EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsLouisiana Laws flagLouisiana Laws
Louisiana flag

Louisiana

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

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of August 9, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed August 26, 202615 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 9, 2026. · 24 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

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

Louisiana is a one-party consent state under La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4). A party to a wire, electronic, or oral communication, or anyone with the prior consent of one party, may record without telling the other participants. Recording without that consent is a felony at hard labor carrying 2 to 10 years and a civil wrong with statutory damages plus punitive damages and attorney fees. Louisiana is also notable for the harshest baseline wiretap criminal penalty among one-party consent states, a broad "injurious act" carveout, and a new notice requirement for wearable eyeglass recording devices such as smart glasses, enacted as Act 965 of the 2026 Regular Session (formerly HB 410), effective August 1, 2026.

Louisiana recording law at a glance

QuestionAnswer
Consent ruleOne-party (La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4))
Main statuteLa. R.S. § 15:1303 (Louisiana Electronic Surveillance Act)
When recording is illegalIntercepting wire, electronic, or oral communication without the consent of at least one party, or with consent but for an injurious purpose
Criminal penalty2 to 10 years at hard labor + fine up to $10,000 (La. R.S. § 15:1303(B))
Civil remedyActual damages (minimum $100/day or $1,000) + punitive damages + attorney fees (La. R.S. § 15:1312)
Hidden cameras / video voyeurismLa. R.S. § 14:283, tiered penalties; lewd/lascivious purpose OR explicit sexual content in a private setting; drones explicitly covered
Recording police in publicProtected under Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017); 25-foot buffer zone (La. R.S. § 14:109) enjoined; Fifth Circuit oral argument June 1, 2026

For deeper analysis of each scenario, see Louisiana recording laws in depth.

Recording in-person conversations in Louisiana

Louisiana's one-party consent rule flows from La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4), part of the Louisiana Electronic Surveillance Act enacted by Acts 1985, No. 859, effective July 23, 1985, and amended through Acts 2012, No. 727. The statute covers wire communications, electronic communications, and oral communications. The oral communication category reaches any utterance by a person with a reasonable expectation of non-interception.

The one-party exception text is direct: a person "not acting under color of law" may intercept a communication where that person is a party or where one party has given prior consent, "unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of the state, or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act." That final phrase, "any other injurious act," is broader than the federal floor at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), which reaches only criminal or tortious conduct. A recording made to blackmail, harass, stalk, or damage someone's reputation can fall within Louisiana's injurious-act carveout even if it does not satisfy every element of a named tort or crime.

The Louisiana Supreme Court confirmed the constitutional soundness of one-party consent recording in State v. Reeves, 427 So.2d 403 (La. 1982), holding that consensual electronic surveillance with the consent of one party does not violate La. Const. art. I, § 5.

Louisiana over-the-shoulder view of two people seated mid-conversation, no faces visible

Recording phone calls in Louisiana

Phone call recording follows the same one-party rule. Under La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4), a Louisiana party to a call may record without notifying the other side. The statute's reach covers landline calls, cell calls, VoIP (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet, FaceTime), and video calls: all fall within "wire, electronic, or oral communication."

For interstate calls, the safer approach is to apply the stricter state's rule. Federal ECPA sets a one-party floor and does not preempt stricter state law. The states that require all-party or context-specific consent 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 nuanced rather than absolute: Connecticut is criminal one-party but imposes civil liability for phone-call recording without all-party consent (C.G.S. § 52-570d); Delaware's all-party rule is civil (11 Del. C. § 1335) while its criminal wiretap statute is one-party (11 Del. C. § 2402(c)(4)); Oregon requires all-party consent for electronic communications but only one-party consent for in-person conversations (ORS 165.540); and Nevada's one-party statute has been read by courts to functionally require all-party consent for phone calls (Lane v. Allstate). A Louisiana caller reaching someone in any of those states should obtain all-party consent before recording. New Orleans hospitality and tourism calls into Florida, and Baton Rouge oil-and-gas calls into California, are common situations where this matters.

Businesses recording Louisiana calls for quality assurance or training purposes can do so under La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4). A verbal announcement before the call or a recorded disclosure during hold is good practice and documents the one-party basis on the record. For interstate calls, disclose by default.

For more detail, see Louisiana Phone Call Recording Laws.

Louisiana desk phone handset lifted slightly off its cradle with a coiled cord

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Louisiana's video voyeurism statute, La. R.S. § 14:283, prohibits using any camera, video device, photo-optical or photo-electric device, or a drone equipped with such a device, to observe, photograph, film, or videotape a person without consent, where the recording is either for a lewd or lascivious purpose or depicts explicit sexual content in a place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Reasonable expectation of privacy is a named element only on the sexual-content path; a lewd-or-lascivious-purpose recording can violate the statute regardless of location. A camera pointed at a driveway or front door generally does not satisfy either path, since it typically involves neither a lewd or lascivious purpose nor sexual content captured in a place of privacy.

The penalty is tiered across four levels:

TierTriggerPenalty
(B)(1) First convictionNo enhancing elementUp to $2,000 + up to 2 years, with or without hard labor
(B)(2) Second or subsequentPrior convictionUp to $2,000 + 6 months to 3 years at hard labor, no parole/probation/suspension
(B)(3) Sexual content depictedSexual intercourse, masturbation, breast, genital, or buttocks exposureUp to $10,000 + 1 to 5 years at hard labor, no parole/probation/suspension
(B)(4) Victim under 17 with sexual intentMinor victim + sexual intentUp to $10,000 + 2 to 10 years at hard labor, no parole/probation/suspension

Sex offender registration is required upon conviction at any tier. A separate statute, La. R.S. § 14:283.1, covers physical voyeurism (peeping without a device): first conviction is a misdemeanor up to $500 and 6 months; a subsequent conviction reaches up to $1,000 and up to 1 year (with or without hard labor).

A Ring doorbell or similar camera covering a public-facing porch, sidewalk, or driveway is generally outside La. R.S. § 14:283 because it has neither a lewd or lascivious purpose nor, for the sexual-content path, a reasonable expectation of privacy. On the audio side, the homeowner is typically a party to conversations on their porch, satisfying one-party consent. Audio captured from a passing pedestrian's private conversation is more contestable; disabling audio on angles that cover public sidewalks is the safest default. For nanny cams, placement in common areas (kitchen, living room) of the owner's home is generally lawful. Placement in a guest bathroom, guest bedroom, or any area where a tenant or worker expects privacy can satisfy La. R.S. § 14:283's elements if lewd purpose is present, and can support an invasion-of-privacy tort claim regardless.

See Louisiana Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws and Louisiana Security Camera Laws for extended treatment.

Louisiana dome security camera in the corner of an office ceiling

Penalties for illegal recording in Louisiana

Louisiana's criminal penalty is the harshest baseline among one-party consent states. La. R.S. § 15:1303(B) imposes "not less than two years nor more than ten years at hard labor" and a fine up to $10,000 for any willful violation of the interception, disclosure, or use prohibitions. Hard labor is mandatory; there is no option to serve the sentence without it. By comparison, Missouri's wiretap offense is a Class E felony (up to 4 years), Oklahoma's reaches up to 5 years, and Arkansas's is only a Class A misdemeanor (1 year).

On the civil side, La. R.S. § 15:1312 provides four recovery layers:

  • Actual damages: No cap; the plaintiff recovers all provable harm.
  • Liquidated damages floor: Actual damages "but not less than" $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater. A one-day violation has a $1,000 floor; a violation running more than 10 days accrues at $100 per day.
  • Punitive damages: Available in appropriate cases.
  • Attorney fees and litigation costs: A prevailing plaintiff recovers reasonable fees as a separate category from costs.

A good-faith reliance on a court order is a complete defense to civil or criminal action. The civil limitations period is not stated in La. R.S. § 15:1312, so Louisiana's general delictual prescription likely governs. That period is now two years under La. C.C. art. 3493.1 for claims arising after July 1, 2024. Art. 3492, the one-year article older guidance still cites, was repealed outright by Acts 2024, No. 423, which applies prospectively only, so a claim that arose before that date is still governed by the former one-year period. Consult a Louisiana attorney for the deadline in your situation.

An illegally intercepted recording also carries consequences beyond the interception itself. Under La. R.S. § 15:1307, the contents of an illegally intercepted wire or oral communication, and any evidence derived from it, cannot be admitted in a Louisiana trial, hearing, or other proceeding. Separately, no one may broadcast, publish, disseminate, or otherwise distribute any part of an illegally intercepted electronic communication, except to a law enforcement investigator. That publication ban has a First Amendment limit for innocent recipients: under Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), a person who did not take part in the illegal interception cannot be held liable for publishing lawfully obtained material on a matter of public concern.

Recording the police in Louisiana

The right to record police in Louisiana rests on Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017), which established that the First Amendment protects filming officers performing their duties in public, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Fifth Circuit covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The right is clearly established post-Turner; qualified immunity will not protect an officer who retaliates against a filmer engaged in lawful recording in public.

Louisiana's 25-foot police buffer zone (La. R.S. § 14:109, created by 2024 La. Act 259 / HB 173, signed by Governor Landry on May 24, 2024) was preliminarily enjoined on January 31, 2025, in Deep South Today, d/b/a Verite News, et al. v. Murrill, No. 3:24-cv-00623-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.). Judge John W. deGravelles held the statute unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment: it provides no standard governing when an officer may order a person to retreat. The First Amendment newsgathering harm appeared in the irreparable-harm analysis, not as the substantive ground. The State appealed; the Fifth Circuit (No. 25-30128) heard oral arguments on June 1, 2026, with the panel appearing divided. As of June 5, 2026, no merits ruling has issued and the preliminary injunction remains in force. The statute is on the books but unenforceable.

Practical limits remain. Filmers should avoid physically interfering with operations, avoid trespassing onto closed scenes, and comply with orders to step back where compliance does not require abandoning the right to film. See Louisiana Laws on Recording Police for extended analysis.

Louisiana wooden gavel on a sound block on a judge's bench

Special topics in Louisiana

Act 965 (2026): smart-glasses notice requirement

HB 410 of the 2026 Regular Session (by Rep. Schlegel) passed both chambers on June 1, 2026 (House concurred 62-27 in Senate amendments) and was enrolled. It became Act 965 without Governor Landry's signature on June 25, 2026, and took effect August 1, 2026, codified at La. R.S. §§ 9:2790.1 through 9:2790.4. The Act creates a civil-only notice requirement that applies only to a person who intentionally uses a wearable eyeglass recording device, such as smart glasses, to video and record or transcribe a direct conversation: all participants must be specifically notified. It does NOT apply to phones, handheld recorders, or other portable devices, and it does NOT amend La. R.S. § 15:1303 or create a criminal offense. Broad exceptions cover law enforcement activity, public or semi-public meetings, first responder activity, public officials performing official duties in public, recording a law enforcement officer performing his duties, and evidence preserved for a civil, administrative, or criminal proceeding or for a public-corruption or malfeasance-in-office matter, as well as recordings made by a participant in his own residence, place of business, or vehicle. A violation is remediable only through a civil action for damages, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees; there is no criminal penalty. See legis.la.gov for the enrolled Act text.

Deepfakes and AI-generated images

Louisiana has one of the harshest deepfake regimes in the country. La. R.S. § 14:73.13 (created by 2023 La. Act 457, effective August 1, 2023) criminalizes deepfake sexual material in three tiers: creating or possessing deepfake sexual material of a minor reaches 5 to 20 years at hard labor; distributing adult deepfake sexual material without consent or distributing minor deepfake sexual material reaches 10 to 30 years at hard labor and up to $50,000 fine. The companion statute, La. R.S. § 14:73.14, covers AI-generated images of identifiable adults in sexually explicit conduct without consent.

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. No. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025), criminalizes nonconsensual intimate imagery including AI-generated deepfakes of identifiable persons and requires covered platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours. The platform compliance deadline was May 19, 2026. The federal Act runs in parallel with Louisiana's state regime; La. R.S. § 14:283.2 (traditional NCII), La. R.S. § 14:73.13, and La. R.S. § 14:73.14 all remain in force.

Workplace recording and NLRB

Louisiana is a one-party consent state, so employees recording their own conversations at work are generally acting lawfully under La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4). For private-sector employers covered by the NLRA, blanket no-recording handbook policies are presumptively unlawful under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023): an employer must show a substantial, legitimate business interest that cannot be achieved with a narrower policy. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) rescinded certain prior General Counsel memoranda but did not overturn the Stericycle Board decision. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 2025) treats surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se Section 8(a)(5) or 8(b)(3) violation; it is narrowly scoped to the bargaining table and does not govern ordinary workplace recording. See Louisiana Workplace Recording Laws.

Body-worn cameras and open meetings

La. R.S. § 40:2551 authorizes law enforcement agencies to use body-worn cameras and requires a written policy on the officer's activation and deactivation of the camera; retention and disclosure of the resulting recordings are governed separately by the Louisiana Public Records Act, discussed below. Coverage is voluntary and agency-by-agency. Camera recordings are subject to the Louisiana Public Records Act, La. R.S. § 44:1 et seq., with law-enforcement investigative carve-outs at La. R.S. § 44:3. The Open Meetings Law at La. R.S. § 42:11 et seq. explicitly allows video or audio recording of any public body proceeding without seeking permission.

Federal overlay: ECPA, FCC, and HIPAA

Federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) sets a one-party floor and does not preempt stricter state law. 18 U.S.C. § 2520 provides a parallel federal civil cause ($100/day or $10,000 minimum, punitive, fees, equitable relief). FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) confirms AI-generated voices are "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA; it remains in force. The FCC's one-to-one consent rule (FCC 23-107) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025). 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017 and is not a live carrier obligation. HIPAA does not prohibit a patient from audio-recording their own provider visit; La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4) governs the patient's recording legality.

  • June 1, 2026: Louisiana HB 410 passed both chambers and was enrolled.
  • June 25, 2026: HB 410 became Act 965 of the 2026 Regular Session without Governor Landry's signature. It creates a civil-only notice requirement for wearable eyeglass recording devices (smart glasses) only, with broad exceptions.
  • August 1, 2026: Act 965 took effect, codified at La. R.S. §§ 9:2790.1-2790.4.
  • May 19, 2026: TAKE IT DOWN Act platform compliance deadline took effect. Covered platforms must remove flagged nonconsensual intimate imagery within 48 hours.
  • June 1, 2026: Fifth Circuit (No. 25-30128) heard oral argument in Verite News v. Murrill on the Louisiana police buffer zone; panel appeared divided. Merits ruling pending; preliminary injunction remains in force as of June 5, 2026.
  • January 31, 2025: Preliminary injunction in Verite News v. Murrill, No. 3:24-cv-00623-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.), blocks enforcement of La. R.S. § 14:109 (25-foot police buffer zone) on Fourteenth Amendment vagueness grounds.
  • August 1, 2023: La. R.S. § 14:73.13 (deepfakes) and La. R.S. § 14:73.14 (AI-generated images) took effect under 2023 La. Act 457.

Louisiana recording laws in depth

Want to know more? The guides below cover specific Louisiana recording-law contexts in depth.

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Louisiana 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 Louisiana attorney.

More Louisiana Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Louisiana is a one-party consent state under La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4). A party to a wire, electronic, or oral communication may record without notifying anyone else. The one-party defense is lost if the recording is made to commit a criminal, tortious, or any other injurious act (language broader than federal ECPA). Louisiana remains one-party. Act 965 of the 2026 Regular Session (formerly HB 410), effective August 1, 2026, adds a separate civil-only notice requirement, but only for wearable eyeglass recording devices such as smart glasses, and does not change the wiretap statute.

Is recording someone without consent in Louisiana a felony?

Yes, when unlawful. La. R.S. § 15:1303(B) makes illegal interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications a felony carrying 2 to 10 years at hard labor and a fine up to $10,000. Hard labor is mandatory upon conviction. This is the harshest baseline wiretap penalty among one-party consent states.

What can I sue for if someone illegally recorded me in Louisiana?

La. R.S. § 15:1312 provides actual damages, a liquidated damages floor of $100 per day or $1,000 (whichever is greater), punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs. Good-faith reliance on a court order is a complete defense. The civil limitations period is not defined in the statute; Louisiana's general delictual prescription likely applies, which La. C.C. art. 3493.1 now sets at two years for claims arising after July 1, 2024. The one-year art. 3492 was repealed by Acts 2024, No. 423.

Is the Louisiana 25-foot police buffer zone currently in effect?

No. La. R.S. § 14:109 was preliminarily enjoined on January 31, 2025 by Judge deGravelles in Verite News v. Murrill (M.D. La.) on Fourteenth Amendment vagueness grounds. The State's Fifth Circuit appeal is pending; the statute is on the books but unenforceable statewide.

Can I legally film a police officer during a Louisiana traffic stop?

Yes, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Fifth Circuit held in Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017), that the First Amendment protects filming officers performing their duties in public. The 25-foot buffer zone law is currently enjoined and unenforceable. Avoid physically interfering with police operations and obey lawful orders to step back where those orders do not require giving up the right to film.

Will Louisiana become a two-party or notice-required state because of HB 410?

No. HB 410 became Act 965 of the 2026 Regular Session, effective August 1, 2026. It creates a civil-only notice requirement, but only for a person who uses a wearable eyeglass recording device (smart glasses) to record a direct conversation, with broad exceptions; it does not amend La. R.S. § 15:1303 and does not create a criminal offense. Louisiana remains a one-party consent state for purposes of the wiretap statute, and ordinary phone or handheld-recorder use is not covered by Act 965.

Can I record my boss or an HR meeting in Louisiana without telling them?

Under Louisiana criminal law, yes, if you are a participant in the meeting. La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4) authorizes recording by a party to the conversation. Two cautions: your employer's internal no-recording policy may result in discipline even if the recording is lawful, and under NLRB Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), blanket no-recording rules are presumptively unlawful for NLRA-covered employers but a narrowly tailored rule can be enforced.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Louisiana?

Generally yes. A Ring camera covering a public-facing porch or driveway does not satisfy La. R.S. § 14:283's reasonable-expectation-of-privacy and lewd-or-lascivious-purpose elements. A nanny cam in a common area of the owner's home is generally lawful. Cameras in bathrooms, guest bedrooms, or other private areas can violate La. R.S. § 14:283 if a lewd purpose is present and support an invasion-of-privacy tort claim regardless.

Updates

Corrected the enactment credit for the Louisiana Electronic Surveillance Act to Acts 1985, No. 859 (effective July 23, 1985), as amended through Acts 2012, No. 727, and fixed the docket number for Verite News v. Murrill in the changelog to No. 3:24-cv-00623-JWD-SDJ so it matches the court order and the rest of the page.

Updated Louisiana's smart-glasses recording-notice law (HB 410) from pending to enacted: it became Act 965, effective August 1, 2026, and applies only to wearable eyeglass recording devices such as smart glasses, not phones or other recorders as the page previously said. Also fixed two Public Records Act citation links that pointed to unrelated statutes and corrected a federal FCC docket citation.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Corrected the La. R.S. 40:2551 body-worn-camera claim: the statute's own text requires only an activation/deactivation policy, not retention or disclosure (those are covered separately by the Public Records Act, already cited on the page); also fixed the citation's dead legis.la.gov document-ID link.

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Restructured page for readability: condensed 8,000-word dense text into core sections (in-person, phone, hidden cameras, penalties, police, special topics), retained every verified statute and case, added at-a-glance table and in-depth links index. KEY CORRECTION: Updated HB 410 status. The bill passed both chambers June 1, 2026 (enrolled, signed by Speaker, 62-27 House concurrence in Senate amendments) and is now awaiting the Governor's signature; the prior page described it as 'pending only / not yet enacted.' HB 410 creates a civil-only notice requirement for in-person recording separate from La. R.S. 15:1303 and does NOT make Louisiana a two-party consent state. All other load-bearing facts verified against primary sources: La. R.S. 15:1303(B) (2 to 10 years at hard labor + $10,000 confirmed), 15:1303(C)(4) injurious-act carveout confirmed, 15:1312 civil floor confirmed, 14:283 four-tier schedule confirmed (B)(1)-(B)(4), Verite News v. Murrill injunction still in force and Fifth Circuit appeal still pending.

Refreshed for 2026 with a Louisiana-first audit. Anchored La. R.S. 15:1303(G) at 2 to 10 years at hard labor plus a fine up to $10,000, the harshest baseline wiretap penalty among one-party consent states. Quoted La. R.S. 15:1303(C)(4) verbatim and explained that Louisiana's carveout reaches a 'criminal,' 'tortious,' OR 'any other injurious act,' broader than the federal floor at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). Restated La. R.S. 15:1312 civil floor precisely: actual damages but not less than liquidated damages of $100 per day OR $1,000, whichever is greater, plus punitive damages, plus reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs, with good-faith reliance on a court order as a complete defense. Presented La. R.S. 14:283 video voyeurism in all four (B)(1) through (B)(4) penalty tiers with element triggers; kept La. R.S. 14:283.1 voyeurism and La. R.S. 14:283.2 NCII as distinct offense families. Added a dedicated H2 for La. R.S. 14:108.4 (2024 La. Act 259 / HB 173, the 25-foot police buffer zone) and corrected the prior baseline 'Reynolds v. New Orleans Police' caption, which was fabricated. The verified case is Deep South Today, d/b/a Verite News, et al. v. Murrill, No. 3:24-cv-00591 (M.D. La. Jan. 31, 2025), Judge John W. deGravelles, with plaintiffs Deep South Today (Verite News), TEGNA Inc., Scripps Media Inc., Nexstar Media Inc., Gray Local Media, Inc., and Gannett Co., and defendants Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, Louisiana State Police Superintendent Robert Hodges, and East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Hillar C. Moore III. The preliminary injunction rests on Fourteenth Amendment vagueness primarily; First Amendment newsgathering harm appears in the irreparable-harm analysis only. The State filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in early March 2025; as of May 10, 2026, the Fifth Circuit has not issued a published merits ruling, and the preliminary injunction remains in force. Documented 2023 La. Act 457 (SB 175 of 2023 Regular Session), signed by Governor John Bel Edwards on June 28, 2023, effective August 1, 2023, codifying La. R.S. 14:73.13 (deepfakes, three offense tiers culminating at 10 to 30 years at hard labor and a fine up to $50,000) and La. R.S. 14:73.14 (AI-generated images of identifiable adults). Flagged HB 410 (2026 Regular Session, by Rep. Schlegel) as pending only, not enacted; verified against legis.la.gov. Added Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017), as the controlling Fifth Circuit record-the-police precedent. Anchored State v. Reeves, 427 So.2d 403 (La. 1982), as the Louisiana Supreme Court constitutional anchor for one-party consent (reporter cite only). Reframed NLRB General Counsel Memorandum 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) as a housekeeping rescission of prior General Counsel memoranda, not a Boeing-era reinstatement at the Board level; Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), remains binding Board precedent. Added TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. No. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025), with platform 48-hour notice-and-takedown effective May 19, 2026 (9 days from this verification date). Confirmed FCC 24-17 in force, FCC 24-24 vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025), mandate issued April 30, 2025, and 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 removed effective November 20, 2017. Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with legis.la.gov, lasc.org, ca5.uscourts.gov, uscode.house.gov, fcc.gov, and nlrb.gov. Future refreshes should re-check ca5.uscourts.gov, legis.la.gov, and the RCFP litigation tracker for any post-May-2026 disposition of Verite News v. Murrill and any change to HB 410's status.

Refreshed for 2026 with a Louisiana-first audit. Anchored La. R.S. 15:1303(B) at 2 to 10 years at hard labor plus a fine up to $10,000. Quoted La. R.S. 15:1303(C)(4) verbatim including the injurious-act carveout. Restated La. R.S. 15:1312 civil floor. Presented La. R.S. 14:283 in all four (B)(1) through (B)(4) penalty tiers. Added a dedicated H2 for La. R.S. 14:109 (2024 La. Act 259 / HB 173, the 25-foot police buffer zone) and documented Verite News v. Murrill, No. 3:24-cv-00623-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La. Jan. 31, 2025). Documented 2023 La. Act 457 (La. R.S. 14:73.13 deepfakes and La. R.S. 14:73.14 AI-generated images). Flagged HB 410 as pending only at that date. Added Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017), State v. Reeves, 427 So.2d 403 (La. 1982), Stericycle NLRB precedent, and TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. No. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025).

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

Sources and References

  1. legis.la.gov.gov
  2. legis.la.gov.gov
  3. legis.la.gov.gov
  4. legis.la.gov.gov
  5. legis.la.gov.gov
  6. legis.la.gov.gov
  7. legis.la.gov.gov
  8. legis.la.gov.gov
  9. legis.la.gov.gov
  10. legis.la.gov.gov
  11. La. R.S. 40:2551 - Use of Body-Worn Cameras (Louisiana State Legislature)(legis.la.gov).gov
  12. La. R.S. 44:1 - Public Records, General Definitions(legis.la.gov).gov
  13. legis.la.gov.gov
  14. rcfp.org
  15. ca5.uscourts.gov.gov
  16. uscode.house.gov.gov
  17. nlrb.gov.gov
  18. nlrb.gov.gov
  19. nlrb.gov.gov
  20. congress.gov.gov
  21. docs.fcc.gov.gov
  22. media.ca11.uscourts.gov.gov
  23. ecfr.gov.gov
  24. justice.gov.gov
  25. legis.la.gov.gov
  26. Deep South Today d/b/a Verite News v. Murrill, Civil Action No. 24-623-JWD-SDJ, Ruling and Order (M.D. La. Jan. 31, 2025) (preliminary injunction against La. R.S. 14:109)(rcfp.org)
Share: