EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsMassachusetts Laws flagMassachusetts Laws
Massachusetts flag

Massachusetts

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

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of August 22, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed September 23, 202611 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 22, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 22, 2026. · 21 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

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

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

QuestionAnswer
Consent ruleSecret recording prohibited (all-party awareness required)
Main statuteMass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99
When is recording illegal?When done secretly, without the knowledge of any party
Criminal penaltyUp 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 camerasSecretly recording a nude or partially nude person where privacy is expected is a crime under Section 105; non-consensual intimate images under ch. 265, Section 43A
Recording policeProtected by First Amendment (Glik v. Cunniffe, 1st Cir. 2011; Project Veritas v. Rollins, 1st Cir. 2020); separately, troopers who openly used body cameras beside a posted recording sign did not "willfully" intercept under Section 99 (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.

Curtatone v. Barstool Sports, Inc., 487 Mass. 655 (2021) illustrates the same secrecy-not-identity point from the other direction: a Barstool reporter who used a false name to get Somerville's mayor on the phone did not commit an interception, because the mayor knew the call itself was being recorded. It is the recording being concealed that violates Section 99, not the recorder's true identity.

Commonwealth v. Du, 495 Mass. 103 (2024) (SJC-13557, decided 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. Du did not decide whether that recording was secret: the Commonwealth's argument that the officer's cell phone was visible to the defendant was raised for the first time on appeal and held waived, leaving the motion judge's conclusion that the defendant was secretly recorded undisturbed.

Recording phone calls in Massachusetts

desk phone with its handset off the hook lying beside the base

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.

For a quick look at how Massachusetts's secret-recording rule compares with another state's, use our recording consent checker.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 105 prohibits criminal voyeurism. The offense reaches willfully photographing, videotaping, or electronically surveilling a person who is "nude or partially nude," with the intent to secretly conduct or hide the activity, where that person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy and has not given knowledge and consent. Separate paragraphs cover so-called upskirt recording of "the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person's clothing." The base offense carries up to 2.5 years in a house of correction and a fine up to $5,000. Where the subject of an upskirt recording is a child under 18, the penalty rises to up to 5 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine.

Governor Healey signed St. 2024, ch. 118 in June 2024, and it took effect September 18, 2024. The law amended Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, Section 43A to add criminal and civil causes of action for non-consensual disclosure of intimate images, with a companion juvenile provision at Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 29D. A first offense carries fines up to $10,000 and up to 2.5 years in a house of correction; a second or subsequent offense raises the fine to up to $15,000 and allows up to 10 years in state prison. 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

OffenseMax prisonMax 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.

Suppression under Section 99(P)

Section 99(P) provides that any person "who is a defendant in a criminal trial in a court of the commonwealth may move to suppress the contents of any intercepted wire or oral communication or evidence derived therefrom." By its own terms it is a suppression remedy for criminal defendants. Section 99 contains no general rule making illegally recorded evidence inadmissible in civil proceedings.

The exposure in a divorce, custody, or other civil case runs through different provisions. Section 99(C)(3) makes it a crime to willfully use or disclose the contents of a communication knowing it was obtained through interception, and Section 99(Q) gives the recorded party a civil damages claim. Before offering a secretly made recording in any Massachusetts proceeding, ask a Massachusetts attorney how those provisions apply to your situation.

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 violates the First Amendment in criminalizing the secret, nonconsensual audio recording of police officers discharging their official duties in public spaces. Together, these cases extend First Amendment protection to both open and secret recording of on-duty police officers in public spaces. Neither case creates a right to secretly record private citizens or government officials generally.

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 the visible warning sign showed the troopers had no intent to secretly record; the court expressly declined to decide whether the recording was in fact secret. 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.

  • 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.
  • June 2024 (signed) / September 18, 2024 (effective): St. 2024, ch. 118 amended Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, Section 43A, and added ch. 272, Section 29D, 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. Section 99(P) also lets a defendant in a Massachusetts criminal trial move to suppress an unlawfully intercepted recording, and Section 99(C)(3) makes willfully using or disclosing a communication known to have been illegally intercepted a separate crime.

Can I record police in Massachusetts?

Yes. Recording police performing official duties in a public place is protected by the First Amendment. Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), recognized a right to openly record police officers discharging their duties in public, and Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020), held Section 99 unconstitutional as applied to the secret, nonconsensual audio recording of police officers discharging their official duties 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?

It depends on the proceeding. Section 99(P) lets a defendant in a Massachusetts criminal trial move to suppress the contents of an unlawfully intercepted communication, and Commonwealth v. Du, 495 Mass. 103 (2024) holds that both the video and the audio parts of an unlawful audio-visual recording must be suppressed. Section 99 contains no comparable evidentiary bar for civil cases such as divorce or custody disputes. The risk there is different: Section 99(C)(3) makes it a crime to willfully use or disclose a communication knowing it was obtained through interception, and Section 99(Q) gives the recorded person a civil damages claim. Ask a Massachusetts attorney before offering a secretly made recording in any proceeding.

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. Section 105 (voyeurism) separately makes it a crime to secretly record a nude or partially nude person, in a bathroom, locker room, or anywhere else the person reasonably expects privacy, regardless of audio. Non-consensual distribution of intimate images is a separate offense under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, Section 43A.

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

Corrected the descriptions of Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, Commonwealth v. Grimaldi and Commonwealth v. Du to what those courts actually held, including an earlier changelog note that overstated Rollins.

Corrected the Section 99(P) discussion, which describes a suppression remedy available to criminal defendants rather than a bar on using illegally made recordings in divorce, custody or other civil cases; tightened the Section 105 voyeurism elements to the statute’s nude-or-partially-nude and upskirt provisions; replaced a broken Commonwealth v. Du link and added its 495 Mass. 103 reporter citation; and narrowed the Grimaldi summary to the willfulness holding the court actually reached.

Corrected the citations column's mismatched Commonwealth v. Du link and two fabricated 'Grimaldi v. Schnabel' entries; fixed a fabricated 'Section 105C' for the 2024 intimate-images law (the real amendment is ch. 265, Section 43A, plus a juvenile provision at ch. 272, Section 29D), corrected its first-offense fine from $5,000 to $10,000 and its enactment date, scoped the Project Veritas v. Rollins holding to police officers specifically, and added Curtatone v. Barstool Sports to the secrecy-element discussion.

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

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Reviewed and approved by an editor

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.

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 unconstitutional as applied to the secret, nonconsensual audio recording of police officers discharging their official duties in public spaces. (3) Penalty table corrected: Section 99(C)(3) disclosure/use offense is 2 years (house of correction), not 2.5 years.

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).

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).

Added wearable recording devices section and 2 FAQs

Sources and References

  1. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(malegislature.gov).gov
  2. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(B)(4)(malegislature.gov).gov
  3. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(B)(2)(malegislature.gov).gov
  4. Commonwealth v. Hyde, 434 Mass. 594 (2001)(courtlistener.com)
  5. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99; Commonwealth v. Hyde, 434 Mass. 594 (2001)(malegislature.gov).gov
  6. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 105(malegislature.gov).gov
  7. St. 2024, ch. 118 (amending Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, Section 43A; adding ch. 272, Section 29D)(malegislature.gov).gov
  8. Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023)(nlrb.gov).gov
  9. NLRB GC Memo 25-07 (June 26, 2025)(nlrb.gov).gov
  10. Commonwealth v. Grimaldi, SJC-13842 (decided June 2, 2026)(socialaw.com)
  11. Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020)(courtlistener.com)
  12. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)(uscode.house.gov).gov
  13. FCC DA 24-17; 47 CFR § 64.501; 11th Cir. mandate Apr. 30, 2025 (vacated)(fcc.gov).gov
  14. 47 U.S.C. § 227; 47 CFR § 64.501(uscode.house.gov).gov
  15. 45 CFR § 164.502 (HIPAA Privacy Rule); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(hhs.gov).gov
  16. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (FERPA); 34 CFR Part 99(studentprivacy.ed.gov).gov
  17. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(C)(1)(malegislature.gov).gov
  18. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(Q)(malegislature.gov).gov
  19. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(P)(malegislature.gov).gov
  20. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 (secrecy analysis by analogy)(malegislature.gov).gov
  21. Commonwealth v. Du, 495 Mass. 103 (2024) (SJC-13557)(mass.gov).gov
  22. Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital, 494 Mass. 824 (2024) (SJC-13542)(mass.gov).gov
  23. S.1215, 194th Mass. Gen. Court (2025-2026); Judiciary Comm. favorable report Oct. 9, 2025(malegislature.gov).gov
  24. mass.gov.gov
  25. Curtatone v. Barstool Sports, Inc., 487 Mass. 655 (2021)(law.justia.com)
  26. Commonwealth v. Du, 495 Mass. 103 (2024) (SJC-13557, decided Nov. 27, 2024)(courtlistener.com)
Share: