EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsKentucky Laws flagKentucky Laws
Kentucky flag

Kentucky

Kentucky Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of November 1, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed November 11, 202618 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 29 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Kentucky Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

Kentucky is a one-party consent state under KRS 526.010 and KRS 526.020. A participant in a call or conversation (in the statute's terms, a wire or oral communication), or anyone with at least one party's prior consent, may lawfully record it without telling others.

Secretly recording a conversation you are not part of, when no party has consented, is different. That is criminal eavesdropping, a Class D felony with 1 to 5 years in prison, and it exposes you to a federal civil lawsuit under ECPA, the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Kentucky recording law at a glance

QuestionAnswer
Consent ruleOne-party consent
Main statuteKRS 526.020
When recording is illegalIntercepting a wire or oral communication of others without any party's consent
Criminal penaltyClass D felony: 1 to 5 years, $1,000 to $10,000 fine
Civil remedyFederal ECPA section 2520, Kentucky common-law invasion of privacy, and possibly KRS 446.070 (Chapter 526 has no damages provision of its own)
Hidden camerasRecording intimate areas where a person expects privacy is voyeurism (KRS 531.090, Class A misdemeanor), no sexual motive required; selling or sharing those images electronically is a Class D felony (KRS 531.100)
Recording policeYour own encounter: one-party consent applies. Filming officers dealing with others: the statute does not settle it, and the Sixth Circuit has not recognized a First Amendment right

See the full analysis starting with Kentucky recording laws in depth below.

Kentucky lets a participant record a call or conversation without telling others; recording others' talk without any party's consent is a Class D felony with 1 to 5 years in prison.
Being in the conversation, or having one participant's consent, is what makes audio recording legal in Kentucky. Hidden cameras and police have their own rules.

Recording in-person conversations in Kentucky

If you are part of a conversation, your participation supplies the required consent under KRS 526.020. You do not need to announce that you are recording, obtain the other party's agreement, or play a beep tone. This covers one-on-one conversations, group meetings you attend, and any exchange in which you are an active participant.

What decides the question is how KRS 526.010 defines "eavesdrop." It means overhearing, recording, amplifying, or transmitting any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one party. Because the definition reaches only communications "of others," and only where no party consents, a participant is outside the offense entirely.

Recording guides often attach a privacy-expectation test at this point, but that test is federal, not Kentucky. 18 U.S.C. section 2510(2) defines "oral communication" as speech uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that it is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying that expectation.

KRS 526.010 carries no comparable qualifier. It defines a single term, "eavesdrop," and the Kentucky offense turns on consent rather than on where the conversation happened. Do not assume that a conversation in a public setting falls outside KRS 526.020 because no one could expect privacy there. The Kentucky text does not draw that line.

What you cannot do is plant a recorder and walk away to capture a conversation between others who have not consented. That conduct is exactly what KRS 526.020 punishes as a Class D felony.

law library reading room with brass lamp and books in soft focus

Recording phone calls in Kentucky

The one-party rule applies equally to phone calls. If you are on the call, you can record it without disclosure, regardless of whether the other party knows. The rule covers landlines, mobile phones, and internet-based services such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet. The medium does not change the analysis.

Federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. section 2511(2)(d) also lets a person who is a party to the communication, or who has one party's prior consent, record it. But federal law adds a limit Kentucky's statute lacks: the recording is illegal under federal law if it is made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act (a tort is a civil wrong).

Interstate calls require extra attention. ECPA does not preempt stricter state law, meaning it does not override it. When a Kentucky caller is on the line with someone in an all-party consent state, that state's law may apply to the call, and courts decide case by case which state's law governs an interstate recording.

The all-party states for at least some recording contexts include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Several of these are partial: Connecticut (phone calls, civil rule) and Nevada (phone calls) require every party's consent only for calls, Oregon only for in-person conversations and video calls, and Delaware has two conflicting statutes. The safe-harbor rule is this: when calling into any of those states, get every party's consent before recording.

To check how a particular call from Kentucky lines up with the other party's state, try our recording consent checker.

See Kentucky Phone Call Recording Laws for the full call-recording analysis.

wireless earbuds in their open charging case on a white desk

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Kentucky has no general criminal prohibition on silent video recording. The video statutes target images of intimate areas and sexual conduct, not ordinary surveillance.

KRS 531.090 makes voyeurism a Class A misdemeanor. It reaches intentional use of a camera or other imaging device to view, photograph, film, or videotape the sexual conduct, genitals, certain undergarments, or the nipple of the female breast of another person without consent, in a place where a reasonable person would not expect to be observed.

The statute has no sexual-gratification element, so no sexual motive is required. What matters is whether the camera was used for the purpose of viewing or recording those areas. A nanny cam or other camera placed to capture people undressing, such as in a bathroom or bedroom, can violate it. Doorbell and security cameras that capture only arrivals, departures, or package thefts fall outside it.

KRS 531.100 makes video voyeurism a Class D felony. It applies where the actor records another person's sexual conduct, genitals, or female nipple without consent and then uses or shares the images for payment, or distributes them by live or recorded visual medium, email, the internet, or an online service. Distribution upgrades what would be a misdemeanor to a felony carrying 1 to 5 years in prison.

One audio caveat applies to all camera systems. A Ring doorbell, nanny cam, or business IP camera that captures audio is also a recording device under KRS 526.020. Audio recorded while the homeowner or business owner is present and a party to the conversation is covered by one-party consent. Audio captured of conversations among others when no consenting party is present is potential eavesdropping exposure, even if the video is lawful.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with Ring in May 2023. It required $5.8 million in consumer redress and ongoing privacy-program injunctive relief, based on findings that Ring gave employees and contractors access to customer video without adequate consent. That federal consumer-protection overlay applies to Kentucky consumers using Ring or similar smart cameras.

See Kentucky Security Camera Laws and Kentucky Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws for deeper coverage.

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

Penalties for illegal recording in Kentucky

Chapter 526, Kentucky's eavesdropping chapter, has a short list of penalties, but it was misreported in the past. The prior version of this page had the eavesdropping install and possession statutes the wrong way round, and the table below gives the corrected mapping.

Kentucky recording penalties run from a Class A misdemeanor with up to 12 months and $500 for possessing an eavesdropping device to a Class D felony with 1 to 5 years for eavesdropping.
Eavesdropping and installing an eavesdropping device are Class D felonies in Kentucky. Possession, tampering and divulging are Class A misdemeanors.
OffenseStatuteClassMaximum penalty
EavesdroppingKRS 526.020Class D felony1 to 5 years prison; $1,000 to $10,000 fine
Installing an eavesdropping deviceKRS 526.030Class D felony1 to 5 years prison; $1,000 to $10,000 fine
Possession of an eavesdropping deviceKRS 526.040Class A misdemeanorUp to 12 months jail; up to $500 fine
Tampering with private communicationsKRS 526.050Class A misdemeanorUp to 12 months jail; up to $500 fine
Divulging illegally obtained informationKRS 526.060Class A misdemeanorUp to 12 months jail; up to $500 fine

The prison terms and fines themselves come from outside Chapter 526. Class D felony imprisonment of 1 to 5 years is set by KRS 532.060(2)(d), and the $1,000 to $10,000 fine range is set by KRS 534.030(1). Class A misdemeanor exposure of up to 12 months and a fine up to $500 comes from KRS 532.090 and KRS 534.040.

KRS 526.080 provides for forfeiture only. Any device used in violation of Chapter 526 is forfeited to the state under KRS 500.090.

KRS 526.060 makes it a Class A misdemeanor to use or divulge information obtained through illegal eavesdropping. The federal Constitution limits that state prohibition.

Under Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the First Amendment protects a person who did not participate in an unlawful interception, who lawfully obtained a recording that someone else intercepted illegally, and who discloses it publicly, provided the disclosure concerns a matter of public concern and the material is truthful. A journalist or other third party who receives an illegally recorded Kentucky conversation from someone else, without taking part in the original interception, is not automatically exposed to KRS 526.060 liability for publishing it if those conditions are met.

Kentucky's eavesdropping chapter has no damages provision of its own. A person injured by a violation may be able to sue under KRS 446.070, Kentucky's general statute allowing damages for injury caused by violating any statute, though no reported decision has applied it to eavesdropping. Most civil plaintiffs sue under federal ECPA and Kentucky common law instead.

Under 18 U.S.C. section 2520, a court may award actual damages plus the violator's profits, or statutory damages, whichever is greater. Statutory damages are $100 per day of violation or $10,000, again whichever is greater. The court may also award punitive damages in appropriate cases, reasonable attorney fees, and equitable relief.

Kentucky common-law invasion of privacy under McCall v. Courier-Journal, 623 S.W.2d 882 (Ky. 1981) fills the gap left by Chapter 526. It supplies the claims for intrusion upon seclusion and for public disclosure of private facts. The typical plaintiff files the federal section 2520 claim and pairs it with a McCall claim.

glass-walled conference room with figures behind translucent doors

Recording the police in Kentucky

Kentucky sits in the Sixth Circuit, covering Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan, and Ohio. The Sixth Circuit has not issued a published, binding decision recognizing a First Amendment right of citizens to record on-duty police in public.

Crawford v. Geiger, 656 F. App'x 190 (6th Cir. 2016), is the closest authority within the Sixth Circuit. The case involved plaintiffs who alleged, among other things, a First Amendment right to film police. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the First Amendment recording claim, meaning it decided that claim on the record without a trial.

The Sixth Circuit appeal focused on the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims, not the recording right. The decision is unpublished (Federal Appendix) and is persuasive only. It did not recognize or announce a First Amendment right to record police.

Hils v. Davis, 52 F.4th 997 (6th Cir. 2022), is about officers only. The court held that Cincinnati police officers have no First Amendment right to record their own internal misconduct interviews. The opinion does not address civilian recording of police in public and should not be read as limiting it.

Authority from outside the Sixth Circuit runs in favor of the right. The First, Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that the First Amendment protects recording police doing their jobs in public, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner limits. The Fourth Circuit has held that livestreaming a police traffic stop is protected speech. Those decisions are persuasive but not binding in Kentucky.

In practice, if the encounter is your own, such as your traffic stop, you are a party to the conversation and Kentucky's one-party rule lets you record it. If you are filming officers dealing with someone else, you are not a party, and Chapter 526 does not say whether officers' words spoken in public count as protected conversations.

Record openly from a place you have a right to be, keep a reasonable distance, do not interfere, and comply with lawful orders to step back. Qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits claiming the official violated someone's rights; a suit is allowed only where the official violated a "clearly established" statutory or constitutional right. Any Section 1983 claim will face a qualified-immunity defense because no published Sixth Circuit decision has recognized the right.

Body-worn cameras are governed by KRS 61.168 within the Open Records Act family. An agency may withhold footage in listed sensitive categories, such as the inside of a private home or medical facility or footage of minors (subsection (4)).

But it cannot use those categories for footage of a use of force, an arrest or detention, or an incident that is the subject of a formal complaint; requests for that footage are decided under the Open Records Act and its exemptions (subsection (5)). People directly involved in a recorded incident may view the footage at the agency.

Kentucky's Open Meetings Act (KRS 61.805 through 61.850) requires agencies to allow news media coverage of public meetings, including recording and broadcasting (KRS 61.840). It lets any member of the public attend, subject only to rules needed to keep order.

See Kentucky Laws on Recording Police for the full analysis.

Special topics in Kentucky

Workplace recording

Kentucky's one-party consent rule applies at work: an employee who is part of a conversation may record it. This covers HR meetings, performance reviews, disciplinary interviews, and coworker exchanges.

What the one-party rule does not do is shield a no-recording policy from federal labor law. Under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), a blanket workplace no-recording policy is presumptively unlawful under Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA if a reasonable employee could interpret it as chilling Section 7 protected concerted activity. The employer can rebut that presumption only by proving the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest that a more narrowly tailored rule could not serve.

Stericycle remains the National Labor Relations Board's standard for judging workplace rules, though the current Board has signaled it may revisit it. Narrowly drawn rules tied to confidentiality, safety, or HIPAA with Section 7 carve-outs are defensible. Separately, NLRB General Counsel memo GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) treats undisclosed recording of a collective-bargaining session as a per se Section 8(a)(5) or (b)(3) violation of the duty to bargain in good faith. It is enforcement guidance from the General Counsel, not a Board decision.

See Kentucky Workplace Recording Laws.

AI and deepfake law

Kentucky's first AI-governance enactment is SB 4 of 2025 (Acts Chapter 66). It was signed March 24, 2025, and took effect that day under an emergency declaration.

It creates KRS 42.731, directing the Commonwealth Office of Technology to establish an AI Governance Committee, adopt ISO/IEC 42001 standards, and maintain a registry of generative and high-risk AI systems. KRS 42.731 also directs the Office to require human validation of AI outputs and public disclaimers in citizen-facing AI decisions.

SB 4 also creates KRS 117.322. It lets a candidate for elected office whose appearance, action, or speech is altered through synthetic media in an electioneering communication sue the sponsor for an injunction requiring a clear and conspicuous disclosure. Clear-and-convincing proof is required. Separately, a clear-and-conspicuous disclosure is an affirmative defense.

Kentucky has no general deepfake statute outside the election context, but its non-consensual intimate imagery law does reach AI-generated images. Since July 15, 2024 (2024 Ky. Acts ch. 15), the "private erotic matter" that KRS 531.120 protects includes a computer-generated image made to appear to be an identifiable person (KRS 531.010(3) and (8)), provided the image is obscene and the statute's other elements are met.

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. No. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) adds a federal layer. It criminalizes knowing publication of such content. It also requires covered platforms to remove flagged material within 48 hours, with platform compliance effective May 19, 2026.

Non-consensual intimate imagery

KRS 531.120 prohibits intentionally distributing private erotic matter to a third party without the depicted person's written consent, with intent to profit or to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the person depicted, where the disclosure would cause a reasonable person to suffer harm. A first offense is a Class A misdemeanor. A subsequent offense, or a first offense for profit, is a Class D felony. A subsequent offense for profit is a Class C felony.

Subsection (3) requires a website or app that distributes such images to remove them when a person depicted asks, and bars any removal fee. KRS 531.120 covers computer-generated images of an identifiable person (KRS 531.010(8)), and the TAKE IT DOWN Act adds federal penalties and a platform takedown duty on top of it.

Federal overlay

18 U.S.C. section 2520 is the principal civil damages vehicle for Kentucky plaintiffs, for the reasons given in the penalties section above. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) holds that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). So the caller needs the called party's prior express consent, and prior express written consent for telemarketing or advertising calls, and that ruling is in force.

The FCC's one-to-one consent rule (Part III.D of its December 2023 order) was vacated, meaning set aside, by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC on January 24, 2025. That rule is not in effect.

HIPAA governs recordings in healthcare settings. A covered entity recording a patient encounter requires HIPAA-compliant authorization under 45 C.F.R. sections 164.502 and 164.508 unless a treatment, payment, or operations exception applies.

CALEA at 47 U.S.C. sections 1001 to 1010 requires carriers to support lawful interception under court order. It imposes engineering obligations and does not authorize warrantless interception.

  • January 24, 2025: The Eleventh Circuit vacated the FCC's one-to-one TCPA consent rule (Part III.D of the FCC's December 2023 order) in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC. Pre-existing TCPA prior-express-written-consent rules govern.
  • February 14, 2025: NLRB General Counsel memo GC 25-05 rescinded about 30 earlier General Counsel memoranda, including GC 23-02 on electronic monitoring. A General Counsel memo cannot overrule a Board decision, so Stericycle remains the Board's standard, though the current Board has signaled it may revisit it.
  • March 24, 2025: Governor Beshear signed SB 4 of 2025 (Acts Chapter 66), Kentucky's first AI-governance law, effective immediately. It creates KRS 42.731 (state-agency AI governance) and KRS 117.322, which lets candidates seek an injunction requiring disclosure on synthetic-media electioneering communications.
  • May 19, 2025: The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. No. 119-12) was signed, criminalizing publication of non-consensual intimate imagery including AI-generated deepfakes. Platform compliance (48-hour notice-and-removal) was effective May 19, 2026.

Kentucky recording laws in depth

Want to know more? Each sub-page below covers a specific recording context for Kentucky in depth.

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Kentucky 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 Kentucky attorney.

More Kentucky Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Kentucky is a one-party consent state. Under KRS 526.010 and KRS 526.020, a participant in a wire or oral communication, or anyone with the prior consent of at least one party, may lawfully record. Kentucky does not require all-party or two-party consent for audio recordings.

Can I record a phone call in Kentucky without telling the other person?

Yes, if you are a party to the call. Kentucky's one-party consent rule under KRS 526.020 means you need only your own participation to record a call you are on. No beep tone, disclosure, or notice is required for calls entirely within Kentucky. For interstate calls to all-party states such as California, Florida, or Illinois, you should get consent from all parties before recording.

Is illegal recording a felony in Kentucky?

Yes. Eavesdropping under KRS 526.020 and installing an eavesdropping device under KRS 526.030 are each Class D felonies, carrying 1 to 5 years in prison and a fine of $1,000 to $10,000. Possessing an eavesdropping device (KRS 526.040), tampering with private communications (KRS 526.050), and divulging illegally obtained information (KRS 526.060) are Class A misdemeanors with up to 12 months in jail and a fine up to $500.

Can I sue for illegal recording in Kentucky?

Kentucky's eavesdropping chapter, Chapter 526, has no damages provision of its own. KRS 526.080 is forfeiture only. KRS 446.070 lets a person injured by any statutory violation sue for damages, though no reported decision has applied it to eavesdropping. Plaintiffs typically sue under federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. section 2520. Under that law, a court may award actual damages or statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $10,000 (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages in appropriate cases, attorney fees, and equitable relief. A Kentucky common-law invasion-of-privacy claim under McCall v. Courier-Journal, 623 S.W.2d 882 (Ky. 1981) is typically added for intrusion upon seclusion.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Kentucky?

Video-only cameras recording exterior areas are generally lawful. Audio-capable cameras inside a home bring the device under KRS 526.020 when they record conversations among guests or workers. The homeowner's one-party consent covers audio when the owner is present and a party to the conversation. Audio of conversations among others, captured while the owner is absent, can fall within the eavesdropping statute. Kentucky's voyeurism statutes (KRS 531.090 and KRS 531.100) reach a camera used to view or record a person's sexual conduct or intimate areas without consent, such as one placed in a bathroom or bedroom. No sexual motive is required.

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

Yes, if you are part of the meeting. Kentucky's one-party rule applies in the workplace. Your employer may have an internal no-recording policy, and violating it can result in discipline or termination even though the recording is legal under state law. Under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), a blanket no-recording policy that chills Section 7 concerted activity is presumptively unlawful under federal labor law unless the employer proves a legitimate and substantial business interest that a more narrowly tailored rule could not serve. That gives some employees additional protection. The current Board has signaled it may revisit Stericycle.

Can I record the police in Kentucky?

If the encounter is your own, such as your traffic stop, you are a party to the conversation and Kentucky's one-party rule lets you record it. If you are filming officers dealing with someone else, you are not a party, and Kentucky's statute does not say whether officers' words in public count as protected conversations. The First Amendment question is also open. The Sixth Circuit has not issued a published decision recognizing a right to record on-duty police in public, and Crawford v. Geiger, 656 F. App'x 190 (6th Cir. 2016), is unpublished and did not decide it. Other circuits have recognized the right, which is persuasive but not binding in Kentucky. Record openly from a place you have a right to be, keep your distance, and do not interfere. Expect a qualified-immunity defense in any Section 1983 case.

Does Kentucky have a deepfake or AI recording law?

Kentucky's first AI law is SB 4 of 2025 (Acts Chapter 66, signed March 24, 2025). It governs state-agency AI use under KRS 42.731. It also lets a candidate for elected office seek an injunction requiring a disclosure on an electioneering communication that uses synthetic media of the candidate (KRS 117.322). Kentucky has no general deepfake statute, but KRS 531.120, its non-consensual intimate imagery law, has covered computer-generated intimate images of an identifiable person since July 15, 2024. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. No. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) adds federal penalties and a platform takedown duty, with platform compliance effective May 19, 2026.

Updates

Corrected: after the list of all-party consent states, the page now says which of them are partial, including that Delaware has two conflicting statutes rather than a settled all-party rule.

We added the employer's rebuttal test and the caveat that the NLRB may revisit its Stericycle standard, corrected the description of NLRB memo GC 25-05, restated the full elements of KRS 531.120, and put the recent-developments list in date order.

Corrected who one-party consent protects when filming police (a bystander is not a party), the voyeurism statutes (no sexual-motive element; sharing images electronically is a felony), coverage of AI-generated intimate images under KRS 531.120 since 2024, the KRS 446.070 civil route, discretionary federal damages, the circuit list on recording police, body-camera and open-meeting rules, the candidate-only synthetic-media remedy, interstate choice of law, the FCC one-to-one consent vacatur date, and the Hils v. Davis source link.

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

Corrected the in-person recording section: the requirement that a speaker hold a justified expectation against interception comes from federal law at 18 U.S.C. 2510(2), not from KRS 526.010, which defines only "eavesdrop" and turns on consent rather than on where the conversation took place.

Corrected four dead or misrouted statute-citation links in the penalties and AI-law sections (KRS 532.060, 532.090, 534.030, and 42.731) so each now points to its actual statute text; the penalty figures and AI-governance description were already accurate.

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

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Restructured Kentucky hub per recording-redo spec: condensed 8,000-word page to readable prose (2,700 words); organized into standard sections (AEO lede, at-a-glance table, in-person, phone, hidden cameras, penalties, police, special topics, in-depth index); retained all verified statutes and citations; refreshed FAQ; preserved all primary-source URLs. Audit-fix: corrected mischaracterization of Crawford v. Geiger, 656 F. App'x 190 (6th Cir. 2016): the First Amendment recording claim was dismissed at the district court level; the Sixth Circuit appeal addressed Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims only; rewritten to accurately reflect this; Crawford added to SourcesList with CourtListener URL. All other facts confirmed: SB 4 of 2025 signed March 24, 2025; ECPA 2520 civil remedy; Hils v. Davis (officer context); Eleventh Circuit vacatur of the FCC one-to-one consent rule (Jan. 24, 2025); TAKE IT DOWN Act platform compliance May 19, 2026.

Refreshed Kentucky hub with verified KRS Chapter 526 mapping and the Kentucky-specific finding that the eavesdropping chapter contains no statutory civil cause of action. KRS 526.030 corrected to installing an eavesdropping device (Class D felony); KRS 526.040 corrected to possession (Class A misdemeanor); the prior page had these inverted. KRS 526.080 reframed as forfeiture only under KRS 500.090, with civil plaintiffs routed to federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. section 2520 and common-law invasion of privacy under McCall v. Courier-Journal, 623 S.W.2d 882 (Ky. 1981). Added SB 4 of 2025 (Acts Chapter 66, signed by Governor Beshear March 24, 2025) as Kentucky's first AI-governance enactment, creating KRS 42.731 plus a new section of KRS Chapter 117 for synthetic-media electioneering claims. Removed prior references to HB 91, HB 213, and SB 113 (none enacted as deepfake or AI recording law). Body-camera citation corrected from KRS 15A.300 to KRS 61.168 within the Open Records Act family. Sixth Circuit civilian record-the-police authority recast: Crawford v. Geiger, 656 F. App'x 190 (6th Cir. 2016), is unpublished and persuasive only, and Hils v. Davis, 52 F.4th 997 (6th Cir. 2022), is officer context only. FCC 24-24 marked vacated by the Eleventh Circuit (mandate April 30, 2025); the stale 47 C.F.R. section 64.501 reference removed. Added the NLRB Stericycle workplace overlay and General Counsel Memos 25-05 and 25-07. Added the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act platform-compliance regime effective May 19, 2026. Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with apps.legislature.ky.gov, lrc.ky.gov, courts.ky.gov, and uscode.house.gov.

Refreshed Kentucky hub with verified KRS Chapter 526 mapping and the Kentucky-specific finding that the eavesdropping chapter contains no damages provision of its own. KRS 526.030 corrected to installing an eavesdropping device (Class D felony); KRS 526.040 corrected to possession (Class A misdemeanor); the prior page had these inverted. KRS 526.080 reframed as forfeiture only under KRS 500.090, with civil plaintiffs routed to federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. section 2520 and common-law invasion of privacy under McCall v. Courier-Journal, 623 S.W.2d 882 (Ky. 1981). Added SB 4 of 2025 (Acts Chapter 66, signed by Governor Beshear March 24, 2025) as Kentucky's first AI-governance enactment, creating KRS 42.731 plus a new section of KRS Chapter 117 for synthetic-media electioneering claims. Removed prior references to HB 91, HB 213, and SB 113 (none enacted as deepfake or AI recording law). Body-camera citation corrected from KRS 15A.300 to KRS 61.168 within the Open Records Act family. Sixth Circuit civilian record-the-police authority recast: Crawford v. Geiger, 656 F. App'x 190 (6th Cir. 2016), is unpublished and persuasive only, and Hils v. Davis, 52 F.4th 997 (6th Cir. 2022), is officer context only. the FCC one-to-one consent rule marked vacated by the Eleventh Circuit (Jan. 24, 2025); the stale 47 C.F.R. section 64.501 reference removed. Added the NLRB Stericycle workplace overlay and General Counsel Memos 25-05 and 25-07. Added the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act platform-compliance regime effective May 19, 2026. Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with apps.legislature.ky.gov, lrc.ky.gov, courts.ky.gov, and uscode.house.gov.

Added wearable recording device guidance covering AI voice recorders (Plaud) and smart glasses (Meta Ray-Bans) under Kentucky one-party consent law.

Sources and References

  1. KRS 526.010 (Definition of eavesdrop)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  2. KRS 526.020 (Eavesdropping; Class D felony)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  3. KRS 526.030 (Installing eavesdropping device; Class D felony)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  4. KRS 526.040 (Possession of eavesdropping device; Class A misdemeanor)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  5. KRS 526.050 (Tampering with private communications)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  6. KRS 526.060 (Divulging illegally obtained information)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  7. KRS 526.070 (Exceptions)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  8. KRS 526.080 (Forfeiture of eavesdropping device)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  9. KRS 531.090 (Voyeurism; Class A misdemeanor)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  10. KRS 531.100 (Video voyeurism; Class D felony)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  11. KRS 531.120 (Distribution of sexually explicit images without consent)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  12. KRS 61.168 (Body-worn camera recordings and disclosure)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  13. Kentucky SB 4 of 2025 (Acts Chapter 66)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  14. Acts of 2025 Chapter 66 (signed bill PDF)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  15. McCall v. Courier-Journal, 623 S.W.2d 882 (Ky. 1981)(courts.ky.gov).gov
  16. Crawford v. Geiger, 656 F. App'x 190 (6th Cir. 2016) (unpublished)(courtlistener.com)
  17. Hils v. Davis, 52 F.4th 997 (6th Cir. 2022)(opn.ca6.uscourts.gov).gov
  18. Federal Wiretap Chapter (18 U.S.C. sections 2510 to 2522)(uscode.house.gov).gov
  19. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (AI voice in robocalls)(docs.fcc.gov).gov
  20. Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025)(media.ca11.uscourts.gov).gov
  21. FCC 2017 Biennial Review (47 C.F.R. section 64.501 removal)(federalregister.gov).gov
  22. Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023)(nlrb.gov).gov
  23. NLRB GC 25-07 (surreptitious recording of bargaining sessions)(nlrb.gov).gov
  24. TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. No. 119-12)(congress.gov).gov
  25. FTC v. Ring LLC settlement (2023)(ftc.gov).gov
  26. HIPAA Privacy Rule (45 C.F.R. Part 164)(ecfr.gov).gov
  27. Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. sections 1001 to 1010)(uscode.house.gov).gov
  28. Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001)(law.cornell.edu)
  29. 18 U.S.C. section 2510(2) (federal definition of "oral communication")(govinfo.gov)
  30. KRS 446.070 (Penalty no bar to civil recovery)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  31. KRS 531.010 (Definitions, incl. computer-generated image and private erotic matter)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  32. KRS 61.840 (Open meetings: conditions for attendance)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
Share: