Kentucky Recording Laws (2026): KRS 526.020 Eavesdropping
Quick Answer: Is Kentucky a One-Party Consent State?
Yes. Kentucky is a one-party consent state. Under KRS 526.010 and KRS 526.020, a person who is a party to a wire or oral communication, or who has the prior consent of at least one party, may lawfully record the communication. Surreptitious recording of a conversation to which you are not a party, and for which no party has consented, is eavesdropping and a Class D felony.
Kentucky is not a two-party or all-party consent state. The carve-out in the statutory definition of "eavesdrop" places a participant or a one-party-consent recorder outside the criminal prohibition entirely.
| Key Point | Answer |
|---|---|
| Consent type | One-party |
| Can you record your own calls? | Yes |
| Must you inform the other party? | No |
| Primary statute | KRS 526.020 |
| Penalty class | Class D felony |
| Prison range | 1 to 5 years |
| Fine range | $1,000 to $10,000 |
| State civil cause of action | None under Chapter 526 |
This page is part of the U.S. recording laws hub and the broader directory of one-party consent states.
Kentucky Eavesdropping Statute: KRS 526.020 Explained
The controlling Kentucky recording statute is KRS 526.020. It provides that a person is guilty of eavesdropping when he intentionally uses any device to eavesdrop, whether or not he is present at the time. Eavesdropping is a Class D felony.
The definition that controls everything else in Chapter 526 sits at KRS 526.010. Kentucky defines "eavesdrop" as overhearing, recording, amplifying, or transmitting any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one party, by means of any electronic, mechanical, or other device. The phrase "of others" combined with the at-least-one-party-consent carve-out is what makes Kentucky a one-party consent jurisdiction.
KRS 526.010 also defines "wire communication" (any telephone or telegraphic communication, including data and electronic transmissions over a common carrier), "oral communication" (any communication uttered by a person who has a justified expectation that it is not subject to interception), and "eavesdropping device" (any device or apparatus capable of being used to eavesdrop).
Three elements have to line up before KRS 526.020 reaches conduct: an intentional use of a device, an interception of a wire or oral communication of others, and the absence of consent from any party. If you are a party to the conversation, the conduct is outside the definition of eavesdrop. If you are not a party but at least one party has authorized you to record, the conduct is also outside the definition.
Penalties for Illegal Recording in Kentucky
Kentucky's Chapter 526 penalty tier list is short, but it is easy to misread. The published page that this update replaces had the install and possession statutes inverted. The corrected mapping is below.
| Offense | Statute | Class | Maximum penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eavesdropping | KRS 526.020 | Class D felony | 1 to 5 years prison and $1,000 to $10,000 fine |
| Installing an eavesdropping device | KRS 526.030 | Class D felony | 1 to 5 years prison and $1,000 to $10,000 fine |
| Possession of an eavesdropping device | KRS 526.040 | Class A misdemeanor | Up to 12 months jail and up to $500 fine |
| Tampering with private communications | KRS 526.050 | Class A misdemeanor | Up to 12 months jail and up to $500 fine |
| Divulging illegally obtained information | KRS 526.060 | Class A misdemeanor | Up to 12 months jail and up to $500 fine |
Sentencing anchors come from outside Chapter 526. Class D felony imprisonment of 1 to 5 years is set by KRS 532.060(2)(d). The Class D felony fine range of $1,000 to $10,000 is set by KRS 534.030(1). Class A misdemeanor jail exposure of up to 12 months and a fine of up to $500 sit at KRS 532.090 and KRS 534.040.
KRS 526.030 reaches a person who intentionally installs or places an eavesdropping device in any place with knowledge that the device is to be used for eavesdropping. The penalty range mirrors KRS 526.020 because the legislature treated the install and the underlying intercept as equally serious.
KRS 526.040 reaches mere possession of a device designed or commonly used for eavesdropping with intent to use it (or knowledge that another intends to use it) for that purpose. Possession is a misdemeanor because the conduct is one step removed from the install or the intercept.
KRS 526.050 covers tampering with private communications. The statute reaches opening or reading sealed mail or sealed private communications without sender or receiver consent, as well as obtaining communication content from common-carrier employees.
KRS 526.060 is the criminal divulging offense. A person who knowingly uses or divulges information obtained through eavesdropping or tampering, or learned in the course of employment with a communications common carrier engaged in transmitting the message, commits a Class A misdemeanor.
KRS 526.070 sets out narrow exceptions. A person is not guilty under Chapter 526 when he inadvertently overhears communications through a regularly installed telephone party line or extension and does not divulge them, or where he is a common-carrier employee acting in the course of employment for a purpose that is a necessary incident to service or to the protection of carrier rights or property. Service observing or random monitoring by carriers is generally barred except for mechanical or service-quality checks.
KRS 526.080 is forfeiture only. Any device designed or commonly used for eavesdropping that is possessed or used in violation of Chapter 526 is forfeited to the state and disposed of under KRS 500.090. KRS 526.080 is not a private cause of action and creates no civil damages remedy. The Civil Lawsuits section below explains what plaintiffs do instead.
Recording Phone Calls in Kentucky (Including Interstate Calls)
If you are participating in a phone call, you can record it under Kentucky law without telling the other party. KRS 526.020 does not reach a party to the conversation, and you do not need to give a beep tone, a recorded disclosure, or any other notice for purely intra-Kentucky calls.
The one-party rule applies the same way to landline calls, mobile calls, and Voice over Internet Protocol services such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet. The medium does not matter; what matters is whether you are a party and whether at least one party has consented.
Federal law mirrors Kentucky's floor. 18 U.S.C. section 2511(2)(d) makes it lawful to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the interceptor is a party or where one party has given prior consent, unless the interception is for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of state or federal law. Kentucky's statutory carve-out tracks the federal text.
Interstate calls are the trap. Federal ECPA does not preempt stricter state law, and a more protective sister state's rule typically governs the call from its end. When a Kentucky caller is on the line with a person sitting in a state that requires all-party consent, the safest course is to obtain consent from every party on the call.
The states that follow an all-party consent rule for at least some recording contexts are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Several of these have nuance (Connecticut splits criminal one-party from civil two-party, Florida and Pennsylvania carve out public places with no expectation of privacy, Oregon distinguishes telephone from in-person), so the safe-harbor practice on cross-border calls is to ask first.
Recording In-Person Conversations in Kentucky
The rule for in-person conversations in Kentucky is the same one-party rule that governs phone calls. If you are part of the conversation, your participation supplies the consent that takes the recording outside KRS 526.020.
Kentucky's definition of "oral communication" in KRS 526.010 imports a justified expectation that the communication is not subject to interception. Conversations on a public sidewalk, in a courthouse hallway, in a public market, or in any other place where a reasonable person would expect to be overheard generally do not carry that expectation. Conversations behind a closed office door, in a private home, in a doctor's exam room, or in a similar enclosed space do.
You can record a meeting you attend at work. You can record a conversation with your landlord, your contractor, your neighbor, your ex, or your insurance adjuster as long as you are present and engaged. You cannot, however, plant a recorder and walk away to capture a conversation between others without consent. That conduct is exactly what KRS 526.020 punishes.
You also cannot record someone in a place where they have a heightened privacy interest even if you are technically present. Bathrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, and intimate spaces of your own home where guests have privacy expectations carry separate exposure under voyeurism and invasion-of-privacy doctrines below.
Hidden Cameras and Video Recording: KRS 531.090 Voyeurism
Kentucky has no general criminal prohibition on video recording in public, and there is no general "hidden camera" statute. There are, however, several criminal statutes that reach hidden video for sexual purposes, and the federal FTC has set practical expectations for cloud-connected cameras.
KRS 531.090 makes voyeurism a Class A misdemeanor. The statute is sexual purpose only. A person is guilty when he or she intentionally uses or causes the use of any camera, videotape, photo-optical, photo-electric, or other image-recording device, or the unaided eye or any device designed to improve visual acuity, or enters or remains unlawfully on premises, for the purpose of observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping the sexual conduct, genitals, an undergarment worn without being publicly visible, or nipple of the female breast of another person without that person's consent, in a place where a reasonable person would believe such would not be observed without his or her knowledge.
KRS 531.090 does not reach ordinary surreptitious video recording in private spaces unless the recording captures sexual content or is taken for sexual gratification. It is not a general "nanny cam" or "hidden camera" statute. A homeowner who places a Ring or similar camera in a kitchen or living area to record arrival and departure times, package thefts, or contractor visits is not on KRS 531.090 ground unless the recording targets the sexual content described in the statute.
KRS 531.100 makes video voyeurism a Class D felony. It adds a for-consideration or distribution element to the underlying KRS 531.090 conduct. A person who intentionally records the sexual content described in KRS 531.090 without consent and uses or divulges any such image for consideration, or distributes any such image by live or recorded visual medium, electronic mail, the internet, or a commercial online service, is guilty of a Class D felony.
KRS 531.120 prohibits the intentional distribution of private erotic matter to a third party without the depicted person's written consent, where the actor acts with intent to profit, or to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce, and the disclosure would cause a reasonable person to suffer harm. A first offense is a Class A misdemeanor; a subsequent offense is a Class D felony; a first offense for profit or gain is a Class D felony, and a subsequent offense for profit is a Class C felony. Subsection (3) requires website, online-service, and mobile-app operators distributing private erotic matter to remove any image upon the depicted person's request and bars any fee for removal.
KRS 531.120 was created by 2018 Ky. Acts ch. 50, sec. 2. The statute does not contain any express AI or synthetic-media language. Whether KRS 531.120 reaches AI-generated or deepfake intimate images is unsettled in Kentucky case law. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act discussed in the AI section below provides the federal overlay for AI-generated NCII.
Cloud-connected camera vendors have separate exposure under federal consumer-protection law. The FTC's May 2023 settlement with Ring required a $5.8 million consumer redress payment plus ongoing privacy-program injunctive relief based on findings that Ring had given employees and contractors broad access to customer video without adequate consent or safeguards. The settlement applies to Kentucky consumers using Ring or similar audio-capable smart cameras and reinforces that audio-capable cameras inside Kentucky homes recording guests or service workers may trigger Kentucky eavesdropping exposure under KRS 526.020 where no party to the conversation consents. The FTC press release sits at ftc.gov.
If you are recording someone's likeness for business, marketing, or commercial use, gather written consent on a photo or video consent form before publication.
Civil Lawsuits for Illegal Recording in Kentucky
Kentucky's eavesdropping chapter contains no statutory civil cause of action. This is the single most important Kentucky-specific finding on this page, and it distinguishes Kentucky from several of its neighbors.
KRS 526.080 governs forfeiture only. The statute provides that any device designed or commonly used for eavesdropping which is possessed or used in violation of Chapter 526 is forfeited to the state and shall be disposed of in accordance with KRS 500.090. KRS 526.080 is not a private right of action and creates no civil damages, attorney-fee, or injunctive remedy. KRS 526.060, the criminal divulging offense, is also not a civil remedy. No section of Chapter 526 supplies a private cause of action.
Several sister states have a statutory civil cause for illegal recording. Tennessee provides $10,000 statutory damages or $100 per day under Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-603. Minnesota provides triple damages or $100 per day or a $10,000 floor under Minn. Stat. section 626A.13. Iowa provides a civil cause under Iowa Code section 808B.3. Kansas provides a $1,000 minimum civil remedy under K.S.A. section 21-6101. Kentucky alone among these neighbors leaves civil plaintiffs to four alternate routes.
The first route is federal ECPA. 18 U.S.C. section 2520 provides a civil cause of action for any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of the federal wiretap chapter. Section 2520 authorizes actual damages or statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $10,000 (whichever is greater), punitive damages in appropriate cases, reasonable attorney's fees, and equitable or declaratory relief. ECPA's civil remedy is the principal damages route for Kentucky plaintiffs because Kentucky has no parallel state remedy.
The second route is common-law invasion of privacy. The Kentucky Supreme Court recognized invasion of privacy as a tort in McCall v. Courier-Journal, 623 S.W.2d 882 (Ky. 1981). McCall imports the Restatement Second's four-branch privacy structure into Kentucky common law: intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light publicity, and appropriation of name or likeness. Plaintiffs harmed by an unlawful audio or video recording typically plead intrusion upon seclusion (the recording itself as a physical or sensory intrusion into a private place or affair) and, where the contents are then circulated, public disclosure of private facts.
The third route, available only for non-consensual intimate imagery, is the platform-removal duty in KRS 531.120(3). The duty is not a damages action; it requires the platform operator to remove a flagged image upon request from the depicted person and bars any fee for removal. The depicted person can pair the takedown demand with common-law invasion of privacy and, after May 19, 2026, the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act.
The fourth route, available only for synthetic-media electioneering communications, is the new section of KRS Chapter 117 created by SB 4 of 2025. Election officers and candidates whose appearance, action, or speech is altered through synthetic media in an electioneering communication may seek injunctive relief and civil damages, with attorney fees and costs available to the prevailing party. The plaintiff must establish use of synthetic media by clear and convincing evidence. The AI section below covers the scope and the burdens.
The takeaway for a Kentucky plaintiff harmed by an unlawful audio recording is to file in federal court under section 2520 and to pair the federal claim with state-law intrusion upon seclusion under McCall. The takeaway for a defendant or for a Kentucky person trying to assess litigation risk is that there is no state-law statutory damages floor; ECPA's $100 per day or $10,000 minimum is the floor that matters in practice.
Recording Police and Public Officials in Kentucky
Kentucky sits in the Sixth Circuit, which covers Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan, and Ohio. The Sixth Circuit has not published a binding decision recognizing a First Amendment right of citizens to record on-duty police in public. Citizens recording police in Kentucky have a stronger position on the merits in light of out-of-circuit consensus, but they should understand the qualified-immunity exposure that comes with the absence of binding circuit precedent.
The closest Sixth Circuit case in point is Crawford v. Geiger, 656 F. App'x 190 (6th Cir. 2016). The panel affirmed denial of qualified immunity to Ohio sheriff's deputies who arrested plaintiffs for recording a police encounter. The decision is unpublished (Federal Appendix) and persuasive only. The opinion resolved a qualified-immunity question in a specific factual context without announcing a circuit-wide First Amendment right to record police, and a later panel is free to disagree. The slip opinion is at opn.ca6.uscourts.gov.
A second Sixth Circuit decision sometimes pulled into this debate is Hils v. Davis, 52 F.4th 997 (6th Cir. 2022). Hils is officer context only. The court held that Cincinnati police officers and their FOP union representative have no First Amendment right to record their own internal misconduct-investigation interviews, looking to text and to the history and tradition of recording governmental investigations. The opinion expressly does not reach citizen recording of police in public, and a Kentucky civilian recording an officer should not let an officer-defendant or an opposing brief recharacterize Hils as a controlling civilian-recording case. The slip opinion is at opn.ca6.uscourts.gov.
Out-of-circuit consensus runs the other way. Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017), Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department, 59 F.4th 674 (4th Cir. 2023), Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017), ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012), Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), and Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000), all recognize a First Amendment interest in recording on-duty police in public, generally subject to reasonable time, place, and manner constraints.
In practice, a Kentucky civilian openly recording police should: stand at a reasonable distance, not interfere with the officer's duties or scene, comply with lawful orders to step back when those orders are not pretextual, avoid trespass to get a better angle, and avoid livestreaming a tactical situation in a way that compromises officer or victim safety. The qualified-immunity risk is real, and a Section 1983 plaintiff with a recording case in Kentucky should expect to argue both the merits and the clearly-established prong.
Body-worn cameras worn by Kentucky law enforcement are governed by KRS 61.168, within the Open Records Act family (KRS 61.870 to 61.884). KRS 61.168 defines "body-worn camera" as a video or audio electronic recording device carried by or worn on the body of a public safety officer (excluding dashboard cameras and clandestine-investigation devices). Subsection (4) provides extensive carve-outs allowing public agencies to elect not to disclose footage from inside private residences, medical facilities, correctional facilities, sexual-nature footage, footage of minors, deceased individuals, witnesses or informants, domestic-violence shelters, and schools subject to FERPA.
Subsection (5) cuts the other way. A Kentucky public agency must disclose body-worn camera footage that depicts use of force, detention or arrest, or the substance of a formal complaint against a public safety officer. Subsection (5)(d) lets persons directly involved in an incident view (but not necessarily copy) the recording on the agency's premises. KRS 61.169 separately governs attorney access to body-worn camera recordings. Public-meetings recording is also generally permitted under the Kentucky Open Meetings Act at KRS 61.805 through 61.850.
Workplace Recording in Kentucky
Kentucky is a one-party consent state for workplace audio. An employee can record a conversation at work as long as the employee is part of the conversation. That covers a one-on-one with a manager, an HR meeting, a performance review, a disciplinary interview, and most coworker exchanges that are not specifically designed to exclude the employee.
The criminal-law one-party rule does not, however, immunize an employer's no-recording policy from federal labor law. Kentucky private-sector employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act have to evaluate workplace recording rules under the National Labor Relations Board framework regardless of how Kentucky's eavesdropping statute reads.
Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), is the binding Board test. A workplace rule is presumptively unlawful under Section 8(a)(1) if a reasonable economically dependent employee contemplating Section 7 protected concerted activity could interpret the rule as chilling those rights. The employer rebuts the presumption only by proving a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be achieved with a more narrowly tailored rule. Blanket no-recording handbook clauses are vulnerable. Narrowly drafted rules tied to confidentiality, safety, HIPAA, or trade-secret interests with carve-outs for Section 7 activity are defensible. Background and reasoning sit at nlrb.gov.
NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) rescinded several Biden-era General Counsel memoranda and reinstated a Boeing or LA Specialty Produce era prosecutorial posture. GC 25-05 narrows the General Counsel's pursuit of certain workplace-rule cases in practice without overruling Stericycle. The Board itself has not vacated Stericycle, and a charging party can still file a Section 8(a)(1) charge against a blanket no-recording rule. Kentucky employers should still draft no-recording policies narrowly.
NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-07 (June 26, 2025) is narrow. It addresses surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions specifically and treats undisclosed recording of a bargaining session as a per se Section 8(a)(5) or (b)(3) violation of the duty to bargain in good faith. GC 25-07 does not govern ordinary workplace handbook rules or one-on-one employee recording. It matters for Kentucky private-sector employers and unions actually engaged in NLRA-covered bargaining; both sides should disclose any recording of bargaining sessions to avoid bad-faith bargaining exposure, even though Kentucky's one-party consent rule would permit the recording for criminal-law purposes.
The bottom line for Kentucky workplaces: state criminal law allows the recording, but a private-sector employer's blanket no-recording rule still has Stericycle exposure, and a private-sector employee terminated for protected concerted recording activity may still have a Section 8(a)(1) claim. Public-sector employees in Kentucky do not get the NLRA overlay; their analogue is whatever the public employer's policy and any applicable collective-bargaining agreement provide.
There is one universal cap on workplace recording: bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and similar enclosed personal spaces are off-limits regardless of consent. Recording in those areas implicates voyeurism statutes and common-law intrusion upon seclusion even where state criminal eavesdropping law would permit a participant to record an audio conversation.
For background on cross-state employer recording rules, see employer recording rules.
Multi-State Recording: When Kentucky Calls Cross State Lines
Federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. section 2511(2)(d) sets the floor for one-party consent. ECPA does not preempt stricter state law. The result is that a Kentucky resident calling someone in a more protective state can find that the more protective state's all-party rule applies to the call from its end.
The all-party-consent states for at least some recording contexts are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. The safe-harbor rule on cross-border calls is simple: when a Kentucky caller is on the line with someone in any of those states, get consent from every party.
Practical examples that come up often. A Kentucky business calling a California consumer should give a clear recording disclosure at the start of the call; California Penal Code section 632 uses an all-party consent rule for confidential communications and a Kentucky one-party recording without disclosure is exposure. A Kentucky lawyer interviewing a witness located in Massachusetts should get express oral consent on the recording itself; Massachusetts is a strict all-party state by statute. A Kentucky journalist calling a source in Florida should ask first because Fla. Stat. section 934.03 is all-party with carve-outs that do not always apply to a phone call.
Federal ECPA's "criminal or tortious purpose" exception in section 2511(2)(d) is a separate trap. Even where every party has consented, an interception made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act is outside the federal one-party safe harbor. A recording made to set up a defamation, an extortion, or a wiretap-tort claim against the other party is the typical fact pattern.
For a fuller cross-state matrix, see the directories of one-party consent states and two-party consent states.
Kentucky Deepfake and AI Recording Laws
Kentucky's first AI-governance enactment is Senate Bill 4 of the 2025 Regular Session. The bill became Acts Chapter 66 of 2025 when Governor Beshear signed it on March 24, 2025. SB 4 carries an emergency declaration and took effect upon passage and approval the same day. Bill text and history sit at apps.legislature.ky.gov; the signed Acts chapter sits at apps.legislature.ky.gov.
SB 4 does two things on different tracks.
The first track is state-government AI governance. SB 4 creates KRS 42.731, which directs the Commonwealth Office of Technology to establish an AI Governance Committee, adopt ISO/IEC 42001 standards, maintain a centralized registry of generative and high-risk AI systems used by state government, develop a centralized approval process for state-agency AI use, mandate human validation of AI outputs, prohibit unexplainable AI in state-government decision-making, require public disclaimers when AI is used to render decisions about citizens, and require impact assessments for high-risk AI before initial use and within 90 days after each significant update.
The state-agency track is significant for state contractors and for Kentucky residents interacting with state agencies, but it is not a private-sector AI rule. A private Kentucky employer using AI for hiring, a Kentucky bank using AI for lending, or a Kentucky media company using AI for content is not directly regulated by KRS 42.731. The track does not create a private cause of action.
The second track is synthetic-media electioneering. SB 4 creates a new section of KRS Chapter 117 that establishes a civil cause of action when an election officer or candidate's appearance, action, or speech is altered through synthetic media in an electioneering communication. The statute authorizes injunctive relief and civil damages against the sponsor of the communication. Attorney fees and costs are available to the prevailing party.
The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing use of synthetic media by clear and convincing evidence. A clear and conspicuous disclosure of the synthetic media that is likely to be noticed by the user is an affirmative defense. The medium that disseminates the communication and its advertising sales representative are generally not liable, except where the medium intentionally removes a disclosure or itself changes the content into synthetic media. Section 230 framing is preserved for online platforms.
The scope is narrow. The synthetic-media civil cause is limited to electioneering communications about election officers and candidates. It does not reach private deepfakes for harassment, fraud, or non-consensual intimate imagery outside the election context. Kentucky has no general state-law deepfake or AI-NCII civil or criminal statute outside SB 4's election track. KRS 531.120, the 2018 NCII statute, does not contain express AI or synthetic-media language and its application to AI-generated imagery is unsettled.
The federal overlay is the TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146, 119th Cong., Pub. L. No. 119-12), signed into law on May 19, 2025. The Act amends Section 223 of the Communications Act to criminalize knowing publication of non-consensual intimate imagery, including AI-generated digital forgeries (deepfakes), of identifiable adults and minors. Covered platforms must implement a notice-and-removal procedure that removes flagged content within 48 hours of valid notice. The criminal prohibition took effect on enactment; the platform compliance deadline is May 19, 2026. As of the date of this update, the platform compliance deadline is days away. The bill text sits at congress.gov.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act preempts nothing in Kentucky's KRS 531.120 or KRS 531.090. It supplements them. A Kentucky victim of AI-generated NCII gains a federal takedown remedy and a federal criminal hook in addition to whatever common-law privacy and KRS 531.120(3) platform-removal claims survive.
The federal robocall side is also worth pinning down. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) holds that AI-generated voices used in robocalls are "artificial or prerecorded voice" for purposes of the TCPA's robocall consent requirements at 47 U.S.C. section 227. Calling parties must obtain prior express written consent before placing AI-voice calls to wireless numbers and to residential lines for marketing. The TCPA private right of action is $500 per violation, with treble damages for willful or knowing violations. The ruling text sits at docs.fcc.gov. FCC 24-17 remains in force; it is not vacated.
The 2023 FCC one-to-one consent rule (FCC 24-24, codified at 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(a)(10)) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025). The mandate issued April 30, 2025, making the vacatur effective on that date. The pre-existing TCPA prior-express-written-consent regime under 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(a)(2)-(3) and (f)(9) governs marketing robocalls and texts to Kentucky numbers.
For a related discussion, see is it illegal to record someone without their consent and the DMCA takedown notice generator.
Federal Overlay: ECPA, FCC, NLRB, HIPAA, and TAKE IT DOWN
The federal overlay matters more in Kentucky than it does in most one-party states because of the absence of a state civil cause of action. Kentucky plaintiffs and defendants both should treat the federal pieces below as primary, not supplementary.
ECPA. The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act at 18 U.S.C. sections 2510 to 2522 sets the one-party consent floor. Section 2511(2)(d) authorizes one-party recording subject to the criminal-or-tortious-purpose exception. Section 2520 supplies the civil cause of action that Kentucky's Chapter 526 lacks: actual damages or statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $10,000 (whichever is greater), punitive damages, attorney fees, and equitable relief. Kentucky plaintiffs in audio-recording cases typically file a section 2520 claim and pair it with a McCall intrusion-upon-seclusion count.
DOJ Justice Manual section 9-7.302. The Justice Manual at justice.gov sets internal procedures for warrantless consensual monitoring by federal agents. It requires prior authorization (typically by a U.S. Attorney or designated supervisor) for federal investigators to consensually monitor or record non-telephone oral communications of a federal officer, employee, or contractor. For ordinary one-party consent recordings, supervisory approval suffices. The Justice Manual is internal DOJ guidance and does not create a private right of action.
FCC 24-17 (in force). AI-generated voice in robocalls is "artificial or prerecorded voice" under TCPA. Federal in force as of the date of this update.
FCC 24-24 (vacated). The one-to-one consent rule was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit on April 30, 2025, and is not in effect.
47 C.F.R. section 64.501 (removed). The historic carrier monitoring-and-recording disclosure rule, which formerly contained the beep-tone disclosure obligation, was removed effective November 20, 2017 by FCC Order, 82 Fed. Reg. 48439 (Oct. 18, 2017). The Federal Register notice sits at federalregister.gov. Pre-2018 commentary citing section 64.501 as imposing a beep-tone or carrier recording-disclosure obligation is stale. The remaining 47 C.F.R. Part 64 Subpart E framework is the residual reference for telephone-recording carrier obligations.
NLRB Stericycle. Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), is the binding Board test for evaluating no-recording rules at NLRA-covered Kentucky private employers. Blanket no-recording handbook clauses are presumptively unlawful.
NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025). General Counsel rescission memo; rescinded several Biden-era memos and reinstated Boeing-era prosecutorial posture. Stericycle remains binding Board precedent.
NLRB GC 25-07 (June 26, 2025). Narrow per se rule treating undisclosed recording of a collective-bargaining session as a Section 8(a)(5) or (b)(3) violation; not a general workplace-rule clarification. The memo sits at nlrb.gov.
TAKE IT DOWN Act. Pub. L. No. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025. Criminalizes knowing publication of non-consensual intimate imagery including AI-generated forgeries; platform 48-hour notice-and-removal regime takes effect May 19, 2026. Kentucky's KRS 531.120 and KRS 531.090 continue to apply alongside the federal regime.
HIPAA. The HIPAA Privacy Rule at 45 C.F.R. Part 164 governs covered entities' use and disclosure of protected health information, including audio and video recordings of patient encounters. Kentucky hospitals, clinics, telehealth providers, and their business associates must comply with HIPAA on top of Kentucky one-party consent for any audio recording during a patient encounter. A patient may record her own visit under one-party consent, but a covered entity recording the patient needs HIPAA-compliant authorization under sections 164.502 and 164.508 unless a treatment, payment, or healthcare-operations exception applies.
Regulation F (FDCPA). Reg F at 12 C.F.R. Part 1006 implements the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Reg F does not impose an affirmative two-party consent requirement, but consumer call recordings used as FDCPA evidence must satisfy the underlying state's consent rule. Kentucky debt collectors operating intra-state need only one party's consent under KRS 526.020 plus federal ECPA. Out-of-state collectors calling Kentucky consumers from a two-party state must comply with the more protective state's rule.
CALEA. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act at 47 U.S.C. sections 1001 to 1010 requires telecommunications carriers and broadband providers to design their networks to enable lawful interception under court order. CALEA does not authorize warrantless interception; it imposes engineering obligations. Kentucky law enforcement obtaining a Title III order or a Kentucky state-court order for lawful interception relies on CALEA-mandated carrier capabilities to execute the order.