Washington Recording Laws: All-Party Consent, Gross Misdemeanor Penalties (RCW 9.73.030)

Washington Is an All-Party Consent State

Washington's Washington Privacy Act (WPA), codified in Chapter 9.73 RCW, requires the consent of every party before any private conversation or communication may be recorded. This is often called "two-party consent," but the statute's actual standard is all-party consent -- if a conference call has five participants, all five must consent.

Under RCW 9.73.030, it is unlawful for any individual, business, or government entity to:

• Intercept or record any private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more people; or
• Intercept or record any private in-person conversation using any electronic or other device designed to record or transmit that conversation

without the consent of all parties to the communication. The statute has been in force since 1967 and was last amended in 2021 (HB 1223-S). No amendment to RCW 9.73.030's all-party consent standard has been enacted since that date.

The Washington Supreme Court confirmed the scope of the all-party consent requirement in State v. Townsend, 147 Wn.2d 666, 57 P.3d 255 (2002): a party to a communication may not unilaterally record it without the consent of all other parties, and this rule applies equally to telephone calls and to in-person conversations where participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Townsend remains the controlling judicial authority on RCW 9.73.030.

Washington Attorney General opinions have long interpreted the statute the same way. Washington AG opinions have historically concluded that RCW 9.73.030 requires all-party consent for both telephone and in-person recordings (see AGO 1978 No. 7, with the caveat that the specific opinion number should be verified at atg.wa.gov), a reading confirmed by the Washington Supreme Court in Townsend.

What Counts as a "Private" Communication

The WPA protects only private communications. In State v. Townsend, 147 Wn.2d 666, 57 P.3d 255 (2002), the Washington Supreme Court set out a multi-factor test for privacy. Courts weigh:

• The subjective intention of the parties regarding the privacy of the communication
• The duration and subject matter of the communication
• The location where the conversation takes place
• The presence of potential third-party listeners
• The relationship between the parties

Conversations in open public settings where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists are generally outside the WPA's reach. A shouted argument on a busy sidewalk is different from a quiet meeting in a private office.

Summary Table

Key Point	Answer
Consent standard	All-party (every participant)
Key statute	RCW 9.73.030
Criminal penalty	Gross misdemeanor -- 364 days / $5,000
Civil remedy	$100/day or $1,000 liquidated + attorney fees
Admissibility of illegal recordings	Inadmissible (RCW 9.73.050)
Last amended	2021 (HB 1223-S)
Controlling case	State v. Townsend, 147 Wn.2d 666 (2002)

Penalties for Recording Without Consent

Criminal Penalties

Under RCW 9.73.080, a violation of the WPA's consent requirements is a gross misdemeanor. RCW 9.92.020 sets the maximum punishment for a gross misdemeanor at 364 days in county jail and a $5,000 fine. The 364-day cap (rather than a full calendar year) reflects a 2011 legislative adjustment to Washington's misdemeanor sentencing framework.

This is a meaningful distinction from other all-party consent states. California and Illinois both classify recording-consent violations as felonies. Washington's gross misdemeanor classification means a first offense does not carry the collateral consequences of a felony conviction, but it still constitutes a criminal record that can affect employment and licensing.

Offense	Classification	Max Jail	Max Fine
Recording without consent	Gross misdemeanor	364 days	$5,000
Wrongful disclosure of a recording	Gross misdemeanor	364 days	$5,000

Civil Remedies

Under RCW 9.73.060, any person whose communications were illegally recorded may bring a civil lawsuit and recover:

• Actual damages, including compensation for mental pain and suffering
• Liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation, up to a maximum of $1,000 per violation
• Reasonable attorney fees and court costs

The injured party may elect whichever damages measure is more favorable. Because actual damages in many recording cases are difficult to quantify, the $1,000 liquidated-damages ceiling plus attorney fees provides a meaningful floor for civil recovery.

Inadmissibility

RCW 9.73.050 bars use of illegally obtained recordings in any civil or criminal proceeding in Washington courts. Two narrow exceptions exist: the victim may consent to use the recording in a damages action brought by that victim, or the recording may be admitted in a criminal case involving a crime that would jeopardize national security. Outside those two situations, the exclusionary rule is absolute.

Exceptions to the All-Party Consent Rule

RCW 9.73.030(2) permits one-party consent recording in three categories of communications:

Emergency communications. A party to a communication may record without obtaining all-party consent when the communication is made to report a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster to a public safety answering point or any other individual expected to provide emergency assistance.

Threats of extortion, blackmail, or bodily harm. A party who receives or is about to receive a communication conveying a threat of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful request may record with one-party consent. This exception is specific to threatening or coercive content. It does not authorize broad secret recording of someone who has behaved threateningly in the past.

Anonymous, repeated, or inconvenient-hour calls. A party receiving anonymous calls, repeated calls from the same person, or calls made at an extremely inconvenient hour may record those calls with one-party consent.

RCW 9.73.090 provides additional law-enforcement-specific exceptions: incoming emergency calls to police and fire stations may be recorded, and dashboard and body camera audio may be captured by uniformed officers when their video system is activated for an event.

The journalist exception under RCW 9.73.030 allows employees of regularly published newspapers, magazines, wire services, radio stations, or television stations to record without a separate announcement if they are acting in a bona fide news-gathering capacity and their recording equipment is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers.

The building owner exception under RCW 9.73.110 permits recording by a building owner or person with lawful possession of a building when the persons being recorded are engaged in criminal activity related to their unlawful entry or presence. This is a narrow carve-out, not a general license to monitor all conversations on the premises.

How to Obtain Consent Under Washington Law

RCW 9.73.040 provides the consent mechanism. Consent is legally established when a party to the communication announces to all other parties, in any reasonably effective manner, that the communication is about to be recorded or transmitted. The announcement itself must be recorded.

Telephone calls. The standard method is an automated message played before the call connects: "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes." The message must play before recording begins, and it must be captured in the recording file. Allowing the other party to hang up before speaking satisfies the opt-out requirement.

In-person conversations. A verbal statement -- "I am recording this conversation" -- made audibly to all present before the device starts capturing audio satisfies RCW 9.73.040. Written notice given before the meeting begins also works. Posting a sign at the entrance to a meeting room that states recording is in progress is common in business settings.

Beep-tone notice. The WPA does not require a specific beep-tone signal, but using an audible tone at regular intervals can serve as continuing notice that recording is occurring.

Implied consent. Washington courts have recognized that consent can be implied when a party continues to communicate after a clear announcement. Leaving a voicemail message implies consent because, as the Washington Court of Appeals explained in In re Marriage of Farr (1997), the sole function of an answering machine is to record messages. Similarly, sending a message through a system known to log communications implies consent to that logging.

Video Recording Laws in Washington State

Washington's Chapter 9.73 focuses on the interception of private communications and conversations. Its application to video recording turns on whether audio is captured.

Silent video in public. Filming or photographing people in public places where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy is generally lawful in Washington. Streets, parks, government buildings, and public demonstrations are open to video documentation, including by members of the press and private citizens.

Video with audio. The moment a video recording device captures audio of a private conversation, RCW 9.73.030 applies. A smartphone video taken at a family dinner, a conference recording at an office meeting, a Zoom call recording -- all involve audio of conversations where participants expect privacy, and all require all-party consent.

Video surveillance. Security and surveillance cameras that capture only silent video of common areas or public-facing spaces do not trigger Chapter 9.73. The introduction of an audio microphone changes the legal posture entirely. See the security camera section below for more detail.

Voyeurism -- RCW 9A.44.115. Separate from the WPA, Washington prohibits video recording aimed at a person's intimate areas without consent. RCW 9A.44.115 creates two offenses:

• Voyeurism in the first degree (Class C Felony): Knowingly viewing, photographing, or filming another person without their knowledge and consent in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, for sexual purposes.
• Voyeurism in the second degree (Gross Misdemeanor): Intentionally photographing or filming intimate areas of another person without consent, with intent to distribute the images.

Note that RCW 9A.44.115 covers a different category of harm than the WPA. A video recording that violates the WPA (because it captures private audio without consent) and a video recording that violates the voyeurism statute (because it targets intimate areas) are two separate legal violations.

Body cameras and video conferencing. Body-worn cameras used by law enforcement are governed by a separate chapter, RCW 10.109. Video conferencing platforms -- Zoom, Teams, Google Meet -- capture audio by default, so every Washington participant to a recorded call must consent under RCW 9.73.030.

For a full treatment of Washington video recording rules, see our Washington Video Recording Laws guide.

Security Camera and Surveillance Camera Laws in Washington

Security cameras are among the most common recording devices in use today. Washington law treats them based on what they capture and where they are aimed.

Audio-disabled cameras. A security camera that records only silent video in a common area, public entrance, parking lot, or storefront does not trigger RCW 9.73.030. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in one's movements visible from a public street or shared space.

Audio-enabled cameras. If a security camera records conversations in an area where participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy -- a private office, a break room, a residential room -- the audio component is subject to RCW 9.73.030. All-party consent is required. Best practice is to disable audio pickup on interior cameras in private-use areas or post clear notice that audio recording is in effect before activating those devices.

Residential and rental property cameras. Homeowners may install security cameras on their own property to monitor their own premises, provided the cameras do not intrude into spaces where others have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A camera aimed at a neighbor's window, a shared bathroom, or a tenant's private living quarters crosses into voyeurism territory under RCW 9A.44.115.

Tenant-facing cameras. Washington landlords must provide written notice of any recording devices in rental units. Placing a hidden camera in a bedroom or bathroom is a criminal offense under the voyeurism statute regardless of the landlord-tenant relationship.

Reasonable expectation of privacy analysis. The multi-factor test from State v. Townsend, 147 Wn.2d 666, 57 P.3d 255 (2002), applies to security camera placement. Courts assess whether the location, the parties' conduct, and the surrounding circumstances gave rise to a reasonable expectation that the conversation or movement would remain private.

For detailed guidance, see our Washington Security Camera Laws guide.

Recording in the Workplace

Washington's all-party consent standard applies fully in employment settings. An employee who records a conversation with a supervisor, coworker, or client without announcing the recording violates RCW 9.73.030, regardless of the purpose.

Employee-Initiated Recording

Employees sometimes attempt to record workplace misconduct -- harassment, discrimination, retaliation -- as evidence. The intent does not create a legal exception. A secret recording of a private conversation with a supervisor remains a gross misdemeanor. The recording is also inadmissible in any Washington proceeding under RCW 9.73.050, which eliminates much of its evidentiary value.

The statutory exceptions do apply in the workplace. An employee who receives a direct threat of bodily harm may record with one-party consent under RCW 9.73.030(2)(a). That exception is narrow and covers the specific threatening communication, not ambient workplace monitoring.

Employer Monitoring

Employers may record workplace communications, calls, and meetings if they follow the announcement requirements of RCW 9.73.040. Standard practices include:

• Playing an automated message before connecting to any recorded phone line
• Disclosing recording practices in writing during onboarding
• Posting notice at the entrance to any room where meetings are recorded
• Documenting consent procedures in employee handbooks

Federal NLRB Overlay

Two federal developments intersect with Washington's all-party consent rule in workplace settings.

The NLRB's Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), established that facially neutral workplace no-recording policies are presumptively unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act if they have a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising Section 7 rights. Employer recording bans must be narrowly drawn -- for example, limited to protecting trade secrets or confidential client data -- to survive scrutiny. Washington employers cannot simply invoke RCW 9.73.030 to justify a blanket ban on employee recording activity that is otherwise protected under the NLRA.

NLRB Acting General Counsel guidance (GC Memo 25-07, June 25, 2025) signals that regional offices will pursue complaints for surreptitious recording during collective-bargaining sessions. The memo characterizes undisclosed recording of bargaining sessions as "inconsistent with the openness and mutual trust necessary for the process to function as contemplated by the Act." This is prosecutorial guidance, not a Board decision or binding court precedent, but it signals enforcement priorities in union settings. In Washington, such recordings are doubly prohibited: GC Memo 25-07 at the federal level plus RCW 9.73.030 at the state level.

For full coverage, see our Washington Workplace Recording Laws guide.

Recording Police and Public Officials in Washington

First Amendment Right to Record

Recording police officers performing their public duties in public is protected by the First Amendment. Washington courts have consistently recognized this right. Officers in public view -- conducting a traffic stop on a public street, making an arrest in a parking lot, managing a crowd at a demonstration -- are engaged in public-facing government activity that citizens have a constitutional interest in documenting.

Practical guidelines:

• Record openly; concealed recording of police interactions in public is not legally necessary and can complicate any subsequent dispute
• Do not physically interfere with officers while recording
• Officers cannot lawfully demand you stop recording or seize your device without a warrant or lawful arrest authority
• Step back to a safe distance if directed, but you are not required to stop recording

Why Police-Public Conversations Are Generally Not "Private" Under the WPA

AGO 2014 No. 8 (Nov. 24, 2014) by the Washington Attorney General concluded that conversations between law enforcement officers and members of the public during body camera use are not "private" communications under the WPA. The analysis turns on the fact that police-citizen encounters in public settings involve no reasonable expectation of privacy: officers act in an official capacity in open view, and members of the public interacting with officers on public streets do not reasonably expect that exchange to remain confidential. State v. Townsend, 147 Wn.2d 666, 57 P.3d 255 (2002), supplies the framework: a communication is only private if the circumstances support a reasonable expectation of privacy, which is generally absent in a public law-enforcement encounter.

Body Cameras and HB 2644

Law enforcement body cameras in Washington operate under RCW 10.109, not RCW 9.73.030. The AGO 2014 No. 8 body-camera framework -- that officer-public conversations in public are not private under the WPA -- remains the operative guidance.

A pending bill, HB 2644 (69th Leg., 2025-26 Biennium), proposes amendments to the law-enforcement body-camera chapter (RCW 10.109). As of May 9, 2026, HB 2644 remains in the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee with no floor vote, no fiscal note, and no amendments. Critically, HB 2644 does not alter RCW 9.73.030's all-party consent standard. If enacted, it would affect only the body-camera regulatory framework, not the underlying rule that requires all-party consent for private conversations.

Custodial Interrogations

Under RCW 10.122, Washington requires electronic recording of custodial interrogations involving juveniles or felony charges. Officers must inform the individual that recording is taking place, but the individual's consent is not required for the interrogation recording itself.

Public Meetings

Washington's Open Public Meetings Act, RCW 42.30, promotes transparency. RCW 42.30.220 encourages public agencies to record and post audio or video of regular meetings. Members of the public may record open public meetings. Because the meeting is public and participants have no reasonable expectation of privacy, the WPA's all-party consent requirement does not apply to recording official government proceedings.

For full coverage, see our Washington Laws on Recording Police guide.

Federal Law Overlay

Washington's all-party consent standard is the stricter of the two legal regimes that can apply to recordings made in the state.

Federal wiretap floor (18 U.S.C. ss 2511). The Electronic Communications Privacy Act generally permits recording with one-party consent. Washington's RCW 9.73.030 imposes a higher standard. Anyone recording in Washington must satisfy both: federal law sets the floor; state law raises it to all-party. The state standard controls for in-state conduct.

FCC TCPA and AI voice (FCC 24-17, Feb. 8, 2024). FCC 24-17 declared that AI-generated voice technologies, including voice cloning, constitute "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA (47 U.S.C. ss 227(b)(1)(B)). Callers using AI-generated voices must obtain prior express consent before making such calls, and must provide opt-out mechanisms on marketing calls. This federal obligation is separate from Washington's all-party consent requirement but applies concurrently to calls into or within Washington.

FCC One-to-One Consent Rule -- vacated, pre-2023 standard restored. The FCC's 2023 One-to-One Consent Rule, which would have required consumer consent to be linked to a single named seller for automated telemarketing calls, was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025). That Eleventh Circuit decision is persuasive authority in Washington, which sits in the Ninth Circuit, but is not binding on Ninth Circuit or Washington courts. The vacatur has a nationwide practical effect because the FCC subsequently issued DA 25-621, reinstating the pre-2023 version of 47 CFR ss 64.1200(f)(9) for all states. The operative standard for prior express written consent is therefore the same in Washington as elsewhere: a signed written agreement authorizing a specific seller to deliver automated marketing calls.

CFPB Regulation F -- debt collection recording retention. CFPB Regulation F, 12 CFR ss 1006.100(b) (eff. Nov. 30, 2021), does not require debt collectors to record calls, but if they do, they must retain the recording for three years from the date of the call. Any recorded debt-collection call made into or within Washington must also satisfy RCW 9.73.030's all-party consent requirement.

DOJ consensual monitoring (Justice Manual ss 9-7.302). Federal law-enforcement agencies conducting consensual monitoring during face-to-face conversations must obtain advance Department of Justice authorization in sensitive circumstances (AG Memorandum of May 30, 2002). This federal framework applies to federal agents and does not displace RCW 9.73.030 for private parties.

Special Contexts: Healthcare, Schools, Divorce, Debt Collection

Healthcare Settings

In Washington healthcare facilities, two consent regimes operate simultaneously.

HIPAA (45 CFR ss 164.502) classifies audio and video recordings of patient communications as protected health information when they contain individually identifiable health information and are maintained by a covered entity or its business associate. Recording patient conversations requires either valid patient authorization or qualification under a HIPAA-permitted use (treatment, payment, or health-care operations). The HIPAA minimum-necessary standard limits what may be captured.

Washington's RCW 9.73.030 adds the all-party consent layer on top. A healthcare provider recording a patient consultation must obtain both HIPAA-compliant authorization and RCW 9.73.040 announcement consent. Neither statute displaces the other.

For dedicated coverage, see our Washington Medical Recording Laws guide.

Schools and Educational Settings

FERPA (20 U.S.C. ss 1232g, 34 CFR Part 99) protects education records, defined as records directly related to a student and maintained by a school. Audio or video recordings of students that are maintained by a school and are directly related to a specific student -- disciplinary hearings, counseling sessions, injury documentation -- qualify as education records. Schools generally cannot disclose such recordings without written consent from a parent or eligible student, subject to enumerated exceptions.

FERPA neither requires nor prohibits classroom recording. Once a school maintains a student-identifiable recording, FERPA's consent rules govern disclosure. Washington K-12 schools and universities must satisfy both FERPA disclosure rules and RCW 9.73.030 recording-consent rules.

For dedicated coverage, see our Washington School Recording Laws guide.

Divorce and Custody Proceedings

Washington courts will not admit recordings obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030 (RCW 9.73.050). A spouse who secretly records the other party's private conversations -- whether by hiding a phone in a room, covertly running a voice memo app during a conversation, or using spy software -- has committed a gross misdemeanor and produced inadmissible evidence. The recording party faces both criminal prosecution and civil liability to the other spouse under RCW 9.73.060.

Legitimate recordings in divorce or custody cases require all-party consent. If both parties agree to record a mediation session, that recording is valid. Public statements made in court proceedings, open hearings, or public settings are not covered by the WPA.

Debt Collection Calls

Debt collectors calling Washington consumers must satisfy both federal and state consent requirements. CFPB Regulation F, 12 CFR ss 1006.100(b), requires a three-year record retention period for any call that is recorded. Washington's RCW 9.73.030 requires all-party consent for those same calls. A debt collector's standard disclosure ("This call may be recorded") satisfies the RCW 9.73.040 announcement requirement provided it plays before recording begins and is itself captured in the recording.

Recent Court Developments

State v. Townsend -- Controlling Precedent (2002)

The foundational Washington Supreme Court ruling on the all-party consent requirement is State v. Townsend, 147 Wn.2d 666, 57 P.3d 255 (2002). The Court held that a party to a communication may not unilaterally record it without the consent of all other parties, and that this requirement applies equally to telephone calls and to in-person conversations where participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Townsend is the binding lead citation for any WPA consent analysis.

Baker v. Seattle Children's Hospital -- Pending Supreme Court Review

In Baker v. Seattle Children's Hospital, No. 86461-1-I (Wash. Ct. App. Div. I, Aug. 18, 2025), the Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, held that a hospital's use of Meta's Pixel tracking code -- capturing user clicks, text searches, and page views on the hospital's public website -- does not constitute interception of a "private communication" under RCW 9.73.030(1)(a). The court confined its holding to the facts: "We confine our holding to the facts of this case and decide that the plaintiffs' alleged click-and-search navigation of SCH's public website does not fall within the statutory prohibition of RCW 9.73.030(1)(a)." The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint under CR 12(b)(6).

Important caveat: This holding is not final law. The Washington Supreme Court accepted review of Baker v. Seattle Children's Hospital on January 8, 2026 (No. 1045905). As of May 9, 2026, oral argument had not been scheduled. The Internet Advertising Bureau filed an amicus brief on April 10, 2026, supporting the hospital. If the Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeals, website pixel tracking by Washington-based entities could become subject to the WPA's all-party consent requirement, with significant implications for analytics tools, marketing pixels, and any automated data collection on Washington-facing websites. This article will be updated when the Supreme Court issues its ruling.

Incidental Audio -- An Illustrative Unpublished Decision

An unpublished Washington Court of Appeals decision noted that the sounds of a physical assault captured incidentally on a recording device do not constitute a "conversation" under RCW 9.73.030, because the statute covers an "oral exchange or discussion," not non-conversational sounds. Under RAP 10.4(h), unpublished opinions of the Washington Court of Appeals may not be cited as precedent in Washington courts. This decision is described here for illustration only and does not constitute binding authority.

State v. Christensen -- WPA Scope

State v. Christensen, 153 Wn.2d 186 (2004), is a Washington Supreme Court decision confirming the scope of WPA coverage. Along with Townsend, Christensen provides the judicial foundation for the statute's application to in-person and telephonic communications.

Frequently Asked Questions

Washington Recording Laws -- Topic Index

Washington recording law covers a wide range of situations. Our dedicated spoke guides go deeper on each:

• Washington Audio Recording Laws -- phone calls, in-person consent, announcement requirements
• Washington Video Recording Laws -- filming, surveillance, public vs. private spaces
• Washington Security Camera Laws -- home, business, and rental property surveillance
• Washington Workplace Recording Laws -- employee rights, employer monitoring, NLRB rules
• Washington Laws on Recording Police -- First Amendment rights, body cameras, public meetings
• Washington Phone Call Recording Laws -- interstate calls, business call recording, TCPA
• Washington Medical Recording Laws -- HIPAA, patient consent, telehealth
• Washington School Recording Laws -- FERPA, classroom recording, campus rules
• Washington Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws -- surveillance in rental properties, tenant rights
• Washington Laws on Recording in Public -- photography, protest documentation, bystander video
• Washington Dashcam Laws -- mounting rules, audio on dashcams, evidentiary use
• Washington Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws -- RCW 9A.44.115, penalties, intimate-area recording