Maine Recording Laws (2026): 15 M.R.S. § 710 + § 511

September 30, 2017Updated May 16, 202656 min read

Maine is a one-party consent state. Under 15 M.R.S. § 710, you may lawfully record a phone call or in-person conversation if you are a party to that conversation, or if at least one party has given prior consent. The doctrinal hook is the definition of "oral communication" at 15 M.R.S. § 709(4), which requires the speaker to exhibit a "justified expectation" that the communication is not subject to interception. A participant has not "intercepted" a protected communication, because the speaker exhibited no such expectation against that participant.

Maine layers a second statute on top of that general rule. Under 17-A M.R.S. § 511(1)(B), recording inside a "private place" (a bathroom, locker room, changing room, bedroom, or any place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from surveillance) requires the consent of every person entitled to privacy in that place, even if you are a participant in the conversation. Violation of privacy is a Class D crime, up to 364 days and $2,000. This dual-regime structure is the Maine moat: every recording question in this state asks two questions, not one.

This page is the Maine recording-law hub on RecordingLaw.com. It walks through the controlling statutes (definitions at 15 M.R.S. § 709, the criminal offense at § 710, exceptions at § 712, the civil remedy at § 711, the private-place all-party rule at 17-A M.R.S. § 511, and the deepfake-amended NCII statute at § 511-A), the leading First Circuit authority that controls Maine federal courts, criminal and civil penalties, federal overlays, workplace and police-recording rules, and Maine's 2025 AI statutes. For state-by-state context, see the full list of one-party consent states and the counter-list of all-party consent states.

Maine is a one-party consent state. Under 15 M.R.S. § 710 read with the "expectation" element in the definition of "oral communication" at 15 M.R.S. § 709(4), a single party's consent satisfies the statute for wire and oral communications generally. If you are part of the conversation, you may record it without telling the other person. Federal ECPA preemption under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) supplies the same one-party result for wire communications and confirms Maine's parallel federal floor.

The defining caveat is 17-A M.R.S. § 511. The Violation of Privacy statute imposes an all-party rule whenever the recording occurs inside a "private place." That phrase covers bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, bedrooms, and other places where a person reasonably expects to be safe from surveillance. Inside such a place, even a participant in the conversation may not record other persons present without their consent. The penalty is a Class D crime, up to 364 days and a $2,000 fine.

Scenario	Maine Rule
Recording a phone call you are part of	Lawful (one-party consent under 15 M.R.S. § 710)
Recording an in-person conversation in public as a participant	Lawful (one-party consent under 15 M.R.S. § 710)
Recording a conversation you are not part of without any party's consent	Class C crime under 15 M.R.S. § 710(1)
Selling or transferring an interception device	Class B crime under 15 M.R.S. § 710(6)
Recording inside a bathroom, locker room, or bedroom without all-party consent	Class D crime under 17-A M.R.S. § 511(1)(B)
AI-generated intimate imagery distributed without consent	Class D crime under 17-A M.R.S. § 511-A (post-LD 1944)
Open or secret audio recording of on-duty police in public	Constitutionally protected under Glik and Project Veritas Action Fund

Legal information, not legal advice. This page provides general educational content about Maine recording law. Whether the participant-consent rule applies depends on the facts, and other statutes (Violation of Privacy, NCII distribution, civil invasion of privacy) may apply even where the wiretap chapter does not. Talk to a licensed Maine attorney before recording any conversation that may have legal consequences.

Compact black handheld voice recorder beside a leather portfolio on a white desk, illustrating one-party recording under 15 M.R.S. section 710

Maine's Recording Statute: 15 M.R.S. §§ 709 to 712 Explained

Maine's wiretapping and electronic surveillance regime sits in Title 15, Chapter 102 of the Maine Revised Statutes. The chapter has a tight four-section structure: definitions at § 709, the criminal offense at § 710, the civil cause of action at § 711, and a narrow set of exceptions at § 712. Two more sections at § 713 and § 714 handle reporting and severability.

The single most important fact for readers is that chapter 102 contains no express party-consent exception in § 710. Maine's one-party rule for participant recording is not a written exception; it flows from how the statute defines what counts as an "oral communication" in the first place.

The "Oral Communication" Definition (15 M.R.S. § 709(4))

Section 709(4) defines "oral communication" as "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but the term does not include any electronic communication." That language is doctrinally load-bearing. A speaker who is talking to a participant has, by speaking to that participant, exhibited no "justified expectation" of non-interception against the participant. The participant's recording therefore does not "intercept" a protected oral communication, and § 710 is not triggered.

That same definitional approach is how every Title III state reaches a one-party result without writing a written exception into the criminal statute. The federal one-party rule under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) provides the parallel result for wire communications and travels with the federal preemption, conditioned on the recording not being made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.

The practical takeaway: a participant who records is not committing a Maine wiretap crime under § 710, full stop. The risk shifts to the second statute family, 17-A M.R.S. § 511, only when the recording occurs inside a private place.

The Criminal Offense (15 M.R.S. § 710)

Section 710 is the criminal interception statute. It contains six numbered offenses. Subsections (1), (2), (3), and (5) are all Class C crimes; subsection (6) is the only Class B offense in the chapter.

§ 710(1): Intentionally or knowingly intercepting, attempting to intercept, or procuring another person to intercept any wire or oral communication, except as authorized by chapter 102 of Title 15 or chapter 705 of Title 25. Class C crime.
§ 710(2): Editing, altering, or tampering with a recording for use in a judicial or sworn proceeding without disclosure. Class C crime.
§ 710(3): Disclosing or using information known to have been obtained through unlawful interception. Class C crime.
§ 710(4): Civil penalty up to $5,000 against a common carrier that fails to report a violation.
§ 710(5): Possession of an intercepting device outside the authorized-personnel exception. Class C crime.
§ 710(6): Selling, exchanging, delivering, bartering, gifting, or possessing-with-intent-to-sell any device "designed or commonly used for intercepting wire or oral communications." Class B crime.

A Class C crime in Maine carries up to 5 years imprisonment and up to a $5,000 fine under 17-A M.R.S. § 1604(1)(C). A Class B crime carries up to 10 years and up to a $20,000 fine. Class B sits one tier below the most serious general-felony tier (Class A) in Maine's classification scheme.

The device-sale offense under § 710(6) is the only Class B in chapter 102. It is not § 711. This page corrects a recurring drafting error: § 711 is the civil remedy, not the device-sale criminal statute. Any source that cites § 711 as the device-sale Class B felony is wrong.

The Civil Remedy (15 M.R.S. § 711)

Section 711 creates a civil cause of action for any party to a conversation intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of chapter 102. The statutory remedy reads:

"Any party to a conversation intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses such communications and shall be entitled to recover from any such person: 1. Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages, computed at the rate of $100 per day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher; and 2. A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation disbursements reasonably incurred."

The damages floor is the greater of $100 per day or $1,000, plus actual damages on top. Attorney's fees and other litigation disbursements are recoverable. Chapter 102 does not include a punitive-damages provision, but Maine common-law punitive doctrine could apply in a fact pattern where independent malice is shown.

The chapter does not specify its own statute of limitations. Maine's general civil limitations period under 14 M.R.S. § 752 (six years) is the conservative default; check with counsel before filing.

The Exceptions (15 M.R.S. § 712)

Section 712 carves out a narrow set of exceptions: common-carrier interception in the ordinary course of business, Department of Corrections facility monitoring, and county jail interception with appropriate notice. Section 712 is not where Maine's one-party participant rule lives; the participant rule flows from the § 709(4) "expectation" element described above.

Brass padlock resting on a sealed manila envelope on a marble surface, illustrating the all-party consent rule for private places under 17-A M.R.S. section 511

The Maine Quirk: Private-Place All-Party Rule (17-A M.R.S. § 511)

This is the section that distinguishes Maine from a pure one-party state. The Violation of Privacy statute at 17-A M.R.S. § 511 sits in Maine's criminal code (Title 17-A), not in the wiretap chapter. It operates in parallel with chapter 102 and reaches conduct that chapter 102 would let pass.

Section 511(1) lists four classes of prohibited conduct, each a Class D crime:

§ 511(1)(A): Civil trespass on property with the intent to overhear or observe a person in a private place.
§ 511(1)(B): Installing or using, in a private place, any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events in that place "without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place."
§ 511(1)(C): Installing or using, outside a private place, any device for hearing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds originating in that place that would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible outside that place, without the consent of the persons entitled to privacy.
§ 511(1)(D): Engaging in visual surveillance in a public place by means of mechanical or electronic equipment with the intent to observe, photograph, record, broadcast, or otherwise display the body of another person beneath the clothing of that other person without consent. This is the "upskirt" prohibition.

The structure matters. Subsection 1(B) is the all-party private-place rule for inside-the-place recording. Subsection 1(C) reaches outside-in surveillance that captures sounds or images that would not be audible from outside the private place. Subsection 1(D) is the upskirt-style imaging prohibition in public.

A Class D crime in Maine carries up to 364 days incarceration and up to a $2,000 fine under 17-A M.R.S. § 1604(1)(D).

What Counts as a "Private Place"?

Maine's private-place definition is in 17-A M.R.S. § 511(2). It defines a "private place" as "a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from surveillance, including, but not limited to, changing or dressing rooms, bathrooms and similar places." The "including, but not limited to" framing is consequential: courts look to the reasonable-expectation question, not just to a closed list of place names.

In practice, Maine readers should treat as private places: residential bathrooms, residential bedrooms, locker rooms (gym, school, workplace), changing rooms (retail, gym, theatrical), private medical examination rooms, and private workplace offices when the door is closed and the speakers have indicated a privacy expectation. A grocery aisle, a sidewalk, and a workplace common area are not private places.

"All-Party" Means Every Person Entitled to Privacy, Not Every Conversational Participant

This is a precision point. Section 511(1)(B) requires the consent of "the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place." That phrasing does not match a count of conversational participants in the way "two-party consent" implies. It matches a count of every person whose privacy interest the statute protects in that physical space.

Practical example: in a four-person bathroom conversation, four privacy interests must consent under § 511 before the recording is lawful. If only three consent and the fourth does not, the recording is a Class D crime against the non-consenting fourth person, even if the recorder is a participant in the conversation.

The upshot is that the standard "two-party consent" shorthand undersells the rule. The correct phrasing is "all-party consent of every person entitled to privacy in the private place." This page uses that precise framing throughout.

Section 511 Does Not Reach Public-Place Recording

A common mistake is to treat 17-A M.R.S. § 511 as a general all-party recording statute. It is not. It is a private-place surveillance statute. Recording in a coffee shop, on a sidewalk, in a workplace common area, or on Boston Common is not a § 511 crime, because none of those places is a private place. The general one-party rule under 15 M.R.S. § 710 governs those settings.

Wooden gavel resting across a sound block on a polished judges bench, illustrating Class C and Class D criminal penalties under Maine recording law

Penalties for Illegal Recording in Maine

Maine's penalty structure spans three statute families (chapter 102 audio interception, 17-A § 511 violation of privacy, and 17-A § 511-A NCII), with criminal classes ranging from Class B to Class D and a separate civil remedy under 15 M.R.S. § 711.

Criminal Penalties

Statute	Conduct	Class	Maximum Prison	Maximum Fine
15 M.R.S. § 710(1)	Intentional or knowing interception of wire or oral communication	Class C	5 years	$5,000
15 M.R.S. § 710(2)	Editing or tampering with a recording for use in proceedings	Class C	5 years	$5,000
15 M.R.S. § 710(3)	Disclosing or using unlawfully intercepted contents	Class C	5 years	$5,000
15 M.R.S. § 710(4)	Common-carrier failure to report violations	Civil penalty	None	Up to $5,000
15 M.R.S. § 710(5)	Possession of an intercepting device outside the authorized-personnel exception	Class C	5 years	$5,000
15 M.R.S. § 710(6)	Sale, transfer, or possession-with-intent-to-sell of an intercepting device	Class B	10 years	$20,000
17-A M.R.S. § 511(1)(B)	Recording in a private place without consent of every person entitled to privacy	Class D	364 days	$2,000
17-A M.R.S. § 511(1)(C)	Outside-in surveillance capturing inside-only sounds or images	Class D	364 days	$2,000
17-A M.R.S. § 511(1)(D)	Surreptitious "upskirt" imaging in public	Class D	364 days	$2,000
17-A M.R.S. § 511-A	Unauthorized dissemination of certain private images (post-LD 1944, includes AI-generated and deepfake imagery)	Class D	364 days	$2,000

Class C crimes are sentenced under 17-A M.R.S. § 1604(1)(C) (up to 5 years) and § 1704 (up to $5,000 fine). Class B sits at § 1604(1)(B) (up to 10 years) and § 1704 (up to $20,000). Class D is sentenced under § 1604(1)(D) (up to 364 days) and § 1704 (up to $2,000).

Civil Remedy under 15 M.R.S. § 711

Section 711 gives any party to a conversation intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of chapter 102 a civil cause of action. Recoverable damages are:

Actual damages, with a liquidated-damages floor of $100 per day for each day of violation OR $1,000, whichever is higher.
Reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation disbursements reasonably incurred.

There is no statutory ceiling on actual damages. Chapter 102 does not include a punitive-damages provision, but Maine common-law punitive doctrine could apply where independent malice is shown.

Two recurring drafting errors to flag:

§ 711 is not the device-sale Class B felony statute. It is the civil remedy. The device-sale offense is § 710(6).
The damages floor is the greater of $100/day or $1,000, not "$100/day only." A short violation of two days still carries the $1,000 statutory minimum.

Maine Supreme Judicial Court Authority

Maine has no controlling Supreme Judicial Court interpretation of 15 M.R.S. § 710 or 17-A M.R.S. § 511 that we have located in primary research as of May 2026. The statutory text and the First Circuit federal authority discussed below are the principal sources of doctrine for both statutes. If you are litigating a Maine recording case, search courts.maine.gov for the most current state-court decisions before relying on any secondary characterization.

Vintage black rotary telephone with the handset off the hook on polished mahogany, illustrating wire communication recording under 15 M.R.S. section 710

Phone Calls vs In-Person Recording in Maine

Maine treats phone calls (wire communications) and in-person oral conversations on parallel one-party tracks under 15 M.R.S. § 710, but the analytical path is slightly different in each setting.

Phone Calls and Other Wire Communications

Phone calls fall under "wire communication" in 15 M.R.S. § 709(2). The one-party result for wire communications is doctrinally the same as for oral communications, but it is reinforced by federal ECPA preemption under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d): for any wire interception, federal law sets a one-party floor that Maine cannot lower.

You may lawfully record:

A landline call you are participating in.
A mobile call you are participating in.
A VoIP call (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet, FaceTime audio) you are participating in.
A video call you are participating in (the audio component is a wire communication; the video component is governed separately by 17-A M.R.S. § 511 if the camera reaches a private place).
A conference call where any one participant has consented to your recording, even if you are not yourself a participant.

You may not lawfully record:

A phone call you are not participating in, where no party has consented (textbook § 710(1) Class C interception).
A spouse's phone calls with third parties recorded by placing a device on the home line or on a shared device, where you are not a participant in those calls.
Calls intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act, even if a participant consents; the federal ECPA condition under § 2511(2)(d) strips the one-party preemption in that scenario.

In-Person Oral Conversations

In-person conversations are "oral communications" under 15 M.R.S. § 709(4). The participant rule applies the same way: a participant who records has not "intercepted" a protected communication, because the speaker exhibited no expectation of non-interception against the participant.

The critical second question for in-person recording is the place. If the conversation occurs:

In a public setting (sidewalk, restaurant, park, store, government building lobby), recording is lawful under 15 M.R.S. § 710 with one party's consent.
In a workplace common area (open office floor, hallway, break room with the door open), recording is lawful under 15 M.R.S. § 710 with one party's consent.
In a "private place" under 17-A M.R.S. § 511 (bathroom, locker room, changing room, bedroom), all-party consent of every person entitled to privacy is required even if you are a participant.

The place test is independent of the participant-consent test. A participant in a bathroom conversation may not record the other persons present without their consent, even though that same recording would be lawful in a public setting.

Interstate Calls: When Maine Calls the Other State

If you are in Maine calling someone in a stricter consent state, the conservative analysis is that the stricter state's law governs the call. The case law on conflict-of-laws for wiretap statutes is not uniform, but plaintiff-friendly decisions in stricter states (notably California, Florida, and Massachusetts) have applied the stricter rule when the call touches the stricter state.

Practical guidance for Maine residents:

Calling Massachusetts: Massachusetts is an all-party state under M.G.L. c. 272 § 99. Inform the other party or get explicit consent.
Calling New Hampshire: New Hampshire is an all-party state under RSA 570-A:2. Inform or get consent.
Calling California: California requires all-party consent for "confidential communications" under Cal. Penal Code § 632. Inform or get consent.
Calling Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Montana, Pennsylvania, Washington: Each has an all-party rule under its own statute. Inform or get consent.

The safe-harbor approach is to start every interstate call with a brief notice ("for accuracy, I am recording this call") and proceed only if no party objects.

Closed laptop with a small adhesive webcam cover slider visible on the bezel on a wooden desk, illustrating hidden camera and surveillance limits under 17-A M.R.S. section 511

Hidden Cameras and Video Recording in Maine

Maine's video-recording rules sit primarily under 17-A M.R.S. § 511. Audio capture by a video device is a separate question governed by 15 M.R.S. § 710.

Video in Public Places

Maine has no general prohibition on video recording in public places. You may lawfully:

Film on public streets, parks, sidewalks, and beaches.
Record public meetings and government proceedings (subject to procedural rules).
Use dashcams in your vehicle.
Film public protests, demonstrations, and sporting events.
Record public-facing portions of government buildings open to the public.

The one significant public-place exception is § 511(1)(D), the upskirt prohibition. Visual surveillance "by means of mechanical or electronic equipment" that captures the body of another person beneath that person's clothing without consent is a Class D crime, even in a public place.

Video in Private Places

Video recording inside a private place under § 511(1)(B) requires the consent of every person entitled to privacy in that place. The statute does not distinguish between audio-capable and silent video; a silent camera in a bathroom is still a violation.

Common Maine fact patterns:

A landlord who installs a hidden camera in a tenant's bathroom commits a Class D crime under § 511(1)(B), regardless of whether the camera also captures audio.
A nanny cam in a guest bedroom or bathroom can trigger § 511(1)(B) liability against bystanders (visiting family members, guests) who have not consented.
A workplace surveillance camera in an open office or break room is generally permissible. A camera in a locker room, changing area, or single-occupant restroom is not.
An audio-capable doorbell camera (Ring, Nest, Wyze) recording bystander conversations on the porch may layer 15 M.R.S. § 710 exposure if no party to the captured conversation consents and the recording is later disclosed or used.

For more on hidden-camera and unauthorized video issues, see our hub on whether it is illegal to video-record someone without their consent.

Audio with Video: Two Statutes Apply

A camera that captures both audio and video reaches both statute families. Maine 15 M.R.S. § 710 governs the audio component (one-party participant rule); 17-A M.R.S. § 511 governs whatever piece of the recording occurs in a private place (all-party rule). A doorbell camera capturing audio of a delivery driver and a homeowner conversation on the porch is lawful audio under § 710 if the homeowner consents; the same recording inside a bathroom would be a Class D crime under § 511(1)(B) regardless of the homeowner's consent.

Empty wood-paneled witness stand with a gooseneck microphone in a courtroom, illustrating First Circuit precedent in Glik and Project Veritas Action Fund

Recording the Police in Maine: Glik, Project Veritas Action Fund, and the First Circuit

Maine sits in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which controls every federal court in Maine. Two First Circuit decisions, taken together, give Maine the strongest record-the-police posture in the country.

Glik v. Cunniffe (1st Cir. 2011): Open Recording Is Protected

In Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), Simon Glik openly used his cell phone to record three Boston police officers arresting a man on Boston Common. The officers arrested Glik under the Massachusetts wiretap statute (M.G.L. c. 272 § 99). Glik sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation and false arrest.

The First Circuit held that "the First Amendment protects the right to openly record government officials, including law enforcement officers, performing their duties in a public space." The court called the right "fundamental and virtually self-evident" and clearly established at the time of Glik's arrest, defeating qualified immunity for the arresting officers. The City of Boston later settled Glik's civil claim for $170,000 in 2012.

Glik arose under the Massachusetts wiretap statute, but it is binding First Circuit precedent. Within the First Circuit (Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico), Glik controls the constitutional question whether a citizen openly recording police in public is protected by the First Amendment. The answer is yes.

Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins (1st Cir. 2020): Secret Recording Is Also Protected

Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020), extended Glik. The First Circuit held that the Massachusetts wiretap statute violated the First Amendment as applied to the secret audio recording of government officials (including police officers) performing their duties in public spaces.

The plaintiffs in Project Veritas Action Fund argued that Glik's open-recording right would be illusory if officers retained discretion to police whether the recording was open or secret. The First Circuit agreed. The court reasoned that the public-officer category and the public-space context together made the surreptitiousness of the recording constitutionally irrelevant.

Project Veritas Action Fund is additive to Glik. Glik covers open recording; Project Veritas Action Fund extends to secret audio recording in the same narrow context. Together, they mean a Maine citizen may openly or secretly record on-duty police officers performing public duties in public, and Maine's chapter 102 may not be applied to prosecute that recording.

Practical Limits on Police Recording in Maine

The First Amendment right is robust but not unlimited. Maine officers may still:

Order you to step back to a reasonable distance for officer safety.
Order you to stop interfering with an arrest, traffic stop, or scene control.
Enforce neutral time, place, and manner restrictions.
Detain or arrest you on independent probable cause unrelated to the recording (trespass, obstruction, disorderly conduct).

What Maine officers may not do:

Confiscate or demand to view your phone or recording device without a warrant.
Order you to delete a recording.
Arrest you under chapter 102 for the act of recording itself.
Pretextually invoke obstruction or disorderly conduct charges to silence the recording (the post-Glik qualified-immunity calculus runs against the officers).

If you are recording an interaction with Maine police, the safest posture is to stand at a reasonable distance, do not interrupt, comply with lawful orders to move, and continue recording. If officers attempt to seize your device, request a warrant calmly and do not physically resist.

Body-Cam Footage as a Public Record

Police-recorded footage of the same encounter is generally a public record under the Maine Freedom of Access Act, 1 M.R.S. § 402 et seq., subject to law-enforcement, investigative, personnel, and personal-privacy exemptions. See the body-camera section below for the procedural request path.

Glass-walled corporate conference room with blurred figures behind translucent doors, illustrating NLRB Stericycle limits on no-recording rules in the workplace

Workplace Recording in Maine: NLRA, Stericycle, and the Bargaining-Session Limit

Maine has no general statutory employer-notice requirement for one-party recording of phone or electronic conversations. 15 M.R.S. § 710 lets a Maine worker or supervisor who is a party to a phone or in-person conversation record it without informing the others. But three federal-law overlays significantly constrain how Maine private-sector employers can ban such recording, and one of them constrains how Maine employers and unions can record bargaining sessions.

NLRB Stericycle (2023): No-Recording Rules Are Presumptively Unlawful

In Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), the National Labor Relations Board replaced the prior Boeing / LA Specialty Produce framework with a new test: an employer work rule is presumptively unlawful under Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA if a reasonable, economically dependent employee could interpret it to chill protected concerted activity under Section 7. Once the rule is presumptively unlawful, the burden shifts to the employer to show it advances a legitimate, narrowly tailored business interest.

Stericycle directly reaches Maine private-sector employer no-recording handbook policies. A blanket prohibition is presumptively unlawful. To survive Stericycle, a Maine employer's no-recording rule must be:

Narrowly tailored to a legitimate business interest (HIPAA confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, trade-secret protection, customer-data protection).
Drafted with carve-outs for Section 7 activity (employee-to-employee discussion of wages, hours, working conditions, and union organizing).
Enforced consistently and without disparate impact on protected activity.

A rule that says "no recording in the workplace, ever" is the paradigm presumptively unlawful rule under Stericycle. A rule that says "no recording in attorney-client meetings, HIPAA-covered patient encounters, or trade-secret discussions, except as protected by Section 7" is the kind of narrow rule Stericycle contemplates.

NLRB GC 25-05 (2025): Boeing-Era Prosecutorial Discretion Reinstated

NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025), issued by Acting GC William B. Cowen, rescinded several Biden-era GC memoranda and signaled a return to Boeing-era prosecutorial discretion. GC 25-05 narrows Stericycle's reach in practice without overruling it. Stericycle remains binding Board law as of May 2026.

The practical implication for Maine employers: Stericycle is still the test, but the GC's office is less aggressive about prosecuting facially neutral work rules than it was under the prior administration. A narrowly tailored Maine no-recording policy with Section 7 carve-outs is likely to survive scrutiny; a blanket policy still exposes the employer to charges if a Section 7 dispute arises.

NLRB GC 25-07 (2025): Bargaining-Session Recording Is Bad-Faith Bargaining

NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) instructs regional offices to issue complaints alleging bad-faith bargaining when a party secretly records collective-bargaining sessions. The memo treats surreptitious recording of negotiation sessions as a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith under Section 8(a)(5) (employers) or Section 8(b)(3) (unions).

GC 25-07 is narrow. It applies only to NLRA-covered collective-bargaining sessions, not to general workplace recording or to one-on-one HR meetings. It is not a Stericycle implementation memo.

The practical implication for Maine private-sector employers and unions: even though Maine's one-party rule under 15 M.R.S. § 710 would otherwise let either party record a bargaining session unilaterally, GC 25-07 makes that recording a likely Section 8 unfair labor practice. Disclose any bargaining-session recording to the other side before pressing record.

When the Private-Place Rule Attaches in the Workplace

The 17-A M.R.S. § 511 layer attaches if the recording occurs in a workplace bathroom, locker room, changing room, or single-occupant private office where the speakers have indicated a privacy expectation. A Maine employer cannot rely on the one-party rule to record those spaces, and a Maine employee cannot rely on it to record bystanders in those spaces.

For more on employer recording practices and the Stericycle framework, see our employer-recording hub.

Black lapel microphone clipped to a charcoal blazer, illustrating smart glasses and wearable recorder rules under Maine one-party consent

Wearable Recording Devices at Work in Maine

Wearable recording devices (AI voice recorders like Plaud, smart glasses like Meta Ray-Bans, recording-capable smartwatches) raise the same legal questions as any other recording device, but the always-on form factor and the high-density Maine private-place rule make them practically harder to use compliantly.

Audio capture by a wearable is governed by 15 M.R.S. § 710. As a participant in any in-person workplace conversation, you may lawfully record using a wearable device. The participant-consent rule does not change because the recording is captured by glasses or a clip-on device rather than by a phone in your pocket.

Video capture by smart glasses is governed by 17-A M.R.S. § 511 wherever the camera reaches a private place. Wearing video-capable smart glasses into a workplace bathroom, locker room, or changing area is a Class D crime regardless of whether the glasses are recording in that moment. Workplace common areas (open offices, hallways, conference rooms) are generally fine; private spaces are not.

Three additional layers apply:

Employer policy: Even when Maine state law permits the recording, a workplace handbook policy may prohibit wearable devices entirely. Stericycle constrains how broadly the employer may write that policy, but a Stericycle-compliant policy is enforceable, and violation can result in discipline or termination.
Section 7 protection: If you are using a wearable to document concerted activity (wage discussions with coworkers, union organizing, harassment by a manager), the recording may be protected from employer discipline under Section 7 of the NLRA. See the Stericycle discussion above.
HIPAA, FERPA, attorney-client privilege: Wearables in healthcare settings, schools, and law-firm conference rooms create exposure beyond the recording-consent statute. A Maine paralegal recording an attorney-client meeting with smart glasses, even with one-party consent, may breach the privilege.

For a comprehensive overview, see our hub on wearable recording devices at work and the employer wearable recording device policy framework.

Hands typing on a black mechanical keyboard from above on a dark wood desk, illustrating AI voice cloning and deepfake amendments to 17-A M.R.S. section 511-A

AI Voice, Deepfakes, and the TAKE IT DOWN Act in Maine

Maine has two state AI statutes directly relevant to recording-law content, plus two federal overlays. Together they form the 2025 to 2026 AI compliance picture for Maine.

LD 1944 / PL 2025, c. 400: 17-A M.R.S. § 511-A Reaches AI-Generated Intimate Imagery

Maine LD 1944, titled "An Act to Protect Children and Adults from Technology-facilitated Sexual Abuse," was enacted as Public Law 2025, chapter 400 and signed by Governor Janet Mills on June 20, 2025. The bill is a two-part amendment to Maine's criminal code:

Part A updates Maine's child-pornography statutes (17-A M.R.S. §§ 282-A, 283, 284 et seq.) to expressly include AI-generated images depicting minors.
Part B amends 17-A M.R.S. § 511-A (Unauthorized dissemination of certain private images) to bring AI-generated and deepfake intimate imagery within the existing offense.

Part B is the recording-law-relevant amendment. The new statutory text adds the phrase "including an image that has been created or modified so that it appears to show the depicted person in a state of nudity or engaged in a sexual act." That phrase reaches AI-generated and deepfake intimate imagery without requiring an underlying authentic image.

Section 511-A prohibits intentional or knowing dissemination, display, or publication of intimate visual depictions of an identifiable person, without consent, with intent to harass, torment, or threaten, where the dissemination is not for any public or newsworthy purpose. The offense is a Class D crime (up to 364 days, $2,000), with felony enhancements for repeat offenses and minor-involving conduct.

The 2025 amendment also makes nonconsensual AI-generated intimate images a sufficient basis for a Maine protection-from-abuse or protection-from-harassment order. That last piece matters in family-court fact patterns where deepfake intimate imagery is being used as a tool of post-separation abuse.

LD 1727 / 10 M.R.S. § 1500-DD: AI Chatbot Disclosure (2025)

Maine's AI chatbot disclosure law was enacted in the 132d Legislature as LD 1727 and codified at 10 M.R.S. § 1500-DD. The statute requires a person engaged in trade or commerce who uses an AI chatbot to interact with a Maine consumer to clearly and conspicuously disclose to the consumer that the consumer is interacting with an AI chatbot rather than a human agent. Failure to disclose is treated as a violation of Maine's Unfair Trade Practices Act under 5 M.R.S. ch. 10, enforceable by the Attorney General.

The chatbot disclosure law does not directly govern recording, but it intersects with recording-law content in two scenarios:

AI voice agents on calls: A Maine business deploying an AI voice agent on outbound or inbound calls must disclose the AI status under § 1500-DD, and the call is still subject to the underlying one-party recording rule under 15 M.R.S. § 710 plus TCPA prior-express-consent rules for AI-voice robocalls under FCC 24-17 (discussed below).
AI customer-service chat: A Maine business deploying an AI chatbot in text customer service must disclose the AI status; recording of the chat session is permissible under § 710 because the customer is a party to the communication.

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (2024): AI Voices in Robocalls

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17, FCC 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024), classifies AI-generated voices in robocalls as "artificial or prerecorded voice" messages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The TCPA's prior-express-written-consent regime applies to any call placed using an AI voice to a wireless number or to a residential line for marketing.

FCC 24-17 remains in force as of May 2026. The ruling reaches every Maine number and every caller dialing a Maine number. Importantly, consent for the AI voice does not equal consent to record the call: Maine's 15 M.R.S. § 710 one-party rule still applies to the recording itself, in parallel with the federal TCPA consent requirement for the call's content.

The FCC's One-to-One Consent Rule, formally FCC Order 23-107 (sometimes shorthanded "FCC 24-24"), would have required separate prior express written consent for each marketing entity contacting a consumer. The rule was scheduled to take effect in 2025.

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the rule in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025). The court's mandate issued April 30, 2025. The FCC subsequently removed the implementing language at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9).

What this means for Maine:

The pre-existing TCPA prior-express-written-consent regime under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2) to (3) still governs marketing robocalls and texts to Maine numbers.
Maine insurance, home-services, and energy lead generators are no longer subject to the one-to-one consent overlay.
Any source citing "FCC 24-24" or "the one-to-one consent rule" as a current obligation is wrong as of April 30, 2025.

TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025): Federal NCII Compliance

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12, S. 146) was signed into law on May 19, 2025. The statute creates a federal criminal prohibition on knowingly publishing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated digital forgeries. It also imposes a notice-and-removal obligation on covered platforms: a 48-hour takedown duty after a valid request from a depicted person.

The criminal prohibition took effect on enactment. The platform-compliance deadline is May 19, 2026. Maine victims of nonconsensual intimate imagery (including AI deepfakes) now have:

A Maine state-law remedy under 17-A M.R.S. § 511-A (Class D crime; AI-generated imagery covered post-LD 1944).
A federal criminal remedy under the TAKE IT DOWN Act.
A 48-hour federal platform notice-and-takedown remedy effective May 19, 2026.

For Maine victims using the TAKE IT DOWN Act notice path, see also our DMCA takedown notice generator for the parallel copyright path on covered images.

What Maine Has Not Done

Two things to flag for accuracy:

Maine has no civil deepfake statute. Section 511-A is criminal. There is no parallel civil cause of action for deepfake imagery in Maine other than Maine common-law tort theories (intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, false light, intrusion upon seclusion).
Maine has no election-deepfake disclosure mandate. Some peer states (Indiana, Washington, Texas) have enacted election-cycle deepfake disclosure statutes. Maine has not, as of May 2026.

Closed-back headphones resting on a stack of leather-bound legal volumes labeled Blacks Law Dictionary, Contracts, and Evidence, illustrating ECPA and TCPA federal overlay

Maine Law-Enforcement Body Cameras (25 M.R.S. § 3842)

Maine has a statewide statutory body-worn camera mandate under Title 25, Chapter 411-2 (Law Enforcement Officers' Body-Worn Cameras), comprising 25 M.R.S. §§ 3842 and 3843. The mandate was enacted by SP 198 / LD 636 in the 129th Legislature, with the equipment mandate effective January 1, 2021.

25 M.R.S. § 3842: The Equipment Mandate

Section 3842 requires every Maine law-enforcement agency to ensure that each officer in its employ is equipped with a body-worn camera and that the camera is in operation and creating a recording at all times the officer is in uniform and engaged in law-enforcement-related encounters or activities. The mandate covers state, county, and municipal law-enforcement agencies in Maine.

25 M.R.S. § 3843: Maine Criminal Justice Academy Model Policies

Section 3843 directs the Board of Trustees of the Maine Criminal Justice Academy to develop and annually review model policies and procedures for body-worn camera use, data maintenance, and retention. The academy's model policies cover activation rules, public-encounter privacy, retention periods, and disclosure protocols.

Body-Cam Footage Under the Maine Freedom of Access Act

Body-cam footage is treated as a public record under the Maine Freedom of Access Act (FOAA), 1 M.R.S. § 402 et seq.. FOAA requests for body-cam footage are subject to standard FOAA exemptions:

Law-enforcement and active-investigation exemptions for ongoing matters.
Personnel-record exemptions for officer-discipline subject matter.
Personal-privacy exemptions for civilian bystanders and victims.

The disclosure decision on any specific footage request is fact-specific and weighs the public interest in disclosure against the privacy and investigative interests in withholding. To request body-cam footage in Maine, send a written FOAA request to the public-records officer of the agency that captured the footage. The agency must respond within five business days under FOAA's response-time rule.

Distinct from Suspect-Interview Recording

Body-worn cameras under § 3842 are not the same as Maine's mandatory suspect-interview recording requirement at 25 M.R.S. § 2803-B(1)(K). Section 2803-B requires Maine law-enforcement agencies to adopt written policies for digital, electronic, audio, video, or other recording of interviews of suspects in murder cases and Class A, B, and C crimes; § 2803-B(1)(K-1) extends related policies to witness interviews in serious-crime investigations. The two regimes are independent.

Maine Freedom of Access Act and Public-Body Recording

Maine's Freedom of Access Act, 1 M.R.S. § 402 et seq., guarantees public access to most government meetings and to most government records. Recording rights at public meetings flow from the same statute.

Recording Open Meetings

Under FOAA, meetings of public bodies (city councils, town councils, county commissions, school boards, planning boards, state agency boards) must generally be open to the public. Any person may attend an open meeting, and recording an open meeting is generally permitted. Public bodies may adopt reasonable procedural rules (designated camera-positioning areas, no-flash photography, no-tripod policies in small spaces) but cannot impose a blanket recording prohibition on a meeting that is required to be public.

This is the FOAA path for Maine residents who want to record:

A municipal town meeting or town council session.
A school-board meeting.
A planning-board or zoning-board hearing.
A county commission meeting.
A state legislative committee hearing.
A public hearing on a state agency rule-making.

Executive Session

Public bodies may go into executive session under FOAA's enumerated executive-session grounds (1 M.R.S. § 405(6)). Recording inside an executive session is not protected by FOAA, and the public-body's discussion in executive session is not part of the public record.

Body-Cam Footage Requests

The FOAA path also covers requests for police body-camera footage under 25 M.R.S. § 3842, as discussed in the body-cam section above. The FOAA response-time and exemption framework applies.

Federal Overlay: ECPA, FCC, NLRB, HIPAA, Carriers

Every Maine recording question has a federal overlay. The major federal sources:

ECPA: 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 to 2522

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act sets the federal one-party-consent floor for wire, oral, and electronic communications at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). Maine's rule for wire and oral communications matches the floor; the two operate in parallel. The federal preemption is conditioned on the recording not being made for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of federal or state law. Maine's chapter 102 has no parallel limit in § 710 itself, but the federal condition travels with the federal preemption.

DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302

DOJ JM § 9-7.302 sets the one-party-consent default for federal investigators in Maine. Federal investigators do not need additional consent for wire or oral interception in Maine because Maine's wiretap statute is also one-party consent; the two-rule layer that applies to federal investigators in stricter states does not attach in Maine.

FCC 24-17 (AI Voice Robocalls): IN FORCE

Discussed in the AI section above. AI-generated voices in robocalls require prior express written consent under TCPA. In force as of May 2026.

Discussed in the AI section above. Vacated by 11th Cir. mandate April 30, 2025; FCC removed the implementing 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9). Do not cite as a current obligation.

47 C.F.R. § 64.501: REMOVED

The legacy carrier recording-disclosure beep-tone rule at 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017. Do not cite § 64.501 as a live federal regulation. The residual 47 C.F.R. Part 64 Subpart E framework governs carrier customer-proprietary network information and call-detail handling for Maine telecom providers.

NLRB Stericycle, GC 25-05, GC 25-07

Discussed in the workplace section above. Stericycle remains binding Board law; GC 25-05 narrowed enforcement; GC 25-07 made surreptitious bargaining-session recording a per se Section 8 violation.

HIPAA Privacy Rule: 45 C.F.R. Part 164

The HIPAA Privacy Rule binds Maine covered entities (health-care providers, plans, clearinghouses) and business associates. A Maine patient may record their own visit under Maine's one-party rule under 15 M.R.S. § 710. A covered entity recording the patient needs HIPAA-compliant authorization unless a treatment, payment, or health-care-operations exception applies. Section 511 attaches if the recording occurs in a private exam area where third parties have a privacy expectation.

CFPB Regulation F: 12 C.F.R. § 1006.6

Regulation F governs communications in connection with debt collection. It does not directly mandate recording disclosure. Maine debt collectors operating in Maine need only one party's consent under state law to record collection calls (15 M.R.S. § 710 plus federal ECPA one-party). Maine consumers may record their own calls with collectors without notifying them.

CALEA: 47 U.S.C. §§ 1001 to 1010

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act imposes engineering obligations on Maine telecom carriers to enable lawful court-ordered interception. CALEA does not authorize warrantless interception and does not change Maine's one-party rule. It operates above the state-law layer.

FTC v. Ring (2023): Connected-Camera Vendor Privacy

The FTC's 2023 settlement with Ring LLC imposed $5.8 million in consumer redress and ongoing privacy-program injunctive relief. The case is relevant to Maine homeowners and businesses using audio-capable smart-home cameras. A Ring or similar device that records audio inside a home (capturing guest or service-worker conversations) may layer 15 M.R.S. § 710 exposure where no party to the conversation consents, plus 17-A M.R.S. § 511 exposure where the camera reaches a private place.

More Maine Laws

Maine Recording Laws by Topic

Each of the 12 pages below covers a specific Maine recording-law context in greater depth than this hub can. Use them to drill into the rule that applies to your situation.

Sources and References

()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()

Quick Answer: Is Maine a One-Party or Two-Party Consent State?

Maine's Recording Statute: 15 M.R.S. §§ 709 to 712 Explained

The "Oral Communication" Definition (15 M.R.S. § 709(4))

The Criminal Offense (15 M.R.S. § 710)

The Civil Remedy (15 M.R.S. § 711)

The Exceptions (15 M.R.S. § 712)

The Maine Quirk: Private-Place All-Party Rule (17-A M.R.S. § 511)

What Counts as a "Private Place"?

"All-Party" Means Every Person Entitled to Privacy, Not Every Conversational Participant

Section 511 Does Not Reach Public-Place Recording

Penalties for Illegal Recording in Maine

Criminal Penalties

Civil Remedy under 15 M.R.S. § 711

Maine Supreme Judicial Court Authority

Phone Calls vs In-Person Recording in Maine

Phone Calls and Other Wire Communications

In-Person Oral Conversations

Interstate Calls: When Maine Calls the Other State

Hidden Cameras and Video Recording in Maine

Video in Public Places

Video in Private Places

Audio with Video: Two Statutes Apply

Recording the Police in Maine: Glik, Project Veritas Action Fund, and the First Circuit

Glik v. Cunniffe (1st Cir. 2011): Open Recording Is Protected

Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins (1st Cir. 2020): Secret Recording Is Also Protected

Practical Limits on Police Recording in Maine

Body-Cam Footage as a Public Record

Workplace Recording in Maine: NLRA, Stericycle, and the Bargaining-Session Limit

NLRB Stericycle (2023): No-Recording Rules Are Presumptively Unlawful

NLRB GC 25-05 (2025): Boeing-Era Prosecutorial Discretion Reinstated

NLRB GC 25-07 (2025): Bargaining-Session Recording Is Bad-Faith Bargaining

When the Private-Place Rule Attaches in the Workplace

Wearable Recording Devices at Work in Maine

AI Voice, Deepfakes, and the TAKE IT DOWN Act in Maine

LD 1944 / PL 2025, c. 400: 17-A M.R.S. § 511-A Reaches AI-Generated Intimate Imagery

LD 1727 / 10 M.R.S. § 1500-DD: AI Chatbot Disclosure (2025)

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (2024): AI Voices in Robocalls

FCC One-to-One Consent Rule (FCC 24-24) Vacated

TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025): Federal NCII Compliance

What Maine Has Not Done

Maine Law-Enforcement Body Cameras (25 M.R.S. § 3842)

25 M.R.S. § 3842: The Equipment Mandate

25 M.R.S. § 3843: Maine Criminal Justice Academy Model Policies

Body-Cam Footage Under the Maine Freedom of Access Act

Distinct from Suspect-Interview Recording

Maine Freedom of Access Act and Public-Body Recording

Recording Open Meetings

Executive Session

Body-Cam Footage Requests

Federal Overlay: ECPA, FCC, NLRB, HIPAA, Carriers

ECPA: 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 to 2522

DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302

FCC 24-17 (AI Voice Robocalls): IN FORCE

FCC 23-107 / 24-24 (One-to-One Consent): VACATED

47 C.F.R. § 64.501: REMOVED

NLRB Stericycle, GC 25-05, GC 25-07

HIPAA Privacy Rule: 45 C.F.R. Part 164

CFPB Regulation F: 12 C.F.R. § 1006.6

CALEA: 47 U.S.C. §§ 1001 to 1010

FTC v. Ring (2023): Connected-Camera Vendor Privacy

More Maine Laws

Maine Recording Laws by Topic

Sources and References

Quick Answer: Is Maine a One-Party or Two-Party Consent State?

Maine's Recording Statute: 15 M.R.S. §§ 709 to 712 Explained

The "Oral Communication" Definition (15 M.R.S. § 709(4))

The Criminal Offense (15 M.R.S. § 710)

The Civil Remedy (15 M.R.S. § 711)

The Exceptions (15 M.R.S. § 712)

The Maine Quirk: Private-Place All-Party Rule (17-A M.R.S. § 511)

What Counts as a "Private Place"?

"All-Party" Means Every Person Entitled to Privacy, Not Every Conversational Participant

Section 511 Does Not Reach Public-Place Recording

Penalties for Illegal Recording in Maine

Criminal Penalties

Civil Remedy under 15 M.R.S. § 711

Maine Supreme Judicial Court Authority

Phone Calls vs In-Person Recording in Maine

Phone Calls and Other Wire Communications

In-Person Oral Conversations