Behind This Article

This article rests on 6 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.

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

Cited in 290 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Northwestern Memorial Hospital v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2004, 362 F.3d 923) · Opis Management Resources, LLC v. Secretary, Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2013, 713 F.3d 1291) · United States ex rel. Baltazar v. Warden (District Court, N.D. Illinois 2014, 302 F.R.D. 256)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: California Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained

United States Code Title 18

§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 397 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 2026-08-12 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 2,045 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511) · United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297) · Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use

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

Cited in 981 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Goss v. Lopez (Supreme Court of the United States 1975, 419 U.S. 565) · Gonzaga University v. Doe (Supreme Court of the United States 2002, 536 U.S. 273) · Foster Children v. Jeb Bush, Kathleen Kearney, Chuck Bates, Robert Williams, Ester Tibbs (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2003, 329 F.3d 1255)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

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 36 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

Cited in 3,209 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (Supreme Court of the United States 2016, 577 U.S. 153) · Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Stevens & Ricci Inc (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2016, 835 F.3d 388) · Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (Supreme Court of the United States 2021, 592 U.S. 395)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

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

Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 272

§ 105Photographing, videotaping or electronically surveilling partially nude or nude person or the sexual or other intimate parts of a person around the person's clothing; exceptions; punishmentIn forcecited in 8 of our articles

Section 105. (a) As used in this section, the following words shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly requires otherwise: ''Electronically surveils'' or ''electronically surveilled'', to view, obtain or record a person's visual image by the use or aid of a camera, cellular or other wireless communication device, computer, television or other electronic device. ''Partially nude'', the exposure of the human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola. ''Sexual or other intimate parts'', human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the tip of the areola, whether naked or covered by clothing or undergarments.

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

Cited in 11 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025

Leading cases: Commonwealth v. Wassilie (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2019, 482 Mass. 562) · Commonwealth v. Robertson (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2014, 467 Mass. 371) · COMMONWEALTH v. MARKUS COOPER. (Massachusetts Appeals Court 2021, 100 Mass. App. Ct. 345)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Massachusetts Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2025

§ 99Interception of wire and oral communicationsIn forcecited in 18 of our articles

Section 99. Interception of wire and oral communications.— A. Preamble. The general court finds that organized crime exists within the commonwealth and that the increasing activities of organized crime constitute a grave danger to the public welfare and safety. Organized crime, as it exists in the commonwealth today, consists of a continuing conspiracy among highly organized and disciplined groups to engage in supplying illegal goods and services. In supplying these goods and services organized crime commits unlawful acts and employs brutal and violent tactics. Organized crime is infiltrating legitimate business activities and depriving honest businessmen of the right to make a living. The general court further finds that because organized crime carries on its activities through layers of insulation and behind a wall of secrecy, government has been unsuccessful in curtailing and eliminating it. Normal investigative procedures are not effective in the investigation of illegal acts committed by organized crime.

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

Cited in 271 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Commonwealth v. Vitello (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1975, 367 Mass. 224) · Commonwealth v. Blood (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1987, 400 Mass. 61) · Commonwealth v. D'Amour (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1999, 428 Mass. 725)