EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsUnited States LawsTwo-Party ConsentMichigan
Michigan flag

Michigan

Michigan Recording Laws (2026): Consent Rules and Participant Exception

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of August 9, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed September 23, 202613 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 9, 2026. · 20 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Michigan Recording Laws (2026): Consent Rules and Participant Exception

Michigan's eavesdropping statute, MCL 750.539c, is written as an all-party consent law, but Michigan courts have recognized a participant exception since 1982: if you are a party to the conversation, you can record it without notifying anyone else. Recording a private conversation you are not part of is a felony, and so is covert visual recording in a private place under MCL 750.539d.

Michigan recording law at a glance

QuestionAnswer
Consent ruleParticipant exception: one-party consent for participants; all-party consent for non-participants
Main statuteMCL 750.539c (audio); MCL 750.539d (visual/private place)
When it is illegalRecording a private conversation you are not part of; covert visual recording in a private place
Criminal penalty (audio)Felony: up to 2 years, $2,000 fine
Criminal penalty (visual/distribution)Felony: up to 5 years, $5,000 fine for distribution or repeat installation offense
Civil remedyMCL 750.539h: injunction, actual damages, punitive damages
Hidden camerasProhibited in private places (MCL 750.539d); security-monitoring exception for the owner or principal occupant of a residence
Recording policeProtected by the First Amendment in public spaces; MCL 750.539c reaches only private conversations, and officers' public-duty communications are generally not private discourse

For deeper analysis of any of these topics, see the in-depth guides below.

Recording in-person conversations in Michigan

Michigan's eavesdropping statute, MCL 750.539c, prohibits any person from willfully using a device to eavesdrop on a private conversation without the consent of all parties. The prohibition extends equally to people who are physically present and those who are absent (recording remotely). On its face, the statute looks like a strict all-party consent rule.

The participant exception changes the practical picture. The definitions section, MCL 750.539a, defines "eavesdrop" as recording "the private discourse of others." In Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476, 324 N.W.2d 58 (1982), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a party to a conversation cannot be recording "the discourse of others," because the party is in the conversation, not listening in on someone else's. The result: a participant needs only their own consent to record.

The statute's reference to "any person who is present or who is not present" describes where the recorder is relative to the recording device, not whether the recorder is a participant in the conversation. That reading closes the loophole of arguing that an absent participant is somehow an eavesdropper on their own conversation.

One important limit: Sullivan also held that a participant's consent to record does not extend authorization to a non-participant third party. If someone who is not part of a conversation wants to record it, all-party consent is still required even if one of the actual participants is also recording.

MCL 750.539c has no "private place" element. What it protects is a private conversation: MCL 750.539a defines "eavesdrop" as overhearing, recording, amplifying, or transmitting "any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse." The separate "private place" definition in that same section, a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance and that the public does not have access to, is an element of the surveillance offenses in MCL 750.539b and MCL 750.539d, not of the audio eavesdropping offense.

The setting still matters, but as evidence rather than as a bright line. A conversation carried on at normal volume in a busy restaurant or a public park is harder to characterize as private discourse than one in a closed office or a home. A quiet exchange between two people in a publicly accessible location can still be private discourse, so recording it as a non-participant can violate MCL 750.539c even though the place is open to the public.

Michigan over-the-shoulder crop of two people seated across a small table mid-conversation

Recording phone calls in Michigan

The participant exception applies to phone calls in exactly the same way it applies to in-person conversations. A caller or a called party is a participant in the communication, not an eavesdropper on someone else's. The Sixth Circuit's decision in Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022), arose directly from recorded phone calls, and the court dismissed all MCL 750.539c claims on participant-exception grounds.

Federal law aligns: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) permits a party to a communication to record it without the other parties' consent, provided the recording is not made to commit a crime or tort.

For calls crossing state lines, the caller must check the recording law of the other party's state. Several states require all-party consent for telephone calls, and a Michigan caller can face liability under those states' laws even if Michigan's participant exception would protect the same recording if both parties were in Michigan.

The FCC beep-tone rule at 47 CFR § 64.501 is a carrier obligation, not a rule on individual callers. It does not require a Michigan caller to notify the other party before recording.

For business call recording, VoIP lines, and multi-state call scenarios, see Michigan Phone Call Recording Laws.

To check a single call against the other party's state, use our recording consent checker.

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

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

MCL 750.539d prohibits installing or using any device in a private place to observe, record, transmit, or photograph sounds or events there, without the consent of the person entitled to privacy. This applies to cameras, recording devices, and any technology capable of observing what happens in a private space.

Residences, bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and bedrooms are all private places under MCL 750.539a. In Lewis v. LeGrow, 258 Mich. App. 175, 670 N.W.2d 675 (2003), the Michigan Court of Appeals confirmed that a bedroom qualifies and that covert videotaping of intimate acts there violates MCL 750.539d.

MCL 750.539d(2) contains an exception for security monitoring in a residence conducted "by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence," provided the monitoring is not conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose. The word "principal" is doing real work: the carve-out runs to the owner or principal occupant, not to every occupant, so a roommate, an adult child, or a house guest cannot rely on it to install cameras on their own initiative. An owner or principal occupant may install security cameras without notifying guests, but the exception does not extend to cameras pointed at bathrooms or changing areas.

Michigan also has a separate voyeurism and intimate-parts statute at MCL 750.539j (added by 2004 Public Act 155), which specifically prohibits surveilling, photographing, or recording a person's intimate body parts or undergarments when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Surveillance (observing without recording) on a first offense carries up to 2 years; a subsequent surveillance offense carries up to 5 years. Photographing or recording intimate images, and distribution, each carry up to 5 years on a first offense.

A camera that also captures audio adds an MCL 750.539c eavesdropping dimension if it records a private conversation the camera's operator is not a party to. That turns on whether the discourse was private, not on whether the camera sits in a "private place."

For landlord camera rules, rental-property common areas, and Ring doorbell placement, see Michigan Security Camera Laws. For voyeurism and intimate-recording criminal analysis, see Michigan Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws.

Michigan dome security camera in the corner of an office ceiling, soft interior daylight

Penalties for illegal recording in Michigan

Michigan treats all eavesdropping and private-place recording violations as felonies. There is no misdemeanor tier.

OffenseStatuteMax PrisonMax Fine
Eavesdropping on a private conversation (non-participant)MCL 750.539c2 years$2,000
Installing or using a device in a private place without consent (first offense)MCL 750.539d2 years$2,000
Same, with a prior convictionMCL 750.539d5 years$5,000
Distributing a recording obtained in violation of MCL 750.539dMCL 750.539d5 years$5,000
Using or divulging information from an unlawful recordingMCL 750.539e2 years$2,000
Manufacturing, possessing, or selling eavesdropping devicesMCL 750.539f2 years$2,000

The distribution penalty is particularly significant: sharing or publishing a covert recording of a private place carries up to 5 years even on a first offense, a higher maximum than the underlying recording itself.

Civil remedies. MCL 750.539h creates a civil cause of action for victims of illegal eavesdropping. A court may grant an injunction prohibiting further eavesdropping, award all actual damages against the person who eavesdropped, and award punitive damages. The statute does not provide for a statutory minimum damages amount or for attorney fees. The civil and criminal tracks are independent: a decision not to prosecute does not preclude a civil suit.

hands typing on a mechanical keyboard from above

Recording the police in Michigan

Recording police officers performing official duties in a public space is protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment right to record law enforcement in public is well-established in federal circuit case law and is not restricted by Michigan's eavesdropping statute, because MCL 750.539c reaches only a private conversation, and an officer performing public duties in front of bystanders is generally not engaged in the "private discourse of others" that MCL 750.539a defines eavesdropping around. What matters is the privacy of the conversation, not the address where it takes place.

Michigan has no state statute specifically authorizing or restricting the recording of police officers, so the analysis rests on the First Amendment framework alongside the eavesdropping statute's limit to private conversations. Recording a traffic stop, an arrest, or police activity on a public street is generally lawful. Recording that requires entering a restricted area, interfering with police operations, or capturing private communications outside a public-duty context may raise different issues.

For First Amendment analysis of recording inside police stations, what happens when an officer demands you stop recording, and device-seizure cases, see Michigan Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Michigan

The participant exception in detail: Sullivan, Fisher, and AFT Michigan

The exception has a 44-year interpretive record that has only grown more settled, including a false start. Sullivan v. Gray established the textual basis in 1982. The Michigan Court of Appeals reaffirmed it in Lewis v. LeGrow (2003). U.S. District Judge Linda V. Parker (E.D. Mich.) confronted the question directly in AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas, No. 17-cv-13292: in 2019 the court initially ruled the other way, holding the statute required all-party consent. The Michigan Supreme Court accepted a certified question about MCL 750.539c's scope in In re Certified Question, 959 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. 2021), but declined to answer it in May 2021, leaving Sullivan as controlling precedent. On reconsideration, Judge Parker reversed course on November 8, 2021, holding that the statute is not violated when a conversation is recorded by one of its participants (AFT Mich. v. Project Veritas, No. 17-13292, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215090). The Sixth Circuit applied the same logic under both MCL 750.539c and 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) in Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022), citing that reconsideration order and dismissing all claims where the recorder was a party to the phone calls.

Workplace recording and the NLRA overlay

Michigan's participant exception applies in the workplace: an employee who is a party to a work conversation may record it without coworkers' or supervisors' advance knowledge. Employers may impose no-recording policies, but an overbroad policy that chills employees' Section 7 rights (organizing, documenting workplace safety) is presumptively unlawful under the NLRA standard set in Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023). NLRB General Counsel Memorandum 25-07 (June 25, 2025) adds that surreptitious recording of collective bargaining sessions may constitute an unfair labor practice; that is prosecutorial guidance, not a Board decision. For a full scenario analysis, see Michigan Workplace Recording Laws.

HIPAA and healthcare recording

Recording in a healthcare setting may implicate HIPAA's Privacy Rule at 45 CFR § 164.502, which restricts access to protected health information independently of state eavesdropping law. A recording capturing a patient's health information in a clinical area can create HIPAA exposure even where Michigan's participant exception would otherwise permit the recording. For full analysis, see Michigan Medical Recording Laws.

Schools and FERPA

Recording in a school setting that captures student education records may trigger the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act independently of MCL 750.539c. The U.S. Department of Education's Student Privacy Office has published FERPA guidance on audio and video recording. For detail, see Michigan School Recording Laws.

Federal ECPA overlay

The federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a), independently prohibits intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications. The federal one-party consent exception at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) mirrors Michigan's participant exception: a party to a communication may record it unless the recording is made to commit a crime or tort. Fisher v. Perron confirmed that the two provisions operate in alignment. Federal law and Michigan law coexist; compliance with one does not guarantee compliance with the other, particularly for multi-state communications.

  • June 25, 2025: NLRB General Counsel Memorandum 25-07 addresses surreptitious recording of collective bargaining sessions as a potential unfair labor practice.
  • February 8, 2024: FCC Declaratory Ruling DA 24-17 clarifies that AI-generated voice calls constitute "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA.
  • March 23, 2022: Sixth Circuit decides Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289, affirming Michigan's participant exception for both MCL 750.539c and the federal Wiretap Act.
  • February 3, 2021: Michigan Supreme Court accepts certified question about MCL 750.539c scope in In re Certified Question, 959 N.W.2d 172, then declines to answer, leaving Sullivan v. Gray as controlling precedent.

Michigan recording laws in depth

Want to know more? The pages below each cover a specific Michigan recording scenario in depth.

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Michigan 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 Michigan attorney.

More Michigan Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Michigan operates in practice as one-party consent for participants in a conversation. MCL 750.539c is written as all-party consent, but the Michigan Court of Appeals established the participant exception in Sullivan v. Gray (1982), holding that a party to a conversation cannot be eavesdropping on it. A non-participant still needs all-party consent.

Can I record a phone call in Michigan?

Yes, if you are a party to the call. The participant exception applies to phone conversations, as confirmed by the Sixth Circuit in Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022). If the other party is in an all-party consent state, that state's law may also apply.

Is recording someone without consent a felony in Michigan?

It depends on who is recording. A non-participant who records a private conversation without all-party consent commits a felony under MCL 750.539c: up to 2 years and a $2,000 fine. A participant recording their own conversation under the Sullivan exception is not committing a crime.

What can I sue for under Michigan recording law?

MCL 750.539h gives victims of illegal eavesdropping a civil cause of action for an injunction, all actual damages, and punitive damages. The statute does not provide for a minimum statutory award or attorney fees. Civil and criminal tracks operate independently.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Michigan?

Generally yes, with limits. MCL 750.539d(2) allows security monitoring in a residence conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence, provided it is not for a lewd purpose. A roommate or guest who is not the principal occupant is outside that carve-out. Cameras must not be placed in bathrooms, changing areas, or other locations where the filmed person has a clear privacy expectation. A camera that also records audio may implicate MCL 750.539c if it captures a private conversation.

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

Yes, if you are a participant in the meeting. Michigan's participant exception under Sullivan v. Gray permits an employee to record a conversation they are part of without giving advance notice. A workplace no-recording policy may still result in discipline even if the recording is not a crime, and overly broad policies may violate the NLRA under Stericycle (2023).

Can I record the police in Michigan?

Yes. Recording police officers performing official duties in a public space is protected by the First Amendment. MCL 750.539c reaches only private conversations, and officers carrying out public duties in front of bystanders are generally not engaged in the 'private discourse of others' the statute protects, so Michigan's eavesdropping statute does not restrict recording in those settings.

What did AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas decide?

The case has a two-step history on the eavesdropping question. In 2019, the district court first ruled that MCL 750.539c required all-party consent. After the Michigan Supreme Court declined to resolve the question in 2021, the same court granted reconsideration and reversed itself on November 8, 2021, holding that the statute is not violated when a conversation is recorded by one of its participants. That reconsideration order is the one the Sixth Circuit relied on in Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022).

Updates

Corrected the AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas docket number to the form shown in the court's own orders.

Corrected the description of Michigan's eavesdropping statute: MCL 750.539c turns on whether the conversation was private, not on whether it happened in a "private place," and the MCL 750.539d home security-monitoring exception applies to the owner or principal occupant of a residence rather than any occupant.

Corrected a fabricated March 2026 court ruling in AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas that does not exist; the real case reached its holding on the same participant-exception question via a November 8, 2021 reconsideration order, which is what the Sixth Circuit's Fisher v. Perron actually cites. Also fixed Fisher v. Perron's decision date (March 23, 2022, not April 14, 2022).

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

Restructure: condensed hub to readable core sections (lede, at-a-glance table, in-person/phone/hidden-camera/penalties/police each as own H2), pushed detail to spoke links. Added MCL 750.539h civil-remedy section (injunction, actual damages, punitives; no statutory minimum or attorney fees) which the prior version omitted. Added MCL 750.539d repeat-offense escalator (5 years/5,000 for prior conviction, distinct from distribution) to penalties table. Added MCL 750.539j (voyeurism/intimate-parts, 2004 PA 155) to hidden-cameras section. Preserved all Sullivan/Fisher/AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas framing of contested status. Refreshed FAQ to 8 pairs. Verified MCL 750.539a, 750.539c, 750.539d, 750.539e, 750.539h, 750.539j against legislature.mi.gov; verified Fisher v. Perron citation and Sullivan v. Gray framing.

Refresh: Added AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2026) summary judgment ruling; added Federal Law Overlay section (ECPA, TCPA, FCC DA 24-17, DOJ JM § 9-7.302); added Special Contexts section (HIPAA, FERPA, Lewis v. LeGrow intimate recording, security camera exception); expanded FAQ to 12 pairs; added 12-spoke Topic Index; fixed broken links in original; removed legacy /images/wp/ image references; verified Sullivan v. Gray citation as 117 Mich. App. 476 (not 16); added NLRB Stericycle and GC Memo 25-07 federal overlay in workplace section.

Refresh: Added AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas, No. 17-cv-13292 (E.D. Mich., reconsideration order Nov. 8, 2021); added Federal Law Overlay section (ECPA, [TCPA](/us-laws/tcpa), FCC DA 24-17, DOJ JM 9-7.302); added Special Contexts section (HIPAA, FERPA, Lewis v. LeGrow intimate recording, security camera exception); expanded FAQ to 12 pairs; added 12-spoke Topic Index; fixed broken links in original; removed legacy image references; verified Sullivan v. Gray citation as 117 Mich. App. 476 (not 16); added NLRB Stericycle and GC Memo 25-07 federal overlay in workplace section.

Added Wearable Recording Devices in Michigan section (3 paragraphs) and 2 new FAQs on AI voice recorders and smart glasses

Sources and References

  1. MCL 750.539a(legislature.mi.gov).gov
  2. MCL 750.539c(legislature.mi.gov).gov
  3. MCL 750.539d(legislature.mi.gov).gov
  4. MCL 750.539e(legislature.mi.gov).gov
  5. MCL 750.539f(legislature.mi.gov).gov
  6. Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476, 324 N.W.2d 58 (1982)(courtlistener.com)
  7. Lewis v. LeGrow, 258 Mich. App. 175, 670 N.W.2d 675 (2003)(courtlistener.com)
  8. Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022)(govinfo.gov).gov
  9. AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas, No. 4:17-cv-13292 (E.D. Mich., reconsideration order Nov. 8, 2021)(courtlistener.com)
  10. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)(uscode.house.gov).gov
  11. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)(uscode.house.gov).gov
  12. 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2)(uscode.house.gov).gov
  13. 18 U.S.C. § 2510(4)(uscode.house.gov).gov
  14. MCL 750.539 et seq., Act 319 of 1966; MCL 750.539d as amended by 2004 Act 156(legislature.mi.gov).gov
  15. FCC Declaratory Ruling, DA 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
  16. 47 CFR § 64.501(ecfr.gov).gov
  17. DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302(justice.gov).gov
  18. Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023)(nlrb.gov).gov
  19. NLRB GC Memo 25-07 (June 25, 2025)(nlrb.gov).gov
  20. HHS OCR HIPAA FAQ (Recording in Treatment Areas)(hhs.gov).gov
  21. USDOE Student Privacy Office, FERPA and School Recording Guidance(studentprivacy.ed.gov).gov
  22. 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(1), (a)(3)(ecfr.gov).gov
  23. MCL 750.539h(legislature.mi.gov).gov
  24. MCL 750.539j(legislature.mi.gov)
Share: