Massachusetts

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

By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 202611 min read

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

a journalist seated across a small wooden table from an interview subject in a quiet office, a small digital voice recorder visible on the table

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

hands typing on a mechanical keyboard from above

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. The First Circuit held in Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020) that Section 99's ban on secret recording is unconstitutional as applied to recording on-duty government officials in public. This protection extends to both open and secret recording of on-duty officials in public spaces. It does not create 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

a worker in a high-visibility yellow vest mid-conversation with a manager in a warehouse aisle, gestures visible

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.

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

Sources and References

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99; Commonwealth v. Hyde, 434 Mass. 594 (2001)(malegislature.gov).gov
Commonwealth v. Hyde, 434 Mass. 594 (2001)(courtlistener.com)
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 105(malegislature.gov).gov
St. 2024, ch. 118; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 105C(malegislature.gov).gov
Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023)(nlrb.gov).gov
NLRB GC Memo 25-07 (June 2025)(nlrb.gov).gov
Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020)(courtlistener.com)
18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)(uscode.house.gov).gov
FCC DA 24-17; 47 CFR § 64.501; 11th Cir. mandate Apr. 30, 2025 (vacated)(fcc.gov).gov
47 U.S.C. § 227; 47 CFR § 64.501(uscode.house.gov).gov
45 CFR § 164.502 (HIPAA Privacy Rule); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(hhs.gov).gov
20 U.S.C. § 1232g (FERPA); 34 CFR Part 99(studentprivacy.ed.gov).gov
Commonwealth v. Du, 482 Mass. 247 (2019)(courtlistener.com)
Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital, 494 Mass. 824 (2024) (SJC-13542)(mass.gov).gov
S.1215, 194th Mass. Gen. Court (2025-2026); Judiciary Comm. favorable report Oct. 9, 2025(malegislature.gov).gov
boston.suffolk.edu
mass.gov.gov