Pennsylvania

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

Independently fact-checked Editor-reviewed Law current as of August 22, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 2026Reviewed August 26, 202612 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. · 13 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

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

Key Takeaways

1Pennsylvania requires all-party consent: every person in a conversation must agree before any participant may record it under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703.
2Illegal recording is a third-degree felony carrying up to 7 years in prison and a fine of up to $15,000 per violation.
3Since February 12, 2024, recipients of telemarketing calls and robocalls may record without disclosure to enforce the TCPA, Pennsylvania's UTPCPL, or the Telemarketer Registration Act (Act 53 of 2023, § 5704(19)).
4Civil victims may recover $100 per day of violation or $1,000 minimum, plus punitive damages and attorney fees under § 5725.
5Silent video in public is generally lawful; video voyeurism (knowingly recording nudity or intimate parts without consent, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire) is a separate misdemeanor under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7507.1: M3 (up to 1 year) for a first offense, M2 (up to 2 years) for multiple violations.
6The Third Circuit held in Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017) that the First Amendment protects recording police in public.

Pennsylvania is an all-party consent state. Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, every participant in a conversation must consent before anyone may record it. Recording without that consent is a third-degree felony carrying up to 7 years in prison, and the victim can sue for civil damages under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725.

Pennsylvania recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule	All-party consent (every participant must agree)
Main statute	18 Pa.C.S. § 5703 (WESCA)
When recording is illegal	Any recording of wire, electronic, or oral communication without all-party consent
Criminal penalty	Third-degree felony, up to 7 years prison, up to $15,000 fine
Civil remedy	$100/day or $1,000 minimum + punitive damages + attorney fees (§ 5725)
Hidden cameras (voyeurism)	Misdemeanor under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7507.1: M3 (up to 1 year) first offense; M2 (up to 2 years) for multiple violations
Recording police in public	Protected by the First Amendment per Fields v. City of Philadelphia (3d Cir. 2017)

For detailed rules on each situation, see the in-depth guides below.

blank security access card on a navy lanyard on a white desk

Recording in-person conversations in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA), codified at Title 18, Chapter 57, prohibits intentionally intercepting, disclosing, or using any wire, electronic, or oral communication without the consent of every party. This is the sharpest legal trap in Pennsylvania recording law: a person participating in a conversation still commits a felony if even one other participant has not consented.

This all-party standard is stricter than federal law (one-party consent under ) and stricter than most U.S. states. Being a party to the conversation gives you no right to record; only explicit agreement from every participant does.

The "oral communications" definition in WESCA requires a reasonable expectation of privacy. A loud exchange in a crowded public space where bystanders could easily overhear may fall outside the statute's reach. A private exchange in a closed office or quiet restaurant booth typically does not.

Pennsylvania courts apply this privacy requirement as a two-part test established in Agnew v. Dupler, 717 A.2d 519 (Pa. 1998): the speaker must have held an actual, subjective expectation that the conversation was not being recorded, and that expectation must be one society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. In Commonwealth v. Mason, 247 A.3d 1070 (Pa. 2021), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court applied this test and held that a nanny secretly recorded by a hidden camera in the children's bedroom could not meet it, since nanny cams are common enough that no reasonable nanny should assume she is not being recorded while on duty. Pennsylvania Superior Court decisions in the Commonwealth v. Smith line have cautioned that WESCA's statutory "justifiable expectation of non-interception" standard is not identical to Fourth Amendment reasonable-expectation-of-privacy doctrine, so the two should not be treated as interchangeable. No decision through early 2026 has narrowed the core all-party consent rule for communications that do qualify for protection.

Recording phone calls in Pennsylvania

The same all-party consent rule applies to every type of call: landline, cell, VoIP, and video conferencing. To record legally, inform all parties at the start of the call, obtain explicit consent before recording begins, and stop if anyone declines. Continuing to record after a refusal is a felony.

Interstate calls. If you are in Pennsylvania, WESCA governs your conduct regardless of where the other party is located. Neighboring New York and Ohio are one-party consent states, but their rules do not protect you as a Pennsylvania participant. When states conflict, the stricter state's law controls your own conduct.

Business call recording. Businesses must provide clear notice before the call starts, typically an automated message stating the call may be recorded. A caller who continues after hearing the notice may be deemed to have given implied consent, since Pennsylvania courts hold that consent under § 5704(4) can be implied when a party knew or reasonably should have known the call was being recorded (Commonwealth v. Byrd, 235 A.3d 311 (Pa. 2020)). The telemarketing and customer-service exception under § 5704(15) permits a business to intercept its own marketing or customer-service calls where the interception is made for the sole purpose of training, quality control, or monitoring and at least one party to the call has consented. Recordings made under that exception may be used only for training or quality control, and unless another federal or state law requires otherwise they must be destroyed within one year of the recording date.

The 2024 telemarketer exception. Since February 12, 2024, recipients of unsolicited telemarketing calls or robocalls may record without disclosing the recording, provided the purpose is to enforce the TCPA, Pennsylvania's UTPCPL, or the Telemarketer Registration Act. See the section below for full details.

For more, see Pennsylvania Phone Call Recording Laws.

empty courtroom witness stand with a small condenser microphone on an adjustable arm

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Pennsylvania's WESCA focuses on audio interception, not silent video. Silent video recording in public places is generally lawful. Security cameras capturing silent footage of common areas, driveways, or business floors are not covered by § 5703.

Any camera that also captures audio is a different matter. Once audio is recorded, all-party consent applies. A nanny cam or doorbell camera that records conversations inside a home, a private office, or any space where participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy must have all-party consent to be lawful.

Video voyeurism (18 Pa.C.S. § 7507.1). A separate statute makes it an offense to knowingly record another person in a state of full or partial nudity, or to record that person's intimate parts, without their knowledge and consent in a place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bathrooms, changing rooms, or bedrooms. The statute reaches this conduct only where the actor acts "for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person," so that intent element is part of the offense the Commonwealth must prove. Distributing or transmitting such recordings is also a violation. A first offense is a misdemeanor of the third degree (up to 1 year, $2,500 fine); multiple violations escalate to a misdemeanor of the second degree (up to 2 years, $5,000 fine).

Wearable recorders. AI voice recorders, smart glasses, and smartwatches that capture audio fall squarely under § 5703. The device's form factor is irrelevant. Activating a wearable recorder in a private meeting or medical appointment without all-party consent is a third-degree felony.

For full coverage, see Pennsylvania Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws and Pennsylvania Security Camera Laws.

Penalties for illegal recording in Pennsylvania

Criminal penalties:

Offense	Classification	Max Prison	Max Fine
Illegal interception (§ 5703)	Third-degree felony	7 years	$15,000
Illegal disclosure (§ 5703)	Third-degree felony	7 years	$15,000
Illegal use of intercepted content (§ 5703)	Third-degree felony	7 years	$15,000
Video voyeurism (§ 7507.1), first offense	Misdemeanor of the 3rd degree	1 year	$2,500
Video voyeurism (§ 7507.1), multiple violations	Misdemeanor of the 2nd degree	2 years	$5,000

A conviction for illegal recording under WESCA creates a permanent felony record affecting employment, housing, and professional licensing. Pennsylvania imposes some of the harshest penalties in the nation for this offense.

Civil remedies (§ 5725). Victims of unlawful interception, disclosure, or use may sue for: actual damages; liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater; punitive damages at the court's discretion; and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs.

Evidence suppression (§ 5721.1). Any recording obtained in violation of WESCA is inadmissible in any trial, hearing, grand jury proceeding, or regulatory proceeding. A motion to exclude must be filed on one of the enumerated grounds in § 5721.1(b); suppression is not automatic.

Prosecutorial immunity (Winig). In Winig v. Office of the District Attorney of Philadelphia, No. 32 EAP 2023 (Pa. Nov. 19, 2025), a 4-3 divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the DA's Office is not a "person" subject to suit under § 5725(a), and that individual prosecutors retain high public official immunity not abrogated by § 5725(b)'s sovereign-immunity waiver. Civil WESCA claims against district attorneys for using unlawfully obtained recordings are effectively foreclosed by this ruling.

analog wall clock in a marble courthouse hallway

Recording the police in Pennsylvania

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017) that the First Amendment protects the right to photograph, film, and record police officers performing their official duties in public. This is binding precedent in all Pennsylvania federal courts.

Pennsylvania has no separate state statute on this point. Fields provides the constitutional floor. Practical notes: record openly and visibly; do not interfere with police operations; officers cannot lawfully order you to stop recording, delete footage, or seize your device without a warrant (with narrow exceptions). Although audio recording technically falls under WESCA, the First Amendment right from Fields has been interpreted to permit recording police in public even where audio is captured.

For a full analysis, see Pennsylvania Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Pennsylvania

The 2024 telemarketer exception (Act 53 of 2023, § 5704)

Act 53 of 2023 (House Bill 1278), signed December 14, 2023 and effective February 12, 2024, added a new subsection to § 5704 permitting a call recipient to record a wire communication from a telemarketer or robocall initiator without disclosing the recording, provided the purpose is to enforce any of three laws: the TCPA (), Pennsylvania's UTPCPL (P.L.1224, No.387), or the Telemarketer Registration Act (P.L.911, No.147). The exception is asymmetric: only the recipient benefits. The telemarketer cannot use this provision to record the recipient. Act 53 also extended WESCA's sunset through 2029 and expanded body-camera authorization to PA Department of Corrections parole agents and internal affairs corrections officers.

Workplace recording and the NLRB

WESCA's all-party consent rule applies fully in the workplace. You cannot secretly record coworkers, supervisors, or clients. Under the telemarketing and customer-service exception (§ 5704(15)), a business may intercept its own marketing or customer-service calls where the sole purpose is training, quality control, or monitoring and at least one party consents; those recordings may be used only for training or quality control and must be destroyed within one year unless another federal or state law requires otherwise. The exception is limited to a business's own marketing and customer-service calls, so it is not a general licence to monitor employees. Covert recording without consent is illegal under § 5703.

Two federal layers compound the risk. Under the NLRB's Stericycle standard (372 NLRB No. 113, Aug. 2, 2023), blanket no-recording employee policies are presumptively unlawful and must be narrowly drawn. Under NLRB GC Memorandum 25-07 (June 26, 2025), surreptitious recording during collective-bargaining sessions is a per se unfair labor practice. Undisclosed recording in union negotiations in Pennsylvania therefore triggers both WESCA felony exposure and NLRB liability simultaneously.

For a full analysis, see Pennsylvania Workplace Recording Laws.

Website session-replay and digital tracking (Popa)

In Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc. and NaviStone, Inc. (3d Cir. 2023), the Third Circuit held that WESCA has no direct-recipient exception. A company directing JavaScript code to intercept a consumer's browser communications cannot escape WESCA liability simply because its servers directly received the data. Businesses deploying session-replay scripts, keystroke-capture tools, or behavioral analytics against Pennsylvania users should obtain all-party consent or face WESCA exposure.

Public meetings (PA Sunshine Act)

Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 711, requires all public agency meetings to be open to the public. Recording is expressly permitted. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy at a public government meeting, so WESCA's all-party consent requirement does not apply. City council members, school board members, and county commissioners cannot prohibit recording of their public sessions.

Healthcare, education, and debt collection

HIPAA layers on top of WESCA for healthcare providers: audio recordings of patient communications are PHI requiring patient authorization or a HIPAA-permitted use, in addition to WESCA all-party consent. FERPA protects student-identified recordings maintained by schools; Pennsylvania K-12 schools and universities must satisfy both FERPA and WESCA. Debt collectors recording collection calls into Pennsylvania must satisfy both CFPB Regulation F's three-year retention obligation ((b)) and WESCA's consent requirement.

For more, see Pennsylvania Laws on Recording Doctors and Pennsylvania School Recording Laws.

FCC overlay: AI-generated voice calls

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (adopted Feb. 2, 2024) confirmed that AI-generated voice technologies constitute "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA, subject to pre-existing consent and opt-out obligations under (b). A Pennsylvania resident who receives an AI-voice robocall may record it under Act 53 of 2023 for TCPA enforcement while the caller simultaneously faces these pre-existing TCPA obligations.

closed file folder with a single paper clip on a clean light wood desk

Recent legal developments

Feb. 12, 2024: Act 53 of 2023 (HB 1278) took effect, adding the telemarketer-exception subsection to § 5704, extending WESCA's sunset to 2029, and expanding body-camera authorization for corrections officers.
Nov. 19, 2025: Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued Winig v. Office of DA of Philadelphia (4-3), barring civil § 5725 suits against the DA's Office and individual prosecutors acting within the scope of official duties.
Jan. 24, 2025: Eleventh Circuit vacated the FCC's one-to-one consent rule in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303. The vacatur does not affect Pennsylvania law: § 5704's telemarketer exception runs only to call recipients, not callers.

Pennsylvania recording laws in depth

Dive deeper into a specific context with the state's full sub-page guides:

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania attorney.

More Pennsylvania Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Neither label fully captures Pennsylvania law. Pennsylvania requires all-party consent under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703: every person in a conversation must consent before any participant may record it. Being a party to the conversation does not give you the right to record without the others' consent. Violation is a third-degree felony.

Can I record a phone call in Pennsylvania?

Only with the consent of all parties on the call. Pennsylvania's WESCA requires all-party consent for landlines, cell calls, VoIP, and conferencing platforms. The one exception: recipients of unsolicited telemarketing calls or robocalls may record without disclosure under Act 53 of 2023 (effective Feb. 12, 2024), but only to enforce the federal TCPA, Pennsylvania's UTPCPL, or the Telemarketer Registration Act.

What is the penalty for recording without consent in Pennsylvania?

Recording without all-party consent is a third-degree felony under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, carrying up to 7 years in prison and a fine of up to $15,000. Civil damages are also available under § 5725: $100 per day of violation or $1,000 minimum, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.

Can I secretly record a robocall or telemarketing call?

Yes. Act 53 of 2023 (effective February 12, 2024) added an exception to § 5704 allowing recipients of telemarketing calls or robocalls to record without disclosure, provided the recording is made to enforce the TCPA, Pennsylvania's UTPCPL, or the Telemarketer Registration Act. The caller remains fully subject to all-party consent requirements for any recording it makes.

Can I record police officers in Pennsylvania?

Yes. The Third Circuit held in Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017) that individuals have a First Amendment right to record police performing public duties in public spaces. Pennsylvania has no separate state statute on this point, but Fields is binding precedent in Pennsylvania federal courts.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Pennsylvania?

Silent video cameras on your own property are generally lawful. If the camera records audio, all-party consent under § 5703 applies to any conversation captured in a private setting. Knowingly recording someone's nudity or intimate parts without their consent, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, is separately prohibited by the video voyeurism statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 7507.1.

Can my employer record audio in the workplace?

Businesses engaged in telephone marketing or customer service may intercept their own calls if the sole purpose is training, quality control, or monitoring and at least one party consents (§ 5704(15)). Those recordings may be used only for training or quality control, and must be destroyed within one year unless another federal or state law requires otherwise. Covert audio recording of employees without consent is illegal under § 5703. The NLRB's Stericycle standard (2023) also makes blanket no-recording employee policies presumptively unlawful unless narrowly tailored.

Can I sue someone who illegally recorded me in Pennsylvania?

Yes. Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725 you can recover actual damages, $100 per day of violation (minimum $1,000), punitive damages, and attorney fees. However, Winig v. Office of DA of Philadelphia (Pa. Nov. 19, 2025) bars civil claims against district attorneys and assistant district attorneys who used unlawfully obtained recordings while acting within the scope of their official duties.

Updates

August 26, 2026

Corrected the Act 53 telemarketer exception to list all three enforcement purposes the statute allows (including the Telemarketer Registration Act), removed a nonexistent employee-notice condition from the telephone monitoring exception and added its real use and one-year destruction limits, and restored the sexual-gratification intent element to the video voyeurism offense.

August 22, 2026

Corrected the Fields v. City of Philadelphia citation to 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017) throughout the page, added the foundational Agnew v. Dupler (1998) case to the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy discussion, fixed the NLRB GC Memorandum 25-07 date to June 26, 2025, and replaced dead palegis.us statute citation links with working legis.state.pa.us mirrors.

August 22, 2026

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

August 9, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

August 7, 2026

Corrected three restatements of a mislabeled § 5704(4) citation for the business telemarketing/customer-service quality-control exception; § 5704(4) is actually the general all-party-consent provision, and the correct one-party-consent business exception is § 5704(15).

August 7, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

June 5, 2026

Reviewed and approved by an editor

June 5, 2026

Page restructured per recording-redo spec: rewritten to short-paragraph Mediavine-clean prose with AEO lede, at-a-glance table, and section headings; special topics condensed to tight subsections; in-depth index added; FAQ trimmed to 8 core questions; all primary sources and statutes preserved; NLRB GC Memo 25-07 date corrected to June 26, 2025; palegis.us URLs substituted for non-resolving pacodeandbulletin.gov URLs; no new fact corrections found.

May 29, 2026

Winig description updated to reflect 4-3 divided decision and two-part majority holding: (a) DA's Office not a 'person' under § 5725(a); (b) individual prosecutors retain high public official immunity not abrogated by § 5725(b). FCC 24-17 corrected from 'Order' to 'Declaratory Ruling' (adopted Feb. 2, 2024; released Feb. 8, 2024); clarified that caller-identification and opt-out duties pre-existed under 47 CFR § 64.1200(b) and 24-17 confirmed their application to AI-generated voice calls.

May 9, 2026

Page refreshed: Act 53 of 2023 citation corrected throughout; legacy state-legislature URLs replaced with pacodeandbulletin.gov; Winig ruling, Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts (3d Cir. 2023), NLRB GC Memo 25-07, and FCC 24-17 sections added; full FAQ expanded to 12 entries; Topic Index updated with all 12 PA recording-law spokes.

March 23, 2026

Added wearable recording devices section and 2 FAQs

November 19, 2025

Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued Winig v. Office of DA of Philadelphia, No. 32 EAP 2023. District attorneys and assistant district attorneys hold absolute immunity from § 5725 civil WESCA suits when acting within scope of official duties.

February 12, 2024

Act 53 of 2023 (HB 1278) took effect. New exception added to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704 permitting recipients of telemarketing calls and robocalls to record without disclosure for TCPA, UTPCPL, or Telemarketer Registration Act enforcement. WESCA sunset extended through 2029.

The Law Behind This Article

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

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses)

§ 5703Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communicationsIn forcecited in 38 of our articles

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he: (1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication; (2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or (3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us

Cited in 121 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Brachbill (1989) held Section 5703(1) is not limited to interceptions made with an intercepting device, so an officer who listened on a telephone extension without the prior approval Section 5704(2)(ii) requires violated the section, and the testimony had to be suppressed.

Leading cases:

Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1987, 370 Pa. Super. 179)“…and other electronic interceptions of communications, see 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, carved out limited exceptions to these…”
Commonwealth v. Bennett (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 1976, 245 Pa. Super. 457)“…ode, Act of Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1 et seq. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, as amended Dec. 27, 1974, P.L. 1007, N…”
Commonwealth v. Brachbill (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1989, 520 Pa. 533)✓A state trooper listened on an extension phone to a call between a former inmate and a guard charged with abusing him; the court held section 5703 bars any willful interception, not only one using an intercepting device, so the trooper's testimony should have been suppressed.

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

Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections (2026), Pennsylvania Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Pennsylvania Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Felony Penalties (2026)

§ 5725Civil action for unlawful interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communicationIn forcecited in 14 of our articles

(a) Cause of action.--Any person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use, such communication; and shall be entitled to recover from any such person: (1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher. (2) Punitive damages. (3) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (b) Waiver of sovereign immunity.--To the extent that the Commonwealth and any of its officers, officials or employees would be shielded from liability under this section by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, such immunity is hereby waived for the purposes of this section. (c) Defense.--It is a defense to an action brought pursuant to subsection (a) that the actor acted in good faith reliance on a court order or the provisions of this chapter.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us

Cited in 54 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025

Leading cases:

Agnew v. Dupler (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1998, 553 Pa. 33)“…and shall be entitled to recover from any such person ... 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725(a). The Wiretap Act defines an “oral co…”
McCulligan v. Pennsylvania State Police (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2015, 123 A.3d 1136)“…ust and proper pursuant to Section 5725 of the Wiretap Act, 18 Pa. C.S. § 5725. In April 2015, Responde…”
Keppley v. School District of Twin Valley (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2005, 866 A.2d 1165)“…lectronic or oral communication. Section 5725 of the Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725, authorizes a civil action by any perso…”

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

Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Pennsylvania Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): Workplace Surveillance Rights, Pennsylvania Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026

§ 5704Exceptions to prohibition of interception and disclosure of communicationsIn forcecited in 19 of our articles

It shall not be unlawful and no prior court approval shall be required under this chapter for: (1) An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent or employee of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of wire or electronic communication service. However, no provider of wire or electronic communication service shall utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks. (2) Any investigative or law enforcement officer or any person acting at the direction or request of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication involving suspected criminal activities, including, but not limited to, the crimes enumerated in section 5708 (relating to order authorizing interception of wire, electronic or oral communications), where: (i) (Deleted by amendment).

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us

Cited in 126 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (1987) concluded Article I, Section 8 requires a warrant for one party consensual electronic eavesdropping, reading 5704(2) as only exempting that practice, not authorizing it. Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (2008) held 5704(14)(i)(C) permits disclosing a recorded inmate call in any criminal prosecution.

Leading cases:

Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2008, 599 Pa. 1)✓The Commonwealth used a recorded jail phone call between an inmate and his parents at his murder trial; the court held section 5704(14) was not violated because all three knew the call was being recorded, and the contents were properly divulged for a criminal prosecution.
Commonwealth v. Arrington (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2014, 624 Pa. 506)✓A murder defendant sought to suppress a call the victim recorded, on which he asked repeatedly whether he was being taped and said he did not care; the court addressed whether that amounted to prior consent under section 5704(4) but did not resolve it, finding any error harmless.
Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1987, 370 Pa. Super. 179)✓Police sent a wired informant into Schaeffer's home to record a marijuana buy without a warrant; the en banc court read section 5704(2) as only exempting participant monitoring from the Wiretap Act, not authorizing it, and held the state constitution still required a warrant.

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

Also relied on in: Pennsylvania AI Meeting Recording Laws: All-Party Consent and Felony Penalties (2026), Pennsylvania Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide), Pennsylvania Windshield Mounting Laws (2026 Guide)

§ 7507.1Invasion of privacyIn forcecited in 23 of our articles

(a) Offense defined.--Except as set forth in subsection (d), a person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if he, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, knowingly does any of the following: (1) Views, photographs, videotapes, electronically depicts, films or otherwise records another person without that person's knowledge and consent while that person is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where that person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (2) Photographs, videotapes, electronically depicts, films or otherwise records or personally views the intimate parts, whether or not covered by clothing, of another person without that person's knowledge and consent and which intimate parts that person does not intend to be visible by normal public observation. (3) Transfers or transmits an image obtained in violation of paragraph (1) or (2) by live or recorded telephone message, electronic mail or the Internet or by any other transfer of the medium on which the image is stored.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us

Cited in 29 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In Com. v. Dinell, Z. (2022), the Superior Court read section 7507.1(a)(1) as requiring four elements, including that the defendant acted for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, and vacated a guilty plea where the defendant denied any sexual purpose and was told no such element existed.

Leading cases:

Commonwealth v. Muniz, J., Aplt. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2017, 164 A.3d 1189)“…18 Pa.C.S. §6312(d) (relating to sexual abuse of children); 18 Pa.C.S. §7507.1 (relating to invasion of privacy); 18 U…”
Com. v. Dinell, Z. (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 2022, 270 A.3d 530)✓A care home worker pled guilty to 14 counts of invasion of privacy for phone photos of nude residents, but said nothing sexual was involved. The court held section 7507.1(a)(1) requires a sexual purpose as an element and let him withdraw the plea.
Commonwealth, Aplt v. Kingston, S. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2016, 636 Pa. 438)“…olations” of a particular criminal offense. See, e.g., 18 Pa.C.S. § 7507.1(a.1) (listing circumstances under which…”

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

Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026), Pennsylvania Landlord-Tenant Recording and Surveillance Laws (2026), Pennsylvania Laws on Recording in Public: What Is Legal (2026)

§ 5721.1Evidentiary disclosure of contents of intercepted communication or derivative evidenceIn forcecited in 20 of our articles

(a) Disclosure in evidence generally.-- (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall disclose the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, in any proceeding in any court, board or agency of this Commonwealth. (2) Any person who has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, which is properly subject to disclosure under section 5717 (relating to investigative disclosure or use of contents of wire, electronic or oral communications or derivative evidence) may also disclose such contents or evidence in any matter relating to any criminal, quasi-criminal, forfeiture, administrative enforcement or professional disciplinary proceedings in any court, board or agency of this Commonwealth or of another state or of the United States or before any state or Federal grand jury or investigating grand jury. Once such disclosure has been made, then any person may disclose the contents or evidence in any such proceeding.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us

Cited in 29 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025

Leading cases:

Commonwealth v. Arrington (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2014, 624 Pa. 506)“…e contents of any wire communication in a court proceeding. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1(a). An “aggrieved person,” party to a c…”
Commonwealth v. Ruder (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 2013, 62 A.3d 1038)“…sionary rule that extends to non-constitutional violations. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1(b); Commonwealth v. Spangler, 570 P…”
Commonwealth v. Spangler (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2002, 570 Pa. 226)“…procurement of a court order, or without probable cause. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. [7] Presently, the Commonwealth and…”

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

Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Security Camera and Surveillance Laws: Home and Business Rules (2026), Pennsylvania Video Recording Laws: Filming, Surveillance, and Consent Rules (2026)

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 65 (Public Officers)

§ 711Use of equipment during meetingsIn forcecited in 12 of our articles

(a) Recording devices.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a person attending a meeting of an agency shall have the right to use recording devices to record all the proceedings. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the agency from adopting and enforcing reasonable rules for their use under section 710 (relating to rules and regulations for conduct of meetings). (b) Rules of the Senate and House of Representatives.--The Senate and House of Representatives may adopt rules governing the recording or broadcast of their sessions and meetings and hearings of committees.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us

Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits (2026)

United States Code Title 18

§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 415 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) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

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

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.

Leading cases:

Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.

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

Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained

Code of Federal Regulations Title 12

§ 1006.100Record retention.In forcecited in 7 of our articles

(a) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a debt collector must retain records that are evidence of compliance or noncompliance with the FDCPA and this part starting on the date that the debt collector begins collection activity on a debt until three years after the debt collector's last collection activity on the debt. (b) Special rule for telephone call recordings. If a debt collector records telephone calls made in connection with the collection of a debt, the debt collector must retain the recording of each such telephone call for three years after the date of the call.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov

Also relied on in: Delaware Recording Laws (2026): Two-Statute Consent Conflict, Montana Recording Laws (2026): Announcement Exception and Penalties

Code of Federal Regulations Title 47

§ 64.1200Delivery restrictions.In forcecited in 12 of our articles

(a) No person or entity may: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, initiate any telephone call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or is made with the prior express consent of the called party) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; (i) To any emergency telephone line, including any 911 line and any emergency line of a hospital, medical physician or service office, health care facility, poison control center, or fire protection or law enforcement agency; (ii) To the telephone line of any guest room or patient room of a hospital, health care facility, elderly home, or similar establishment; or (iii) To any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov

Cited in 840 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

Samuel Zean v. Fairview Health Services (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2017, 858 F.3d 520)“…with . . . the prior express consent of the called party.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2). Under the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. §…”
Krakauer v. Dish Network, L. L.C. (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 925 F.3d 643)“…ing regulations was the national Do-Not-Call registry. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2). Within the federal government’s…”
ACA Int'l v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2018, 885 F.3d 687)“…C. Compare 16 C.F.R. §§ 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B), 310.4(c), with 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c). But the agencies’ initiatives also…”

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

Also relied on in: Michigan Recording Laws (2026): Consent Rules and Participant Exception, TCPA Explained: Robocall, Text, and Telemarketing Law (2026), TCPA Damages and Lawsuits: Penalties, Settlements (2026)

United States Code Title 47

§ 227Restrictions on use of telephone equipmentIn forcecited in 37 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) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

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

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (2021) held that to qualify as an automatic telephone dialing system under Section 227(a)(1), equipment must have the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to store or produce the numbers it dials. Nicole Blow v. Bijora, Inc. (2017) applied the prior express consent defense to promotional texts.

Leading cases:

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (Supreme Court of the United States 2016, 577 U.S. 153)✓A marketing firm hired by the Navy had a subcontractor text a recruiting message to 100,000 phones, reaching a man who never consented; the Supreme Court held a contractor gets no derivative sovereign immunity from TCPA suit when it violates the Act and the Navy's orders.
Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Stevens & Ricci Inc (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2016, 835 F.3d 388)✓An insured let an advertiser send 18,879 unsolicited fax ads, drawing a $2 million TCPA class judgment; the Third Circuit read the TCPA as protecting seclusion, not secrecy, so the faxes were no covered 'advertising injury' and the insurer need not pay the judgment.
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (Supreme Court of the United States 2021, 592 U.S. 395)✓Facebook texted login alerts to a man who had no account and never gave it his number; the Supreme Court held a device is an autodialer under 227(a)(1) only if it uses a random or sequential number generator to store or produce numbers, excluding Facebook's system.