US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained

Federal law sets one-party consent as the national baseline, but 9 states require all-party consent for every call and conversation, and 5 states split the rule by medium. Whether you are recording a phone call, a workplace meeting, or a police encounter, the answer depends on which of three regimes applies in your state. This guide maps all 51 jurisdictions and connects every state to its dedicated recording laws page.

Information last verified on July 16, 2026.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses recording consent law across all 50 US states, the District of Columbia, and the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2523) and CALEA (47 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.). It does not address recording law in foreign jurisdictions or recording by federal law enforcement under court-issued wiretap orders under 18 U.S.C. § 2516. For Canadian recording law, see the Canada recording laws hub.

---

What are US recording laws? The at-a-glance answer

Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), allows you to record any conversation you are a party to without notice to the other side. That is one-party consent. Thirty-seven jurisdictions (36 states plus DC) adopt this federal baseline. Nine states go further and require every party's agreement before recording is lawful. That is all-party consent, sometimes called two-party consent even though calls often have more than two people. Five states are hybrid: the rule flips depending on whether you are on a phone call or recording in person. Federal law sets the floor; no state may be more permissive, but any state may be stricter. Penalties for unlawful recording reach five years' imprisonment and $250,000 in fines under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)(a), plus civil damages of the greater of actual damages or $10,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 2520. The Supreme Court established that the Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy in communications in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), and Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), confirmed that the First Amendment does not insulate media outlets from liability for broadcasting illegally obtained recordings.

The 37/5/9 breakdown is the count this guide uses as of 2026. It treats California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington as strict all-party (9); Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, and Oregon as hybrid (5); and every remaining state plus DC as one-party (37 jurisdictions, including Michigan under the Sullivan v. Gray participant exception). On the consent map and across this site, the 9 strict all-party states plus the 3 hybrid states whose stricter rule dominates in practice (Connecticut, Delaware, and Oregon) are grouped as the 12 two-party consent states; Hawaii and Maine group with the one-party states.

For state-specific detail, use the 50-state matrix table in the next section. For the legal mechanics of each regime, continue reading.

---

Complete 50-state recording law matrix (2026)

The interactive map above uses its lighter color for one-party consent states, where your own presence as a participant is legally sufficient consent to record, and its darker color for all-party states, where every person on the call or in the room must agree first. Click any state on the map to jump straight to its dedicated recording-law page. The three tables below break the same 51 jurisdictions out by regime, including the handful of hybrid states whose rule depends on the medium, so you can compare states within the same category side by side.

The table below covers all 51 jurisdictions. "One-party" means a participant's own presence in the conversation satisfies the consent requirement. "All-party" means every person audible on the recording must consent. "Hybrid" means the rule differs by medium or context. See each state's linked page for full statutory detail, exceptions, and case law. Connecticut and Oregon are legally hybrid states but are navigated under the all-party consent states sub-hub on this site because their phone-call rule is the stricter, more commonly searched scenario.

One-party consent states (37)

These 37 jurisdictions (36 states plus the District of Columbia) apply the federal one-party consent baseline under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d): if you are a party to the conversation, your own consent is legally sufficient to record, and no notice to the other side is required by state law. A few carry a narrow judicial gloss noted in the table below.

All-party consent states (9)

These 9 states require every participant audible on the recording to consent before it begins, a stricter standard than the federal floor. "Two-party consent" is a common shorthand, but the rule applies to any number of participants on a call, not just two.

Hybrid and special-rule states (5)

These 5 states do not fit cleanly into either category because their rule depends on the communication medium or carries a judicially created exception. Connecticut and Oregon are navigated under the all-party hub above because their phone-call rule, the stricter and more frequently searched scenario, requires all-party consent even though their in-person rule differs.

Nevada note: Nevada is classified as one-party in the table above because NRS § 200.650 applies a one-party rule to in-person oral recordings. The Nevada Supreme Court in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001) added a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy gloss for in-person recordings. Treat private in-person recordings cautiously in Nevada even though the statute is one-party. For phone and cellular recordings, consult the Nevada state page for the NRS § 200.620 analysis.

For state-by-state depth on the 37 one-party jurisdictions, see the one-party consent states hub. For California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington, plus Connecticut, Delaware, and Oregon, see the all-party consent states hub.

---

Federal framework: ECPA, the Wiretap Act, CALEA, and the federal floor

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) consists of three titles. Title I is the federal Wiretap Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2523. Section 2511(2)(d) creates the one-party consent exception: interception is lawful when one party to the communication has consented, provided the recording is not made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. The definition of "oral communication" at 18 U.S.C. § 2510(4) limits protection to utterances made with a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court's foundational ruling in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), established the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test that underlies all wiretap analysis. Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), held that even the First Amendment does not protect a media outlet that knowingly broadcasts an illegally intercepted recording. CALEA (47 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.) requires telecommunications carriers to maintain technical capability for court-authorized intercepts. CALEA does not affect private consent-based recording and does not grant any private right to intercept communications.

The federal floor under 18 U.S.C. § 2516 governs only court-authorized wiretaps, not private recording. Private recording is governed solely by the one-party consent rule in § 2511(2)(d) at the federal level, with states free to impose stricter standards. The ECPA's Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712) covers access to stored electronic communications and is distinct from the live-interception rules under Title I.

CALEA is commonly confused with the consent-based recording framework. The distinction matters: a carrier that complies with CALEA by maintaining lawful-intercept capabilities does so for government use under a court order, not for private parties. A private individual recording a phone call is acting under § 2511(2)(d), not under CALEA.

Understanding the ECPA layers also matters for AI tools. An AI meeting transcription service that joins a call and records all participants is an "interception device" under the Wiretap Act. In an all-party consent state, every participant must consent before the AI joins. In a one-party state, the participant who invited the AI has consented on behalf of that tool, but the tool cannot be a separate intercepting third party without the consent of all parties.

---

One-party vs. all-party consent: practical differences

The functional difference comes down to whose consent is required. Under one-party consent, a participant's own presence in the conversation is the legally required consent. You record yourself, and because you are a party to the conversation, no separate notice or agreement from the other side is needed under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). Under all-party consent, every person audible on the recording must know and agree before recording begins. "Two-party consent" is a colloquial shorthand; calls with three or more participants still require everyone's agreement in all-party states. A business call from a California office to a Texas remote worker may legally require the California all-party standard even though the Texas party is in a one-party state, because California courts apply their rule to any party connected to the state (Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006)). The safest practical rule for any multi-party or interstate call: if any participant is in an all-party state, announce recording at the start and obtain affirmative consent from everyone.

One practical concern is recordings made in "public" spaces. Even in one-party consent states, recording a person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their communication can violate the Wiretap Act. The Katz test asks whether the person had a subjective expectation of privacy and whether society recognizes that expectation as reasonable. Recording a confidential conversation in a restaurant booth where others cannot hear is different from recording a conversation shouted in a crowded park.

---

One-party consent states: the 37-jurisdiction group

Thirty-seven jurisdictions (36 states plus the District of Columbia) follow the federal one-party consent baseline under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). In each of these jurisdictions, a participant in a conversation may record it without notifying or obtaining the agreement of the other parties. The list includes: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, DC, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Michigan belongs in the one-party group by court interpretation rather than statutory text. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c reads as an all-party statute, but the Michigan Court of Appeals in Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (1982), construed "eavesdrop" to cover only third-party interception, so a participant may lawfully record their own conversation. No Michigan Supreme Court decision has overruled Sullivan, and a federal court re-affirmed the participant exception in 2026. Because the statutory text is stricter than the case law, the cautious practice in Michigan is still to announce the recording; see Michigan recording laws for the full analysis.

Most of these states enacted their wiretap statutes in the 1970s and 1980s, modeled directly on the federal Wiretap Act. Several states track the federal statutory language almost verbatim. In each case, the participant recording exception is explicit: a person who is "a party to the communication" cannot be found to have "intercepted" it within the meaning of the statute.

Missouri deserves a note here. Mo. Ann. Stat. § 542.402 is a one-party statute for telephone and electronic communications. The Missouri Court of Appeals in Lee v. Lee (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) identified ambiguity around in-person conversations where the parties have a clear mutual expectation of privacy. That ambiguity is court-created and not in the statutory text. Missouri remains in the one-party column; consult the Missouri state page for the in-person nuance.

Nevada's in-person recording statute, NRS § 200.650, also places it in the one-party group. The Nevada Supreme Court in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001) added a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy gloss to participant recordings made in private settings. Treat private in-person recordings in Nevada with care despite the one-party classification.

For the complete statute-by-statute analysis of all 37 one-party jurisdictions, see the one-party consent states hub.

---

Hybrid and split-rule states: Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Connecticut, and Delaware

Five jurisdictions apply different consent standards depending on the type of communication rather than one clean rule. Two of the five (Connecticut and Oregon) are navigated under the all-party consent states hub on this site because their stricter phone-call rule is the scenario most often searched.

• Hawaii: HRS § 803-42 reads broader than a typical one-party statute, but courts have applied a one-party standard to participant recordings, creating genuine uncertainty. Treat private in-person conversations as potentially requiring all-party consent.
• Maine: 15 M.R.S. § 710 is one-party with an "unaided hearing" exception: a participant cannot record a conversation they could not have heard without a device, such as a directional microphone.
• Oregon: ORS § 165.540 requires notice to all parties for in-person recording but only one-party consent for phone calls, the reverse of Connecticut's split. The Ninth Circuit upheld the statute en banc in January 2025; the Supreme Court denied certiorari in October 2025.
• Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d(a) requires all-party consent for phone calls; § 53a-187(a)(2) is one-party for in-person conversations.
• Delaware: 11 Del. C. § 1335 is nominally all-party, but court interpretation leaves the scope of participant consent ambiguous.

A call between two hybrid states can require checking both jurisdictions' rules for that specific medium (phone vs. in-person); see Interstate recording below.

---

Montana's hidden-device rule: a distinct all-party variant

Montana requires all parties to have knowledge of a recording under Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213, but the mechanism differs from a typical all-party state: an audible announcement satisfies the requirement even if another party objects and stays on the call, rather than requiring each party's affirmative "yes." Montana remains in the 9-state all-party count; recording covertly with no announcement violates the statute regardless of participant status. See Montana recording laws for the full penalty structure and exceptions.

---

Interstate recording: which state's law applies?

No federal statute resolves interstate recording conflicts directly. Courts apply choice-of-law analysis, and the most influential precedent is Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006), where the California Supreme Court held that California's all-party rule applied to calls placed from Georgia (a one-party state) to California. The practical default from Kearney: if any party to a call is in an all-party consent state, treat the call as requiring all-party consent. The federal Wiretap Act's consent exception in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) does not override stricter state law; it merely sets the federal minimum.

The states most commonly at issue in interstate disputes are the ones with the strictest enforcement: California, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Florida, Illinois, and Washington. A call from New York (one-party) to Pennsylvania (all-party) requires all-party consent under Pennsylvania's choice-of-law analysis. A call from Texas (one-party) to California (all-party) requires all-party consent under Kearney.

For conference calls with participants in multiple states, the safest approach is to apply the strictest all-party state's rule and announce recording before the call begins. For calls involving Pennsylvania, note that HB 1278 (eff. Feb. 12, 2024) added a telemarketing recording exception under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5704, but the general all-party rule remains intact for non-telemarketing communications.

---

Recording in specific contexts: workplace, police, healthcare, and education

Workplace recording

Two federal regimes converge on workplace recording: the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Wiretap Act) and the National Labor Relations Act. Under NLRA § 7 (29 U.S.C. § 157), employees have the right to engage in protected concerted activity, and the NLRB held in Stericycle Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), that a blanket employer ban on workplace recording is presumptively unlawful because it could chill employees' Section 7 rights. An employer who wishes to restrict recording must demonstrate that the restriction is narrowly tailored to legitimate business justifications that outweigh the Section 7 interests.

A June 2025 NLRB General Counsel memo addressed a specific scenario: surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions. The memo concluded that secretly recording bargaining sessions is a per se unfair labor practice, regardless of the one-party consent rule in the applicable state. A union representative or employer representative who secretly records a negotiation session in a one-party state does not escape NLRA liability by pointing to the state wiretap statute.

State law also controls. In all-party states, a workplace recording made without the knowledge of all participants is both an NLRA issue and a potential wiretap violation. HIPAA (45 C.F.R. § 164) adds a layer for healthcare-adjacent workplaces: audio recordings that capture patient information trigger privacy obligations independent of consent law. Trade secret law may also apply where recordings capture proprietary business information in states with the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836) in scope.

For a detailed treatment of employer recording policies and NLRB enforcement, see the employer recording laws hub and the employer wearable recording policies page.

Recording police in public

Eight federal circuits have recognized a First Amendment right to record police officers performing their public duties in public spaces: the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. The Supreme Court has not issued a binding national ruling, but as of May 2026 the court has declined to take the issue in multiple petitions. The Seventh Circuit in ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez (7th Cir. 2012) struck down Illinois' eavesdropping statute as applied to police recording, which contributed to the post-People v. Clark legislative amendments. The Fourth Circuit in Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department (4th Cir. 2023) held that livestreaming police activity in public is constitutionally protected.

Recording is protected; interference is not. Every circuit that has recognized the right has also held that the protection does not extend to physically impeding officers, standing in restricted areas, or refusing lawful orders while recording. State wiretap law does not override the constitutional right in public spaces, but all-party consent law can still apply to in-person conversations in non-public settings even with police officers. If you are recording an officer in a private setting (such as your home or a business office), apply the wiretap consent rules for the applicable state.

Healthcare and HIPAA

Audio recording in healthcare settings triggers both state wiretap consent rules and HIPAA (45 C.F.R. § 164). A recording that captures protected health information (PHI) as defined in 45 C.F.R. § 160.103 may require a HIPAA-compliant authorization in addition to wiretap consent. In all-party states, both frameworks apply independently; compliance with the wiretap consent rule does not satisfy HIPAA, and HIPAA authorization does not satisfy the wiretap consent rule. A dedicated healthcare recording page is not yet published on this site. Until then, consult the relevant state's page and the HHS Office for Civil Rights guidance at hhs.gov.

Education and FERPA

Recording in classrooms or school settings intersects with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g) when students are identifiable in the recording. A recording of a classroom session that captures student voices and responses may constitute an "education record" under FERPA regulations (34 C.F.R. § 99.3), requiring institutional consent for disclosure. State wiretap rules apply independently: in one-party states, a teacher recording their own class typically satisfies the consent rule, but FERPA may restrict what the teacher can then do with the recording. In all-party states, student consent may be required even for recordings made by school staff.

---

Federal penalties for illegal recording

Violating 18 U.S.C. § 2511 carries criminal penalties up to $250,000 for individuals ($500,000 for organizations) and imprisonment up to five years per 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)(a). Civil remedies under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 allow the aggrieved party to recover the greater of (1) actual damages plus any profits made by the violator, or (2) statutory damages of whichever is greater between $100 per day of violation or $10,000, plus punitive damages in appropriate cases and reasonable attorney's fees. These remedies apply per violation, not per plaintiff, which can produce significant aggregate exposure in multi-party calls. The federal statute of limitations is two years from the date of the unlawful interception, or the date the aggrieved party reasonably could have discovered it (18 U.S.C. § 2520(e)).

State penalties layer on top of federal liability and vary significantly:

Both criminal and civil penalties can apply to the same violation. In states with per-violation civil statutes, each separate recording or disclosure can constitute a distinct violation. California courts have applied § 637.2's $5,000-per-violation measure to each time a recorded call was played back or disclosed, not only the initial recording. Legal counsel in the applicable jurisdiction should be consulted for specific exposure analysis.

---

Regulator overlay: FCC, DOJ, FTC, CFPB, and state bar guidance

Multiple federal regulators impose recording-related obligations that layer on top of state and federal consent law. These obligations apply independently; compliance with state wiretap law does not satisfy a separate federal regulatory requirement, and vice versa.

FCC (Federal Communications Commission). Under 47 CFR § 64.501, common carriers (telephone companies and interconnected VoIP providers) must obtain prior express consent before recording customer calls for their own purposes. This is separate from the consent rules that apply to individual call participants. The FCC's consumer guide on recording telephone conversations is available at fcc.gov. The FCC also issued Report & Order 24-17 in 2025, classifying AI-generated voices as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227), requiring prior express written consent before use in robocalls. Separately, the FCC's one-to-one consent TCPA rule (2024) was announced to take effect on January 27, 2025 and would have required TCPA consent to be obtained from one consumer at a time, prohibiting aggregation via lead-generation forms. The 11th Circuit vacated the rule in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC (mandate April 30, 2025), and the FCC reinstated the prior version of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9). The AI-voice ruling remains in force; confirm current status at the FCC's docket before relying on either rule.

DOJ (Department of Justice). DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302 governs consensual monitoring by federal agents, requiring prior authorization before federal law enforcement officers record conversations they are party to. The DOJ Office of Inspector General at oig.justice.gov oversees compliance with these requirements. These rules apply to federal agents, not to private individuals.

FTC (Federal Trade Commission). The FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 CFR § 310.4, prohibits deceptive recording practices in telemarketing. A telemarketer who records a call without disclosing the recording in states where such disclosure is required, or who misrepresents the purpose of the recording, violates the TSR independently of any wiretap statute.

CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau). Regulation F, 12 CFR § 1006.100, requires debt collectors to retain records of communications, including call recordings, for three years following the date of each communication. This retention requirement applies regardless of the consent rules governing the initial recording.

Bar ethics guidance for attorneys. Bar ethics opinions can impose stricter recording restrictions than the underlying state wiretap statute, even where both apply. ABA Formal Opinion 01-422 (2001) generally permits attorneys to record client and opposing-party calls in one-party consent states, citing the lawyer's participant status as sufficient consent [ABA membership required for full text]. New York State Bar Association Opinion 328 is bar ethics guidance (not a statute or court rule) that restricts New York attorneys from recording clients even though New York Penal Law § 250.05 generally permits one-party recording. NY Bar Op. 1270 provides updated guidance on attorney recording in the context of emerging technologies. Attorneys practicing in New York who record calls without disclosing the recording to their clients may face disciplinary action under NY Bar Op. 328 even though the underlying recording is not a wiretap violation. The distinction is legally significant: a non-attorney in New York faces no additional constraint beyond N.Y. Penal Law § 250.05; an attorney faces bar discipline under Op. 328 for the same act.

Watch out: "Bar ethics opinions can impose stricter recording rules than the underlying state wiretap statute, even where both apply." This principle is jurisdiction-specific. Check your state bar's formal opinions on attorney recording before recording any professional call, even in a one-party state.

---

Recent developments: 2024-2026

Recording law has seen significant activity in the past two years. The following developments are listed in reverse chronological order.

2025-2026: Brewer v. Otter.ai, N.D. Cal. (filed Aug. 2025). A putative class action alleges that Otter.ai's transcription tool joins meetings and records all participants without obtaining consent from everyone in the call, violating California's all-party consent rule under Cal. Penal Code § 632 and the federal Wiretap Act. The case is pending. Illinois BIPA (740 ILCS 14/1) may also apply if the tool creates voiceprints to identify speakers. This litigation reflects a broader wave of claims against AI meeting notetakers in all-party states.

2025: FCC Report & Order 24-17 (AI-voice TCPA ruling). The FCC classified AI-generated voices as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA in Report & Order 24-17, effective 2025. Robocalls using AI-generated voices require prior express written consent from the called party. This ruling directly affects any recording practice that involves AI-generated call content. Confirm the ruling is not subject to a judicial stay before relying on it in compliance planning.

2025: Oregon recording statute upheld (9th Cir. en banc, Jan. 7, 2025). The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld ORS § 165.540 against a First Amendment challenge. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in October 2025. Oregon's requirement to notify all parties before recording in-person oral communications is now settled. Phone calls remain one-party under Oregon law.

2024: FCC one-to-one TCPA consent rule. The FCC closed the "lead generator loophole" by requiring that TCPA consent for robocalls and robotexts be obtained from one consumer at a time, not aggregated via shared-consent lead forms. This rule is separate from state wiretap consent. Confirm the rule's stay status before relying on it in compliance work.

2024: Pennsylvania telemarketing exception (HB 1278, eff. Feb. 12, 2024). Pennsylvania added a telemarketing recording exception to 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5704 and extended the Wiretap Act through 2029. Telemarketing calls where the consumer has been notified that the call may be recorded are now covered by the exception. All other calls remain subject to all-party consent.

2023: Stericycle NLRB standard. The NLRB in Stericycle Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), revised the standard for evaluating employer work rules. Blanket recording bans are now presumptively unlawful because they could interfere with employees' NLRA Section 7 rights. Employers must show that the restriction is narrowly tailored to legitimate business interests that outweigh the Section 7 value.

2014 (still governing): People v. Clark, 2014 IL 115776 (Dec. 18, 2014). The Illinois Supreme Court partially invalidated the prior Illinois eavesdropping statute. The legislature responded by amending 720 ILCS 5/14-2, accessible at ilga.gov. The amended statute is still classified as all-party for Illinois purposes. Recent amendments have tracked the Clark decision's constitutional requirements. Confirm the current version at https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1876&ChapterID=53.

NY S5070/S5077 (pending as of May 2026). New York bills proposing to strengthen recording-consent requirements are still pending in the state legislature as of May 2026. These have not passed. Monitor the New York Legislature's session calendar at nysenate.gov.

---

---

Federal Deepfake and NCII Overlay: TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025-2026)

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12, was signed by President Trump on May 19, 2025. The criminal prohibitions on knowingly publishing nonconsensual intimate images and AI-generated sexual deepfakes took effect immediately upon signing. The platform notice-and-takedown obligations begin on May 19, 2026, requiring covered online services to remove identified intimate-image content within 48 hours of a valid notice. The Federal Trade Commission enforces the platform-compliance provisions.

The federal Act overlays a fast-growing state landscape. Since 2024, more than thirty states have enacted standalone deepfake or synthetic-intimate-image statutes, with several adopting both criminal felonies and civil causes of action. Notable recent enactments include Tennessee's ELVIS Act at Tenn. Code Ann. ss 47-25-1101 to 1108 (effective July 1, 2024); Wyoming's Enrolled Act 32 creating Wyo. Stat. ss 6-4-307 and 6-4-308 (effective July 1, 2026); South Carolina's Act 37 of 2025 at S.C. Code s 16-15-332; Rhode Island's Chapter 17-30 (P.L. 2025 ch. 409/410); and Florida, Maryland, California, New York, Texas, Idaho, and others with parallel regimes. Recording-law analysis on this site reflects whether each state has criminalized synthetic NCII, election-deepfakes, or both, and whether the state offers a civil cause of action distinct from the federal Act's platform-takedown mechanism.

---

Related articles

• One-party consent states: all 37 jurisdictions explained
• Two-party consent states: the complete 12-state list
• Employer recording laws: NLRA, ECPA, and state wiretap rules
• Is it illegal to video record someone without their consent?
• Wearable recording devices at work
• Smart glasses recording laws

---

Disclaimer

General legal information only. This article presents general legal information about recording consent laws in the United States, covering all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and federal law under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2523). Information was last verified on July 16, 2026. Laws change, and this article may not reflect legislative amendments or court decisions issued after that date. This article does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Recording-law analysis depends heavily on the specific facts of each situation, including the location of all parties, the medium of communication, and the purpose of the recording. Consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction before making any recording that could affect your legal rights or expose you to liability.