Minnesota

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

Independently fact-checked Editor-reviewed Law current as of August 15, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 2026Reviewed 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 15, 2026. · 32 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

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

Key Takeaways

1Minnesota is a one-party consent state under Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 subd. 2(d). A participant in any wire, electronic, or oral communication may record without notice to the other parties, unless the recording is made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.
2The criminal-or-tortious-purpose exception comes from the statute itself, § 626A.02 subd. 2(d), which mirrors 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) verbatim. Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, 526 N.W.2d 402 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), applied that pre-existing exemption rather than creating it, and it turned on proof of purpose: a plaintiff must show the communication was intercepted FOR THE PURPOSE of a crime or tort. Other torts such as trespass can still attach to the same conduct.
3Illegal interception under § 626A.02 subd. 4(a) is a felony: up to 5 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. Reduced penalties apply to a first offense involving an unscrambled radio communication that is not for a tortious, illegal, or commercial purpose: a gross misdemeanor under subd. 4(b)(1), or a fine of not more than $500 under subd. 4(b)(2) where the communication is the radio portion of a cellular telephone call, a public land mobile radio service communication, a cordless telephone call between handset and base unit, or a paging communication. Subd. 4(c) separately excludes certain unencrypted satellite transmissions. An in-person conversation gets no reduction.
4Civil damages under § 626A.13 subd. 3(b) are the greater of (1) three times actual damages PLUS the violator's profits, or (2) $100 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is higher. Punitive damages and attorney fees stack on top. The clock runs from the date the victim first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.
5Minn. Stat. § 609.746 subd. 1(e) makes it a gross misdemeanor to use a device to photograph, record, or broadcast an image of a person in a dwelling, hotel sleeping room, tanning booth, bathroom, locker room, changing room, indoor shower facility, or other place where a reasonable person would expect privacy, but only where the device is used with the intent to capture that individual's intimate parts without consent. Felony tiers apply to repeat offenses and minor victims, and subd. 1(k) exempts law enforcement and corrections investigators in lawful duties, conduct in a medical facility, and commercial establishments with posted surveillance signs.
6The Eighth Circuit has NOT clearly established a First Amendment right to record police, so Minnesota citizens are in a weaker doctrinal position than those in many other states. Passive observation from a distance is protected under Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020).

Minnesota is a one-party consent state under Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 subd. 2(d). Any participant in a phone call or in-person conversation may record it without telling the other parties. The exception: the consent cover disappears if the recording is made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Illegal interception is a felony (up to 5 years, $20,000 fine) and triggers one of the most plaintiff-friendly civil-damages regimes in any one-party consent state.

Minnesota recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule	One-party consent
Main statute	subd. 2(d)
When recording is illegal	Recording a communication you are not a party to, or recording for the purpose of committing a crime or tort
Criminal penalty	Felony: up to 5 years prison, up to $20,000 fine (subd. 4(a))
Civil remedy	Greater of treble actual damages + violator profits, OR $100/day or $10,000 (min); plus punitive damages and attorney fees
Hidden cameras	Gross misdemeanor under § 609.746 subd. 1(e) where the device is used with intent to capture intimate parts without consent; felony tiers for repeat or minor victim; exemptions in subd. 1(k)
Recording police	No clearly established 1A right in 8th Circuit; passive observation protected

For in-depth coverage of each scenario, jump to the Minnesota recording laws in depth section below.

Recording in-person conversations in Minnesota

Under Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 subd. 2(d), any person who is a party to an oral communication may record it without telling the other participants. The "oral communication" definition in § 626A.01 applies only when the speaker has a reasonable expectation that the communication is not being intercepted, so a loud conversation in a crowded restaurant or a speech at a public rally may not qualify as a protected oral communication at all.

The carve-out that matters in practice: the consent exception disappears when the recording is made "for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of any state." This language, taken verbatim from the federal floor in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), is not boilerplate. Minnesota courts apply it to reject consent defenses where the recorder had an independent unlawful objective such as extortion, blackmail, or harassment.

Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 526 N.W.2d 402 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) is the Minnesota appellate decision most often cited on this exception, and its procedural posture matters. A KSTP employee posing as a veterinary student videotaped inside the Copelands' home. The Copelands sued for trespass and later moved to amend their complaint to add state and federal wiretap claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of leave to amend, reviewing only for abuse of discretion, because the Copelands produced no evidence that the interception was made for the purpose of committing a tort: "The evidence is undisputed that KSTP intercepted the communication for commercial purposes and not for the purpose of committing trespass." That is a failure-of-proof ruling on a motion to amend, not a holding that hidden-camera news-gathering complies with § 626A.02.

On the trespass claim the court reversed summary judgment, holding that whether the Copelands' consent extended to a broadcaster's employee filming inside their home is a question for a factfinder: "Whether a possessor of land has given consent for entry is, when disputed, a factual issue," and on this record "there is sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment." The court did not decide that consent was vitiated. What the reader should take from Copeland: the subd. 2(d) exemption is defeated only by proof of the recorder's purpose, the burden of that proof is on the party attacking the exemption, and other torts such as trespass can attach to the same conduct independent of the wiretap statute.

Concrete examples in range: a Minnesota employee recording an HR meeting they attend; a tenant recording a call with their landlord; a parent recording their own conversation with a school principal. All of those are participant recordings with no unlawful purpose. The hard cases involve an independent illegal objective, which is the purpose element Copeland turned on.

Minnesota desk phone handset lifted slightly off its cradle, warm lamp light

Recording phone calls in Minnesota

The same one-party rule applies to every voice medium: landline calls, cellular calls, VoIP calls (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet, FaceTime, WhatsApp, Signal), and voicemail. Cellular and VoIP calls are "electronic communications" under § 626A.01, and they fall under the same subd. 2(d) participant exception as wire-line calls.

The cross-state issue is the main risk. Minnesota borders Wisconsin and Iowa (both one-party), North Dakota, and South Dakota, but is also in the same call-region as Illinois. Illinois's Eavesdropping Act, 720 ILCS 5/14-2, is functionally an all-party rule for private conversations. A Minneapolis caller recording a Chicago recipient is compliant with Minnesota law but in violation of Illinois law if the Chicago recipient had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Illinois courts have asserted jurisdiction over out-of-state recorders in past prosecutions.

The conservative compliance rule for any call where the other party may be in a stricter state: deliver a "this call may be recorded" notice at the start. That notice supplies implied consent under most all-party-consent rules and removes the choice-of-law problem entirely. For multi-party calls with participants in California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, or other all-party states, explicit notice is the only safe approach.

Note: The legacy federal "beep tone" rule at 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017, and is no longer a live regulation. Do not rely on it as authority.

For detailed interstate treatment, see Minnesota Phone Call Recording Laws.

Minnesota dome security camera in the corner of an office ceiling, soft interior daylight

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Minnesota draws a sharp line between audio recording (chapter 626A) and visual surreptitious recording in private places (Minn. Stat. § 609.746). A hidden camera capturing both audio and video can trigger both statutes independently, and the analysis must be done for each prong.

Under § 609.746 subd. 1(e), it is a gross misdemeanor (up to 364 days jail and $3,000 fine) to use a device to photograph, record, or broadcast an image of a person in a house or place of dwelling, a hotel sleeping room, a tanning booth, a bathroom, a locker room, a changing room, an indoor shower facility, or any other place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy, where the device is used with the intent to capture an image of that individual's intimate parts without their consent. The intent element is doing real work: a camera in one of those rooms with no such intent is not a subd. 1(e) offense. Subd. 1(f) is the upskirt provision: photographing or recording under or around a person's clothing to view intimate parts or undergarments without consent is a misdemeanor (lower tier than subd. 1(e)).

Section 609.746 also reaches conduct that never touches intimate parts. Subd. 1(a) and (b) separately make it a gross misdemeanor to trespass onto another person's property and surreptitiously peep, or install or use a device to observe, photograph, or record, through the window or another aperture of a house or dwelling, with intent to intrude on the occupant's privacy. No nudity or intimate-parts exposure is required for this trespass-based offense, the one most likely to apply to a neighbor, ex-partner, or investigator surveilling a home from outside.

The felony tiers: subd. 1(g) raises the offense to a felony (up to 2 years prison and $5,000 fine) for a repeat offense or when the victim is a minor. Subd. 1(h) raises it further (up to 4 years prison and $5,000 fine) when the victim is a minor, the offender is at least 36 months older, and the recording was made with sexual intent.

Where the line falls for home cameras: a homeowner who installs an audio-and-video camera in the family room and is a party to the conversations it captures has § 626A.02 cover for the audio, and § 609.746 does not apply because the family room is not a place where a reasonable person expects intimate-parts privacy. The same camera installed in a guest bedroom or bathroom violates § 609.746 subd. 1(e) regardless of who installed it, provided it is used with the intent to capture the occupant's intimate parts without consent. Subd. 1(k) sets out express exceptions: paragraph (e) does not reach law enforcement officers or corrections investigators (or those acting at their direction) engaged in lawful duties, conduct in a medical facility, or conduct in a commercial establishment that has posted conspicuous surveillance warning signs.

Audio-enabled doorbell cameras (Ring, Nest, Arlo, Eufy) sit at the boundary. The FTC's 2023 Ring settlement ($5.8 million) requires connected-camera vendors to obtain affirmative express consent for human review of audio or video.

For deeper coverage, see Minnesota Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws and Minnesota Security Camera Laws.

Minnesota pair of reading glasses folded on top of a closed legal statute book

Penalties for illegal recording in Minnesota

Criminal penalties. The default penalty under Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 subd. 4(a) is a felony: up to 5 years imprisonment and up to a $20,000 fine. Under Minn. Stat. § 609.02 subd. 2, any offense carrying possible imprisonment for more than one year is a felony. Each separate intercepted communication can be charged as a separate count. The same felony penalty reaches more than the interception itself: under subd. 1(3) and (4), disclosing or using the contents of a communication you know or have reason to know was illegally intercepted is a separate offense, so forwarding or publishing a call or recording you know was unlawfully obtained carries the same exposure as making it. Subd. 4(b) reduces the penalty for a first offense that is not for a tortious or illegal purpose and not for commercial advantage or private commercial gain, where the communication is a radio communication that is not scrambled or encrypted. Subd. 4(b)(1) makes that a gross misdemeanor (up to 364 days and $3,000 fine). Subd. 4(b)(2) drops it to a fine of not more than $500 where the communication is the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a public land mobile radio service communication, a cordless telephone communication transmitted between the handset and the base unit, or a paging service communication. Subd. 4(c) separately provides that intercepting certain unencrypted satellite transmissions is not an offense unless done for commercial advantage or private financial gain. None of these reductions reaches an in-person oral conversation, and none of them applies to a wire-line call.

Civil penalties. Minn. Stat. § 626A.13 is the most plaintiff-friendly damages structure in any one-party consent state. Subd. 3(b) gives the plaintiff the greater of two prongs:

Prong	Calculation
Prong (1)	Three times actual damages PLUS the violator's profits (added separately, not multiplied)
Prong (2)	$100 per day of violation OR $10,000, whichever is greater

The plaintiff takes whichever prong is larger. On top of that, subd. 2(2) adds punitive damages in appropriate cases, and subd. 2(3) adds reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs. The statute of limitations (subd. 5) is two years from the date the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation, not from the date of the recording.

Federal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 runs in parallel. Federal prosecutors in the District of Minnesota typically reach for ECPA in interstate cases or cases where state prosecution is declined. State and federal convictions for the same recording can produce stacked sentences under separate-sovereign principles, though this is uncommon in practice.

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

Recording the police in Minnesota

Minnesota is in the Eighth Circuit, which has NOT clearly established a First Amendment right to record police on a public sidewalk or at a public protest. This is a material departure from the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, each of which has affirmatively recognized such a right. Minnesotans are in a weaker doctrinal position than people in most peer states.

The most recent binding authority is Molina v. Book, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023), with rehearing en banc denied and certiorari denied February 20, 2024 (No. 23-227). Two attorney-observers were tear-gassed while passively observing protest activity from private property; the 8th Circuit granted qualified immunity, holding the right was not clearly established. Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021) reached the same result, binding the entire circuit.

Two pieces of pro-citizen authority cabin that posture. Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020) affirmed denial of qualified immunity to an officer who detained a citizen passively observing a traffic stop from 40 to 50 feet away: passive observation IS protected. Ness v. City of Bloomington, 11 F.4th 914 (8th Cir. 2021) held Bloomington City Code § 5.21(23), which bars intentionally photographing or recording a child in a city park without parental consent, unconstitutional AS APPLIED to Ness's own photography and video recording of a matter of public controversy at Smith Park. The court expressly declined to reach her facial challenge, applying the rule that "a federal court should not extend its invalidation of a statute further than necessary to dispose of the case before it" (Brockett v. Spokane Arcades). The ordinance was not struck down and remains on the books, so a person recording in a Bloomington park cannot treat it as invalidated.

Practical rule: you may record police in public, but a citizen who faces force during the recording cannot count on a clearly established 1A claim to defeat qualified immunity. Do not interfere with police activity, record from a reasonable distance, and comply with lawful time/place/manner orders.

For detailed treatment of body-worn camera data and access rights under § 626.8473 and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (§§ 13.825 and 13.82), see Minnesota Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Minnesota

Workplace recording: employees, NLRB, and PELRA

A Minnesota employee who is a party to a workplace conversation may record without telling the employer under § 626A.02 subd. 2(d). An employer may do the same for conversations they participate in. An employer who places a hidden microphone in a break room to capture employee conversations among themselves is NOT a party to those conversations and faces felony and civil exposure.

Under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), a blanket no-recording handbook rule is presumptively unlawful if a reasonable economically dependent employee could read it to chill Section 7 activity; the employer must show a narrowly tailored substantial business interest. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) reinstated Boeing-era prosecutorial discretion but did not overrule Stericycle. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) declares surreptitious recording of NLRA collective-bargaining sessions a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith, but only for bargaining sessions. Minnesota public-sector employers (state agencies, counties, cities, school districts) are governed by Minn. Stat. ch. 179A (PELRA) instead of NLRB jurisdiction, with parallel duty-to-bargain obligations.

For deeper coverage, see Minnesota Workplace Recording Laws.

Deepfakes: 2023 c 58 (HF 1370 / SF 1394)

2023 c 58, signed May 26, 2023, effective August 1, 2023, created three new sections. Minn. Stat. § 617.262 criminalizes nonconsensual deepfake intimate imagery (gross misdemeanor, with felony tiers mirroring § 617.261). Minn. Stat. § 604.32 creates a civil cause of action with a $100,000 civil-penalty cap plus damages, profits, attorney fees, and injunctions; consent to creation or private transmission is not consent to public dissemination; the statute of limitations tolls until discovery. Minn. Stat. § 609.771 criminalizes election deepfakes disseminated within pre-election windows (90 days before a nominating convention, or after absentee voting opens) with intent to injure a candidate; baseline misdemeanor, felony tier for prior conviction. Section 609.771 has faced First Amendment challenges: in Kohls v. Ellison, No. 0:24-cv-03754 (D. Minn.), the preliminary injunction was denied in January 2025 and the Eighth Circuit affirmed on February 9, 2026 on delay grounds without reaching the merits; X Corp. v. Ellison, No. 0:25-cv-01649 (D. Minn.), remains pending, with the cases still pending as of June 2026.

MCDPA biometric overlay

The Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 325M (Sections 325M.10 to 325M.21) (effective July 31, 2025), classifies voiceprints and faceprints derived from recordings as sensitive biometric data requiring opt-in consumer consent before processing. The MCDPA does not change § 626A.02 for individuals recording their own conversations, but it layers sensitive-data consent obligations on businesses that run voiceprint or facial-recognition analysis on recorded audio or video. The Minnesota Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority; civil penalties up to $7,500 per violation; no private right of action. The 30-day cure period sunset January 31, 2026, so the AG may now sue without offering cure.

Federal overlays

ECPA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 through 2522, supplies the one-party floor at § 2511(2)(d), which § 626A.02 subd. 2(d) mirrors verbatim. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) classifies AI-generated voices in robocalls as "artificial or prerecorded" under the TCPA, requiring prior express written consent. The FCC's One-to-One Consent Rule (FCC 24-24) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit (Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277, Jan. 24, 2025) and the implementing language at (f)(9) was removed; the pre-existing TCPA consent framework governs. The TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025), criminalizes nonconsensual intimate imagery including AI deepfakes and imposes a 48-hour platform notice-and-takedown obligation; platform compliance deadline was May 19, 2026. Minnesota victims can invoke federal NCII/deepfake remedies alongside state remedies under §§ 617.261, 617.262, 604.31, 604.32, and 609.771.

Recent legal developments

August 1, 2023: Minnesota deepfake omnibus (2023 c 58) took effect: § 617.262 (criminal deepfake NCII), § 604.32 (civil deepfake NCII, $100,000 cap), § 609.771 (election deepfake, under 1A challenge).
February 8, 2024: FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 classified AI-generated robocall voices as "artificial or prerecorded" under TCPA.
February 20, 2024: Supreme Court denied certiorari in Molina v. Book, cementing 8th Circuit qualified-immunity posture on police-recording claims.
January 24, 2025: 11th Circuit vacated FCC 24-24 One-to-One Consent Rule; FCC subsequently removed implementing language from (f)(9).
May 19, 2025: TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12) signed; criminal prohibition on NCII effective immediately; platform takedown compliance deadline May 19, 2026.
July 31, 2025: Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (Minn. Stat. ch. 325M) took effect; biometric voiceprints and faceprints are sensitive data requiring opt-in consent.
January 31, 2026: MCDPA 30-day cure period sunset; AG may now bring enforcement without offering cure.
February 2026: The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction in Kohls v. Ellison (No. 0:24-cv-03754) on delay grounds without reaching the First Amendment merits; X Corp. v. Ellison (No. 0:25-cv-01649) remains pending in D. Minn.

Minnesota recording laws in depth

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Minnesota 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 Minnesota attorney.

More Recording and Privacy Laws

More Minnesota Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Minnesota is a one-party consent state under Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 subd. 2(d). Any participant in a wire, electronic, or oral communication may record it without notifying the other parties. The consent cover disappears if the recording is made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. That exception is in the statute itself and mirrors 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d); Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, 526 N.W.2d 402 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), applied it and required proof of the recorder's purpose.

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

Yes, if you are a party to the call. Section 626A.02 subd. 2(d) authorizes participant recording without notice. The exception evaporates if the recording is for a criminal or tortious purpose. For calls to recipients in two-party states like Illinois, follow the stricter state rule and give notice.

Is illegal recording a felony in Minnesota?

Yes. Under § 626A.02 subd. 4(a), unlawful interception is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. Subd. 4(b) reduces the penalty for a non-commercial first offense involving an unscrambled radio communication: a gross misdemeanor under subd. 4(b)(1), or a fine of not more than $500 under subd. 4(b)(2) where the communication is the radio portion of a cellular telephone call, a public land mobile radio service communication, a cordless telephone call between handset and base unit, or a paging communication. Subd. 4(c) also excludes certain unencrypted satellite transmissions. An in-person conversation gets no reduction.

How much can I sue for if someone illegally recorded me in Minnesota?

Under § 626A.13 subd. 3(b), you recover the greater of (1) three times your actual damages plus the violator's profits, or (2) $100 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is higher. Punitive damages and attorney fees stack on top. The two-year limitations clock starts when you first have a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation, not the date of the recording.

Can I record the police in Minnesota?

Practically yes, but the 8th Circuit has not clearly established a First Amendment right to record police, which weakens your legal protection compared to peer states. Molina v. Book, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023), cert. denied 2024, and Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021), grant qualified immunity on 1A recording claims. Passive observation from a distance is protected under Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020).

Are Ring cameras and nanny cams legal in Minnesota?

Audio-enabled cameras on your own property are generally lawful if you are a party to conversations they capture under § 626A.02 subd. 2(d). However, placing a camera in a bathroom, guest bedroom, changing room, or other place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy independently violates § 609.746 subd. 1(e) as a gross misdemeanor where the camera is used with the intent to capture that person's intimate parts without consent, regardless of who owns the property. Subd. 1(k) exempts law enforcement in lawful duties, medical facilities, and commercial establishments with posted surveillance signs.

Can my employer record me at work in Minnesota?

An employer who is a party to a workplace conversation may record it. An employer who is not a party (for example, a hidden microphone in a break room) faces felony exposure under § 626A.02 subd. 4(a) and civil exposure under § 626A.13. Under Stericycle, 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), blanket no-recording handbook rules are presumptively unlawful unless narrowly tailored. Minnesota public-sector employers are covered by PELRA (Minn. Stat. ch. 179A) rather than NLRB jurisdiction.

Can I record my doctor or an HR meeting in Minnesota?

Yes. As a participant in the conversation, you may record under § 626A.02 subd. 2(d). HIPAA binds the provider, not the patient. Recording an HR meeting you attend is also lawful. The recording is not made for a criminal or tortious purpose simply because you want documentation.

Updates

August 26, 2026

Corrected this page’s account of Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting (an affirmance of a denial of leave to amend, not a ruling that hidden-camera news-gathering complies with the wiretap statute) and of Ness v. City of Bloomington (the ordinance was held unconstitutional only as applied, not struck down), restored the intent element and the statutory exceptions to the Minn. Stat. § 609.746 hidden-camera summaries, added the § 626A.02 subd. 4(b)(2) $500 tier and subd. 4(c) satellite exclusion that the penalty sections had omitted, and repointed the Copeland citation from a court-system homepage to the full opinion.

August 15, 2026

Corrected the case name of the controlling Eighth Circuit qualified-immunity ruling from 'Molina v. City of St. Louis' to its actual caption, Molina v. Book, and fixed the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act's citation from a non-existent Minn. Stat. ch. 325O to the correct ch. 325M.

August 15, 2026

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

August 9, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

August 7, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

June 5, 2026

Reviewed and approved by an editor

June 5, 2026

Restructured page for readability: added AEO lede, KeyTakeaways, at-a-glance table, and section-by-section format (in-person, phone, hidden cameras, penalties, police, special topics). Condensed cross-state analysis, NLRB/PELRA overlay, deepfake regime (2023 c 58), and MCDPA biometric overlay into short subsections. Added in-depth sub-page index grouped by type and place. Refreshed FAQ to 8 plain-language questions. All statutes re-verified against revisor.mn.gov and court records. No corrections required; facts from 2026-05-30 audit remain accurate.

May 30, 2026

Adversarial-audit corrections: (1) Fixed § 626A.13 subd. 3(b) prong (1) damages formula to correctly state three times the actual damages PLUS violator profits separately (not (actual+profits) x 3, per statute text); (2) Corrected statute-of-limitations subsection from subd. 4 (good-faith defense) to subd. 5 (two-year discovery-rule limitation), per revisor.mn.gov; (3) Corrected § 609.771 baseline from gross misdemeanor to misdemeanor (up to 90 days / $1,000), added intent-to-cause-violence intermediate tier (up to 364 days / $3,000), removed phantom candidate-actor felony aggravator (candidate consequence is civil forfeiture of office, not a criminal penalty tier), per revisor.mn.gov.

May 10, 2026

Refreshed for 2026: anchored Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 felony interception (5 years, $20,000) and corrected § 626A.13 subd. 3(b) damages to a TWO-prong 'whichever is greater' choice (treble actual plus violator profits OR statutory damages of greater of $100/day or $10,000); added 2023 c 58 deepfake regime (signed Walz May 26, 2023, effective Aug. 1, 2023): § 617.262 criminal NCII, § 604.32 civil NCII with $100,000 cap, § 609.771 election deepfake under active 1A challenge in Kohls v. Ellison; added Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) and Ness v. City of Bloomington (8th Cir. 2021) as verified Minnesota authority; reframed 8th Circuit record-the-police as NOT clearly established (Molina, Robbins, Chestnut), with Chestnut passive-observation distinction; removed unverified State v. Casarez and State v. Hauge (fabrication risk); added MCDPA chapter 325O biometric overlay (eff. July 31, 2025; cure period sunset Jan. 31, 2026; AG-only enforcement; no private right of action); updated FCC 24-24 to vacated; removed stale 47 CFR § 64.501; added NLRB Stericycle, GC 25-05, GC 25-07, and PELRA chapter 179A workplace overlay; added federal TAKE IT DOWN Act compliance deadline May 19, 2026; replaced commercial-codifier URLs with revisor.mn.gov, mncourts.gov, ag.state.mn.us, ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov, supremecourt.gov, fcc.gov, nlrb.gov, ecfr.gov, and uscode.house.gov.

March 23, 2026

Added wearable recording devices section and 2 FAQs

The Law Behind This Article

This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.

Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 626A: WIRE, ELECTRONIC, OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS; INTERCEPTION

§ 626A.02INTERCEPTION AND DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ELECTRONIC, OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PROHIBITEDIn forcecited in 18 of our articles

Subdivision 1. Offenses. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who: (1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, electronic, or oral communication; (2) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when: (i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or (ii) such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; (3) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication in violation of this subdivision; or (4) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov

Cited in 20 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. (1995) applied the 626A.02 party exemption, finding a secret recording made for commercial newsgathering was not intercepted for the purpose of a tortious act. State v. Page (1986) held an officer's use of a regular telephone extension in the ordinary course of duty was not an interception.

Leading cases: Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1995, 526 N.W.2d 402) · State v. Page (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1986, 386 N.W.2d 330) · State v. Olkon (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1980, 299 N.W.2d 89)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Minnesota Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2025, Minnesota Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide), Minnesota Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties

§ 626A.13CIVIL REMEDIESIn forcecited in 8 of our articles

Subdivision 1. In general. Except as provided in section 2511 (2)(a)(ii) of title 18 of the United States Code, a person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity that engaged in that violation relief as may be appropriate. Subd. 2. Relief. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes: (1) temporary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; (2) damages under subdivision 3 and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and (3) a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. Subd. 3. Computation of damages.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov

Cited in 3 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 1996

Leading cases: Molenaar v. United Cattle Co. (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1996, 553 N.W.2d 424) · State v. Monsrud (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1983, 337 N.W.2d 652) · American Computer Trust Leasing v. Jack Farrell Implement Co. (District Court, D. Minnesota 1991, 763 F. Supp. 1473)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Minnesota Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent and Interstate Rules, Minnesota Security Camera Laws: Residential, Commercial, and Privacy Rules, Minnesota Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections

§ 626A.01DEFINITIONSIn forcecited in 7 of our articles

Subdivision 1. Terms. As used in this chapter, the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them. Subd. 2. Person. "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, joint stock company, trust, or association, including but not limited to, the subscriber to the telephone or telegraph service involved and any law enforcement officer. Subd. 3. Wire communication. "Wire communication" means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception, including the use of such connection in a switching station. "Wire communication" includes any electronic storage of the communication. Subd. 4. Oral communication. "Oral communication" means 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. Subd. 5. Intercept.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov

Cited in 13 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023

Leading cases: State v. Quinn (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1989, 436 N.W.2d 758) · State v. Page (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1986, 386 N.W.2d 330) · State v. Edrozo (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1998, 578 N.W.2d 719)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Minnesota Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Body Camera Rules, Minnesota Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026

Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 609: CRIMINAL CODE

§ 609.746INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVACYIn forcecited in 15 of our articles

Subdivision 1. Surreptitious intrusion; observation device. (a) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who: (1) enters upon another's property; (2) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling of another; and (3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household. (b) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who: (1) enters upon another's property; (2) surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling of another; and (3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov

Cited in 15 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Pakhnyuk (2019) held the intent to intrude on privacy in section 609.746, subd. 1(a) attaches only to the peeping, not to entering the property. State v. Ulmer (2006) applied subd. 1(c) to a public restroom, holding the space above a urinal partition is an aperture and the shielded space is private.

Leading cases: State v. Pakhnyuk (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2019, 926 N.W.2d 914) · State v. Ulmer (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2006, 719 N.W.2d 213) · State v. Morris (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2002, 644 N.W.2d 114)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Minnesota Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Privacy, and Rights, Minnesota Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Provider Rules, Minnesota Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Privacy Rules

§ 609.02DEFINITIONSIn forcecited in 4 of our articles

Subdivision 1. Crime. "Crime" means conduct which is prohibited by statute and for which the actor may be sentenced to imprisonment, with or without a fine. Subd. 2. Felony. "Felony" means a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment for one year or more may be imposed. Subd. 2a. [Repealed, 1999 c 194 s 11] Subd. 3. Misdemeanor. "Misdemeanor" means a crime for which a sentence of not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $1,000, or both, may be imposed. Subd. 4. Gross misdemeanor. "Gross misdemeanor" means any crime which is not a felony or misdemeanor. The maximum fine which may be imposed for a gross misdemeanor is $3,000. Subd. 4a. Petty misdemeanor. "Petty misdemeanor" means a petty offense which is prohibited by statute, which does not constitute a crime and for which a sentence of a fine of not more than $300 may be imposed. Subd. 5. Conviction. "Conviction" means any of the following accepted and recorded by the court: (1) a plea of guilty; or (2) a verdict of guilty by a jury or a finding of guilty by the court. Subd. 6. Dangerous weapon.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov

Cited in 539 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: State v. Stewart (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2019, 923 N.W.2d 668) · State v. Fleck (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2012, 810 N.W.2d 303) · State v. Vance (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2007, 734 N.W.2d 650)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Minnesota Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do, Minnesota Eviction Law Changes Take Effect August 1, 2026 Under HF 3809, Minnesota Traffic Camera Ticket Laws: The 2025-2029 Pilot Program Explained

§ 609.771USE OF DEEP FAKE TECHNOLOGY TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONIn forcecited in 6 of our articles

Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) As used in this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Candidate" means an individual who seeks nomination or election to a federal, statewide, legislative, judicial, or local office including special districts, school districts, towns, home rule charter and statutory cities, and counties. (c) "Deep fake" means any video recording, motion-picture film, sound recording, electronic image, or photograph, or any technological representation of speech or conduct substantially derivative thereof: (1) that is so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it depicts speech or conduct of an individual who did not in fact engage in such speech or conduct; and (2) the production of which was substantially dependent upon technical means, rather than the ability of another individual to physically or verbally impersonate such individual. (d) "Depicted individual" means an individual in a deep fake who appears to be engaging in speech or conduct in which the individual did not engage. Subd. 2. Violation.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov

Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Christopher Kohls v. Keith Ellison (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2026)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

United States Code Title 18

§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 415 of our articles

Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 2,045 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.

Leading cases: Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511) · United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297) · Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained

§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 122 of our articles

As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1  So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 2,382 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).

Leading cases: Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527) · Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425) · Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Kentucky Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know

Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 626: PEACE OFFICERS; SEARCHES; PURSUIT; MANDATORY REPORTING

§ 626.8473PORTABLE RECORDING SYSTEMS ADOPTION; WRITTEN POLICY REQUIREDIn forcecited in 5 of our articles

Subdivision 1. Definition. As used in this section, "portable recording system" has the meaning provided in section 13.825, subdivision 1. Subd. 2. Public comment. A local law enforcement agency must provide an opportunity for public comment before it purchases or implements a portable recording system. At a minimum, the agency must accept public comments submitted electronically or by mail, and the governing body with jurisdiction over the budget of the law enforcement agency must provide an opportunity for public comment at a regularly scheduled meeting. Subd. 3. Written policies and procedures required. (a) The chief officer of every state and local law enforcement agency that uses or proposes to use a portable recording system must establish and enforce a written policy governing its use. In developing and adopting the policy, the law enforcement agency must provide for public comment and input as provided in subdivision 2. Use of a portable recording system without adoption of a written policy meeting the requirements of this section is prohibited. The written policy must be posted on the agency's website, if the agency has a website.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov

Also relied on in: Minnesota Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use, Minnesota Police Bodycam Laws: Private Data by Default

Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13: GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES

§ 13.82COMPREHENSIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT DATAIn forcecited in 3 of our articles

Subdivision 1. Application. This section shall apply to agencies which carry on a law enforcement function, including but not limited to municipal police departments, county sheriff departments, fire departments, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the Minnesota State Patrol, the Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training, and county human service agency client and provider fraud investigation, prevention, and control units operated or supervised by the Department of Human Services. Subd. 2. Arrest data.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov

Cited in 34 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2024

Leading cases: Demers v. City of Minneapolis (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1992, 486 N.W.2d 828) · Padilla v. Minnesota State Board of Medical Examiners (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1986, 382 N.W.2d 876) · State v. M.D.T. (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2013, 831 N.W.2d 276)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: How to Get a Police Report in Minnesota (2026 Guide)

§ 13.825PORTABLE RECORDING SYSTEMSIn forcecited in 9 of our articles

Subdivision 1. Application; definition. (a) This section applies to law enforcement agencies that maintain a portable recording system for use in investigations, or in response to emergencies, incidents, and requests for service. (b) As used in this section: (1) "portable recording system" means a device worn by a peace officer that is capable of both video and audio recording of the officer's activities and interactions with others or collecting digital multimedia evidence as part of an investigation; (2) "portable recording system data" means audio or video data collected by a portable recording system; and (3) "redact" means to blur video or distort audio so that the identity of the subject in a recording is obscured sufficiently to render the subject unidentifiable. Subd. 2. Data classification; court-authorized disclosure.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov

Cited in 2 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2024

Leading cases: Troy K. Scheffler v. City of Anoka, City of Coon Rapids, Hicken, Scott, Howard & Anderson, P. A. (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2017, 890 N.W.2d 437) · West v. City of Minneapolis (District Court, D. Minnesota 2024)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Minnesota Government Data Practices Act: Access, Fees, and Body Camera Rules, How to Request Body Cam Footage: State Laws and the Request Process

Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 617: ABORTION; OBSCENITY; NUISANCE

§ 617.262NONCONSENSUAL DISSEMINATION OF A DEEP FAKE DEPICTING INTIMATE PARTS OR SEXUAL ACTSIn forcecited in 6 of our articles

Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Deep fake" means any video recording, motion-picture film, sound recording, electronic image, or photograph, or any technological representation of speech or conduct substantially derivative thereof: (1) that is so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it depicts speech or conduct of an individual; and (2) the production of which was substantially dependent upon technical means, rather than the ability of another individual to physically or verbally impersonate such individual. (c) "Depicted individual" means an individual in a deep fake who appears to be engaging in speech or conduct in which the individual did not engage. (d) "Dissemination" means distribution to one or more persons, other than the individual depicted in the deep fake, or publication by any publicly available medium. (e) "Harass" means an act that would cause a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of a reasonable person. (f) "Intimate parts" means the genitals, pubic area, anus, or partially or fully exposed nipple of an individual.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov

Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025

Leading cases: State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2025)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Minnesota Video Recording Laws: Public Filming, Privacy, and Penalties, Minnesota Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)

Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 604: CIVIL LIABILITY

§ 604.32CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NONCONSENSUAL DISSEMINATION OF A DEEP FAKE DEPICTING INTIMATE PARTS OR SEXUAL ACTSIn forcecited in 5 of our articles

Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) As used in this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Deep fake" means any video recording, motion-picture film, sound recording, electronic image, or photograph, or any technological representation of speech or conduct substantially derivative thereof: (1) that is so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it depicts speech or conduct of an individual; and (2) the production of which was substantially dependent upon technical means, rather than the ability of another individual to physically or verbally impersonate such individual. (c) "Depicted individual" means an individual in a deep fake who appears to be engaging in speech or conduct in which the individual did not engage. (d) "Intimate parts" means the genitals, pubic area, partially or fully exposed nipple, or anus of an individual.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov

Also relied on in: Minnesota AI Laws and Regulation (2026)

Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 325M: CONSUMER DIGITAL AND DATA PRIVACY

§ 325M.10CITATIONIn force

Sections 325M.10 to 325M.21 may be cited as the "Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act."

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov

Code of Federal Regulations Title 47

§ 64.1200Delivery restrictions.In forcecited in 12 of our articles

(a) No person or entity may: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, initiate any telephone call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or is made with the prior express consent of the called party) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; (i) To any emergency telephone line, including any 911 line and any emergency line of a hospital, medical physician or service office, health care facility, poison control center, or fire protection or law enforcement agency; (ii) To the telephone line of any guest room or patient room of a hospital, health care facility, elderly home, or similar establishment; or (iii) To any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov

Cited in 840 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Samuel Zean v. Fairview Health Services (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2017, 858 F.3d 520) · Krakauer v. Dish Network, L. L.C. (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 925 F.3d 643) · ACA Int'l v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2018, 885 F.3d 687)