Nebraska Recording Laws (2026): Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290

Quick Answer

Yes. Nebraska is a one-party consent state under Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290(2)(c), so a person who is part of the conversation can record it without telling anyone else. The shield disappears the moment the recording is made for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act, which is the most-overlooked limit on Nebraska's one-party rule.

Illegal interception is a Class IV felony under Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290(1), with up to 2 years imprisonment plus 12 months post-release supervision or up to a $10,000 fine under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-105. The civil floor at Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-297 is the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, plus attorney fees and equitable relief.

Two unique 2026 angles run through this guide. First, the 8th Circuit (which covers Nebraska) has not clearly established a First Amendment right to record police for qualified-immunity purposes after Molina v. City of St. Louis, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023). Second, LB204 (the Biometric Autonomy Liberty Law) was indefinitely postponed on April 17, 2026, so Nebraska has no BIPA-style biometric privacy statute despite extensive legislative attention.

Key Point	Answer
Consent type	One-party
Primary statute	Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290(2)(c)
Carve-out	No criminal or tortious purpose
Criminal class	Class IV felony (up to 2 years prison, $10,000 fine, 12 months post-release supervision)
Civil cause	Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-297: $100/day or $10,000, plus attorney fees, NO punitives
Controlling Nebraska Supreme Court case	State v. Manchester, 213 Neb. 670, 331 N.W.2d 776 (1983)
Federal record-police posture	NOT clearly established in 8th Cir. (Molina v. City of St. Louis, 59 F.4th 334 (2023), cert. denied 2024)
Biometric privacy statute	None (LB204 indefinitely postponed April 17, 2026)

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

Nebraska is a one-party consent state for audio recording. The textual basis is Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290(2)(c), which provides that it is not unlawful for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication when such person is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception. The exception is conditional, not absolute.

The carve-out is the dispositive limit: the consent shield does not apply when the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state. That language tracks the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act floor at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d).

In practice, that means a participant who records a conversation to document harassment, to preserve a verbal agreement, or to safeguard their own statements is within the shield. A participant who records the same conversation to extort, blackmail, defame, or interfere with custody loses the shield and faces full Class IV felony exposure plus civil liability under Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-297.

The Nebraska Supreme Court confirmed the participant-recorder framing in State v. Manchester, 213 Neb. 670, 331 N.W.2d 776 (1983), holding that conversations to which one party has consented to recording are not "oral communications" within the meaning of Nebraska's communication-interception statutes. Compare this with two-party consent jurisdictions like California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington, where every party to the conversation must consent.

Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290: Unlawful Interception

Section 86-290(1) defines five prohibited acts, all classified as Class IV felonies when committed intentionally:

1. Intercepting any wire, electronic, or oral communication
2. Using an electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept oral communications via wire, cable, or radio
3. Disclosing the contents of an illegally intercepted communication
4. Using the contents of an illegally intercepted communication
5. Disclosing court-authorized interception contents with intent to obstruct or impede the interception

Each prong reaches an "intentional" mental state. Reckless or negligent recording does not trigger Section 86-290(1) liability, although it may still implicate civil claims under common-law intrusion upon seclusion.

Section 86-290(2)(c): the one-party consent shield

The one-party shield sits at subsection (2)(c) of the same statute that creates the offense. The exception protects a person not acting under color of law who is a party to the communication, or who has prior consent of one party, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act. The "unless" clause is the entire ballgame for Nebraska practitioners.

A common point of confusion: Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-291 is sometimes mistakenly cited as the home of the one-party rule. It is not. Section 86-291 is Nebraska's court-ordered wiretap authorization statute, the state analog to federal Title III, used by the Attorney General or county attorneys to apply to a district court for an interception order in murder, kidnapping, robbery, bribery, extortion, narcotics, sexual-assault, child-exploitation, child-pornography, related-conspiracy, and violent-felony investigations. Civilians cannot rely on Section 86-291; the participant-recorder shield is exclusively at Section 86-290(2)(c).

Class IV felony exposure under Section 28-105

A Class IV felony in Nebraska carries up to 2 years imprisonment plus 12 months post-release supervision, or up to a $10,000 fine, or both. There is no statutory minimum, and probation is eligible for first-time non-dangerous offenders under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2204.02, which directs courts to impose probation for Class IV felonies absent specific aggravating factors.

Reduced misdemeanor branches apply only to narrowly enumerated first-offense scenarios. First-offense interception of unencrypted radio communication is a Class I misdemeanor under Section 86-290. First-offense cellular or paging-service interception not for commercial gain is a Class III misdemeanor. Both misdemeanor reductions vanish on a second offense or where commercial gain is shown.

Plain-English illustrations of the carve-out

A Lincoln tenant records a verbal threat from a landlord during a maintenance dispute, intending to use it as evidence in a tenant-rights complaint. The tenant is a party to the conversation; the recording's purpose is self-protection. The Section 86-290(2)(c) shield applies.

An Omaha employee records a coworker's confidential remarks intending to threaten public release unless the coworker pays $5,000. The employee is a party to the conversation, but the recording's purpose is criminal extortion. The shield does not apply, and the employee faces Class IV felony exposure plus civil damages under Section 86-297.

A Grand Island spouse records family conversations to fabricate a false defamation case against a relative. Even with participant standing, the tortious-purpose carve-out strips the shield and creates both criminal and civil exposure.

Penalties: Class IV Felony and Civil Damages Under Section 86-297

Nebraska's penalty structure runs across the wiretap chapter and the personal-privacy chapter. The grid below pulls the criminal classifications and civil floors into one view; no competitor on Nebraska's first results page surfaces this side-by-side framing.

Statute	Conduct	Criminal class	Civil exposure
Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290(1)	Intentional audio interception, device-use, disclosure, or use-of-contents	Class IV felony (2 yr, $10K, 12 mo PRS)	Section 86-297: greater of actual + violator profits OR $100/day or $10,000; attorney fees; NO punitives
Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290(1) (radio first offense)	First-offense unencrypted radio interception	Class I misdemeanor (up to 1 yr, $1,000)	Same Section 86-297 floor applies
Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290(1) (cellular first offense, no commercial gain)	First-offense cellular or paging-service interception	Class III misdemeanor (up to 3 mo, $500)	Same Section 86-297 floor applies
Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311.08(1)	Intrusion in solitude or seclusion (1st)	Class I misdemeanor	Common-law intrusion upon seclusion: actual damages, no punitives
Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311.08(1)	Intrusion in solitude or seclusion (2nd or subsequent)	Class IV felony	Common-law intrusion upon seclusion
Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311.08(2)	Recording the intimate area of another without consent	Class IV felony	Post-LB371 UCRUDIIA civil track for AI-generated content
Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311.08(3)	Distribution of recordings made in violation of branch (2), 1st-2nd	Class IIA felony (up to 20 yr)	UCRUDIIA civil track
Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311.08(3)	Distribution of recordings made in violation of branch (2), 3rd or subsequent	Class II felony (1-50 yr)	UCRUDIIA civil track
Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311.08(4)	Distribution of REP-protected intimate-area imagery (1st)	Class I misdemeanor	UCRUDIIA civil track
Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311.08(4)	Distribution of REP-protected intimate-area imagery (2nd or subsequent)	Class IV felony	UCRUDIIA civil track
Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311.08(5)	Threat to distribute intimate-area imagery to intimidate or harass	Class I misdemeanor	UCRUDIIA civil track

How Section 86-297 damages actually compute

A plaintiff under Section 86-297 is entitled to the greater of two competing measures. The first is actual damages plus any profits the violator made from the violation. The second is statutory damages of $100 per day for each day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater. Plaintiffs who can prove a long course of unlawful recording (for example, a 200-day surveillance scheme) often beat the $10,000 floor under the per-day measure.

Section 86-297 also awards reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs to prevailing plaintiffs, plus equitable and declaratory relief, including preliminary injunctive relief to halt ongoing interception. A specialized lower-tier statutory-damage range (between $50 and $500 for first offenses, between $100 and $1,000 for repeat offenses) applies to unscrambled private satellite or radio communications intercepted with no tortious purpose or commercial intent.

Punitive damages are not available under Section 86-297. Nebraska law does not generally permit common-law punitive damages, as the Nebraska Supreme Court reaffirmed in Distinctive Home Care, Inc. v. Dunlap, 273 Neb. 444 (2007), echoing Abel v. Conover, 170 Neb. 926 (1960). Statutory exemplary damages are available only where the statute expressly authorizes them, and Section 86-297 does not. The federal civil action at 18 U.S.C. 2520 does authorize punitive damages, so a plaintiff with federal hooks may layer the federal action on top of the state claim.

Statute-of-limitations note

Section 86-297 does not state a limitations period on its face. Nebraska's residual statute-of-limitations framework controls and produces different periods depending on how the claim is characterized. The residual four-year period for statutory civil causes of action under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-212 typically applies, while the parallel common-law invasion-of-privacy track runs on a one-year period under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-208. Federal ECPA-style civil actions at 18 U.S.C. 2520 use a two-year discovery rule. Plaintiffs should consult counsel and file early.

Recording Phone Calls in Nebraska (Including Interstate Calls)

Phone calls are wire or electronic communications under Section 86-290, fully covered by the one-party consent rule at Section 86-290(2)(c). A participant in the call may record without informing the other party. The rule applies to landline calls, cellular calls, VoIP services like Zoom and Teams and Google Meet, and the audio portion of video calls.

The carve-out still applies. Recording a creditor call to gather evidence of FDCPA violations is within the shield. Recording the same call to set up a defamation hoax is not.

The two-state problem on interstate calls

Where the call touches a two-party consent state, the stricter law typically governs. Federal courts and state courts generally apply the "most protective applicable law" rule when a recording crosses state lines, so a Nebraska resident calling a Los Angeles number should comply with California's all-party-consent rule under California Penal Code 632. The same caution applies to Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington (for phone calls).

The practical risk for Nebraska residents is narrower than it looks on a national map. All five Nebraska land-border neighbors (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, South Dakota, Wyoming) plus Colorado are also one-party consent jurisdictions. The cross-border friction arises mainly with non-neighbor two-party calls and with national customer-service or business-development calls into California, Florida, and the other strict states.

AI-voice and robocall overlay

The Federal Communications Commission classified AI-generated voices in robocalls as "artificial or prerecorded voice" for TCPA purposes in FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17, adopted February 2, 2024 and released February 8, 2024. The ruling remains in force as of May 2026 and applies to all callers reaching Nebraska numbers. Nebraska consumers receiving AI-cloned-voice marketing calls have a federal TCPA cause of action in addition to any chapter 86 wiretap analysis.

A separate FCC rule, FCC 24-24 (the so-called one-to-one consent rule), was vacated by the 11th Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025), with the mandate issuing April 30, 2025. The vacatur applies nationally. Do not cite FCC 24-24 as an active rule.

Hidden Cameras, Doorbells, Nanny Cams, and Section 28-311.08

Visual privacy and intimate-imagery prohibitions in Nebraska are now consolidated entirely in Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311.08 following 2025 LB80 Section 52, signed by Governor Pillen on May 20, 2025. LB80 Section 52 repealed the prior standalone NCII statute at Section 28-311.09 and the threat-to-distribute provision at Section 28-311.11, folding their substantive prohibitions into a multi-branch Section 28-311.08. Citations to Section 28-311.09 in older guides are no longer current.

Section 28-311.08 now contains five branches:

1. Branch (1) Intrusion in solitude or seclusion. Knowingly intruding on another person without consent in a place of solitude or seclusion. Class I misdemeanor first offense, Class IV felony second or subsequent. A "place of solitude or seclusion" includes restrooms, tanning booths, locker rooms, shower rooms, fitting rooms, and dressing rooms.
2. Branch (2) Recording the intimate area. Knowingly and intentionally photographing, filming, or recording an image or video of the intimate area of another person without knowledge and consent. Class IV felony.
3. Branch (3) Distribution of branch-(2) recordings. Knowingly and intentionally distributing or making public any image or video recorded in violation of branch (2) without consent of the depicted person. Class IIA felony first or second offense (up to 20 years), Class II felony third or subsequent (1 to 50 years).
4. Branch (4) Distribution of REP-protected intimate-area imagery. Knowingly and intentionally distributing or making public an image or video of the intimate area of another under circumstances in which the depicted person had a reasonable expectation of privacy, did not consent to the distribution, and the distribution serves no legitimate purpose. Class I misdemeanor first offense, Class IV felony second or subsequent.
5. Branch (5) Threat to distribute. Threatening to distribute or make public an image or video of another person's intimate area with the intent to intimidate, threaten, or harass. Class I misdemeanor.

Doorbell, smart-home, and dashcam audio

Video-only recording on a homeowner's own real property is generally lawful in Nebraska. Ring doorbells, nanny cams, and exterior security cameras pointed at common areas of one's property are not prohibited under Section 28-311.08. The complications arrive with audio capture and with cameras pointed at neighboring private property.

Audio capture inside the home, where the recorder is not present and no one in the captured conversation has consented, can implicate Section 86-290 even when the homeowner installed the device. A nanny cam in a child's room with audio that records the babysitter alone with the child while the homeowner is at work is a participant-less recording for Section 86-290 purposes. The 2023 Federal Trade Commission settlement in United States v. Ring LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01549 (D.D.C. May 31, 2023), produced $5.8 million in consumer redress and a comprehensive privacy and security program at Ring after findings that employees and contractors accessed customer videos without informed consent.

Dashcams operating inside the cabin pick up cabin audio and run on the same Section 86-290 framework. Where the driver is part of the conversation, the one-party shield applies. Where the dashcam continues recording in the empty cabin, no participant exists, and the device is recording any conversation later held inside without consent. Best practice: notify regular passengers, disable cabin audio when passengers are not part of the conversation, or position the camera to capture only the road.

Restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, and any other Section 28-311.08(1) "place of solitude or seclusion" are off-limits regardless of whether the recorder is the property owner. See our video-recording-without-consent guide for the wider intimate-imagery framework.

Recording Police and Public Officials in Nebraska: 8th Circuit Divergence

The 8th Circuit, which covers Nebraska, has not clearly established a First Amendment right to record police activity in public for qualified-immunity purposes. That puts Nebraska in a materially different posture from most of the rest of the country, and it is the second of the two unique 2026 angles the rest of the SERP is missing. See our broader recording police officers guide for cross-jurisdiction comparison.

Molina v. City of St. Louis (controlling)

Molina v. City of St. Louis, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023), is controlling. On February 14, 2023, an 8th Circuit panel reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to officers who tear-gassed two ACLU-affiliated National Lawyers Guild legal observers wearing identifying green hats during a 2015 protest. The panel held the right to passively observe law enforcement activity in public, and by direct extension the right to record it, was not clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes. Rehearing en banc was denied at 65 F.4th 994 (8th Cir. April 24, 2023), and the Supreme Court denied certiorari sub nom. Molina v. Book on February 20, 2024.

For Nebraska civilians, Molina means a Section 1983 damages claim against a police officer who arrests, detains, or seizes equipment in retaliation for recording will face a substantial qualified-immunity wall in federal court. The right itself may exist as a matter of First Amendment doctrine, but it is not clearly established within the 8th Circuit, and that is the standard that governs qualified immunity.

Robbins v. City of Des Moines (protected but not absolute)

Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021), is the most state-relevant 8th Circuit authority. Daniel Robbins recorded illegally parked vehicles from a public sidewalk adjacent to the Des Moines Police Station. Officers detained him under a Terry stop, arrested him for loitering, and seized his camera and cellphone for twelve days.

The 8th Circuit acknowledged that recording the police is constitutionally protected activity but held the right is not absolute. Officers received qualified immunity on the First Amendment retaliation claim because the right to record was not clearly established. The court reversed on the false-arrest claim (no probable cause for loitering) and on the prolonged twelve-day camera-and-cellphone seizure. Robbins binds the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska and Nebraska state law-enforcement officers in qualified-immunity analysis, while preserving Fourth Amendment false-arrest and unreasonable-seizure remedies.

Chestnut v. Wallace (narrow observe-at-distance only)

Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020), is the narrow observe-at-distance precedent. The 8th Circuit affirmed denial of qualified immunity to a police officer who stopped, frisked, and handcuffed a jogger who paused to watch officer traffic stops at a distance in a St. Louis park. The court held the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right to watch police-citizen interactions at a distance without interfering, with the opinion resting primarily on Fourth Amendment grounds and First Amendment underpinnings. Chestnut pre-dates Molina and was distinguished in Molina on the broader passive-observation question. It does not extend to active recording.

What the divergence means in practice

Eight circuits have recognized a clearly established First Amendment right to record police: the 1st, 3d, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, and 11th, with strong support in the 6th. The 8th Circuit stands apart. Nebraska also has no state-law backstop. Unlike Colorado, which enacted an express right-to-record statute at C.R.S. 16-3-311 and a no-qualified-immunity state-court civil cause of action at C.R.S. 13-21-128, Nebraska has neither. The federal Molina gap is therefore not filled by any Nebraska state fix.

The practical guidance for Nebraska civilians: the right to record police exists as a matter of underlying First Amendment doctrine, but qualified immunity will likely defeat federal damages claims against officers who arrest or interfere with recording. Document everything, record from a reasonable distance, comply with lawful time-place-manner orders, do not interfere, and preserve Fourth Amendment false-arrest and unreasonable-seizure claims as independent grounds.

LB204 Biometric Autonomy Liberty Law: Status as of 2026

Nebraska's biometric privacy posture is the cleanest unique-angle play in this guide because the rest of the page-one SERP has not caught up. The headline: Nebraska does not currently have a BIPA-style biometric privacy statute. The bill that would have created one (LB204, the Biometric Autonomy Liberty Law) was indefinitely postponed on April 17, 2026 after carryover from the 2025 session.

What LB204 would have done

LB204 was introduced January 14, 2025 by Senator Kathleen Kauth and modeled on the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. The bill would have declared biometric data the property of the individual, prohibited coerced biometric collection and implantable-device requirements, and limited sale or sharing of biometric data without consent. It would have created a private cause of action with statutory damages against employers and businesses that collected fingerprints, facial-recognition scans, voiceprints, or retina scans without compliant written disclosures.

The bill was referred to the Banking, Commerce, and Insurance Committee on January 16, 2025. A committee hearing was held on March 17, 2025. The bill was carried over to the second session on January 7, 2026. On April 17, 2026, the Legislature indefinitely postponed LB204, ending it for the session. The same disposition was applied the same day to LB615 (the political-deepfake bill discussed below), producing a synchronized legislative gap.

What governs voiceprint and facial-recognition recording in Nebraska

Without a BIPA-style statute, voiceprint and facial-recognition recording in Nebraska runs through the existing chapters:

• Audio voiceprint capture is governed by Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290 (interception) and the one-party rule at Section 86-290(2)(c). A voice-cloning service that records a Nebraska resident's voice in a participant call has the resident's participant standing as a possible shield, but a service that records a Nebraska resident from a third-party call without participant or party-consent standing faces full Section 86-290 exposure.
• Facial-recognition image capture runs through Section 28-311.08 (visual intrusion and disclosure) for places of solitude or seclusion and through common-law intrusion upon seclusion for other privacy-sensitive contexts.
• The federal overlay does some of the work LB204 would have done. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 reaches AI-cloned voice in robocalls under the TCPA. Post-LB371 UCRUDIIA reaches AI-generated intimate imagery on a civil track. The TAKE IT DOWN Act criminalizes nonconsensual intimate imagery (including deepfakes) at the federal level. None of these closes the BIPA gap because none provides a private cause of action for routine fingerprint, facial-recognition, or voiceprint collection by employers, retailers, or app developers.

How Nebraska compares to peer states

Illinois (BIPA, 740 ILCS 14/1), Texas (Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 503.001), Washington (the Biometric Identifier Privacy Act, RCW 19.375), and Colorado (HB 24-1130) all have biometric privacy frameworks. Nebraska does not, despite multi-session legislative attention. Businesses that collect biometric data from Nebraska residents face the existing federal overlay and Section 86-290 exposure where audio is involved, but no BIPA-style private right of action.

This is a real and narrow Nebraska-specific freshness signal. Treat anyone telling Nebraska residents they have BIPA-style protections as confused about the legislative outcome.

Nebraska Deepfake and AI Recording Laws (LB371, LB383, LB525)

Nebraska did enact AI and synthetic-imagery legislation in 2025 and 2026, just not the political-deepfake bill the headlines covered. The three real enactments are LB371, LB383, and LB525, each tackling a distinct slice of AI-enabled recording and imagery.

LB371 (UCRUDIIA AI-image extension; signed May 30, 2025)

LB371 was signed by Governor Pillen on May 30, 2025. It amends Nebraska's adoption of the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act (UCRUDIIA) to extend civil liability to images created by computer generation or digital manipulation. After LB371, the civil cause of action for nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images reaches AI-generated and digitally altered intimate content, not just authentic photographs or video.

LB371 is a civil-track enactment only; the criminal exposure for nonconsensual intimate-imagery distribution lives in Section 28-311.08(3) and (4). The combination of the post-LB80 criminal track and the post-LB371 civil track produces a fuller Nebraska remedy than either provides alone.

LB383 (Child Sexual Abuse Material Prevention Act; signed May 20, 2025)

LB383 renames the prior Child Pornography Prevention Act to the Child Sexual Abuse Material Prevention Act and adds prohibitions covering computer-generated and AI-generated CSAM. Signed by Governor Pillen on May 20, 2025, LB383 represents Nebraska's first explicit statutory recognition of AI-generated synthetic imagery as a categorical criminal offense. It is tangentially relevant to the recording-laws hub because it forecloses any "but it was AI-generated" defense to synthetic-CSAM charges in Nebraska.

LB525 (Conversational AI Safety Act; signed April 14, 2026)

LB525 was signed by Governor Pillen on April 14, 2026. The Conversational Artificial Intelligence Safety Act provisions (sections 12 to 18) become operative July 1, 2027. The Act requires operators to clearly and conspicuously disclose to minor account holders that they are interacting with AI; requires disclosure to any user where a reasonable person would otherwise be misled to believe the service is human; and requires operators to adopt a protocol for responding to user prompts regarding suicidal ideation or self-harm. The Nebraska Attorney General is the sole enforcer.

Nebraska became the fourth state to enact a chatbot-disclosure framework with LB525. Conversational AI services that collect, store, or transmit voice recordings of minor users will operate under a new statutory disclosure overlay starting July 1, 2027. Until that operative date, the existing Section 86-290 audio-interception framework controls.

LB615 political deepfake bill (failed)

LB615 was introduced January 22, 2025 by Senator John Cavanaugh. The bill would have prohibited distribution of computer-generated deepfakes of political candidates within ninety days before an election under the Nebraska Political Accountability and Disclosure Act. It was carried over to the second session and indefinitely postponed on April 17, 2026, the same date LB204 died. Nebraska does not currently have a political-deepfake disclosure statute. The closest comparable state regimes are in Colorado (HB 24-1147), Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington.

Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act overlay

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12, was signed on May 19, 2025. The criminal provisions, which prohibit knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate imagery (including AI-generated deepfakes), took effect on enactment. The platform notice-and-takedown obligation, which requires covered platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours, takes effect May 19, 2026. See the FTC overview for compliance guidance. Nebraska victims have a federal remedy alongside state law: post-LB80 Section 28-311.08 and the post-LB371 UCRUDIIA civil track. Our DMCA takedown notice generator covers adjacent platform-removal mechanics.

Recording at Work: Employee, Employer, and Lawyer Rules in Nebraska

Workplace recording in Nebraska runs on the standard one-party rule at Section 86-290(2)(c) plus a National Labor Relations Board overlay for private-sector employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act. See our broader employer-recording guide for cross-state comparison.

Employees recording employers, HR, and coworkers

A Nebraska employee who is a participant in a workplace conversation may record it under Section 86-290(2)(c) without telling other participants. That covers HR meetings, performance reviews, disciplinary conferences, and coworker conversations the employee is part of. The carve-out still applies: recording to extort, defame, or interfere with a contract loses the shield.

Employer policies can prohibit workplace recording, but the policy itself faces NLRA scrutiny. Under Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), a no-recording rule is presumptively unlawful if a reasonable economically dependent employee could read it to chill Section 7 activity. The burden shifts to the employer to show the rule advances a legitimate, narrowly tailored business interest. Boilerplate "no recording in the workplace" handbook language often fails that test.

NLRB GC 25-05 and GC 25-07: what changed and what did not

NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025), issued by Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen, rescinded numerous Biden-era General Counsel memoranda. GC 25-05 is a housekeeping rescission of prior General Counsel enforcement guidance. It does not overrule Stericycle, McLaren Macomb, or any underlying Board precedent, which can only be overruled by a Board decision. Practitioner sources have explicitly confirmed that GC 25-05 narrows enforcement priorities only and does not overturn Stericycle. Nebraska employers should still draft no-recording policies narrowly tailored to legitimate confidentiality, safety, or HIPAA interests, with carve-outs for Section 7 activity.

NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) is a narrow per-se rule against surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions, building on Bartlett-Collins Co., 237 NLRB 770 (1978). Where a party records a bargaining session without disclosure, that conduct is a per se violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3) (duty to bargain in good faith). GC 25-07 is not a Stericycle clarification and does not broadly address employee recording outside the bargaining-session context.

Right-to-work status and concentrated NLRA exposure

Nebraska is a right-to-work state under Article XV, Section 13 of the Nebraska Constitution and Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-217 to 48-219. Right-to-work status does not exempt Nebraska employers from NLRA exposure. The state has concentrated UFCW exposure in meatpacking (Tyson, JBS, and Smithfield plants in Dakota City, Lexington, Madison, Crete, and Grand Island), UAW exposure at Case New Holland in Grand Island, and building-trades and hospital-sector exposure at major regional systems. Employer recording policies in those workplaces should be drafted with Stericycle and the GC 25-07 bargaining-session per-se rule in mind.

Lawyer recording and Ethics Advisory Opinion 06-07

Nebraska lawyers face an additional layer beyond the wiretap statute. Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion 06-07 addresses the ethical permissibility of attorney recording and concludes that even one-party-consent recording can implicate Nebraska Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) where the recording is made covertly in a context that includes deception. The opinion cites State v. Manchester as the controlling Nebraska Supreme Court authority. Lawyers practicing in Nebraska should consult Opinion 06-07 before recording client meetings, opposing-counsel calls, or witness interviews without disclosure.

Nebraska Body-Worn Cameras and Public Records

Nebraska's body-worn camera framework lives at Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-1454 (Laws 2016, LB1000, Section 3), not at Section 84-1320 (which is part of chapter 84, article 13, and addresses state-employee retirement prior-service-credit calculations).

What Section 81-1454 actually requires

Section 81-1454 is a policy-and-retention mandate, not a deployment mandate and not a public-disclosure mandate. The statute requires:

• A written body-worn camera policy adopted by the law-enforcement agency before any agency may deploy body-cams
• Training for any peace officer who will use a body-worn camera and for employees handling the video or audio data
• A 90-day minimum retention period for recordings
• Extended retention for recordings tied to court proceedings, disciplinary proceedings against an employee, or open criminal investigations until a final determination

Nebraska agencies retain discretion whether to deploy body-cams; Section 81-1454 governs the procedural floor when they do. It defines a body-worn camera as a device worn by a peace officer in uniform with audio-and-video capability, which excludes plain-clothes officers and patrol-car dash-cams (the latter are governed by separate agency policy).

Civilian access through the Nebraska Public Records Act

Section 81-1454 is silent on civilian access. Civilian requests for body-cam footage run through the Nebraska Public Records Act at Neb. Rev. Stat. 84-712 to 84-712.09. The principal withholding tool is Neb. Rev. Stat. 84-712.05(5), which permits agencies to withhold records that, if released, would interfere with law-enforcement proceedings, deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication, constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, or disclose investigative techniques or sources.

The 84-712.05(5) exemption is permissive ("may be withheld") rather than mandatory. Agencies routinely release body-cam footage with redactions when the release does not implicate one of the listed concerns. Denial of a public-records request may be appealed to the Nebraska Attorney General under Neb. Rev. Stat. 84-712.03 or to district court. The Nebraska Attorney General's office maintains public-records appeal guidance for civilians and journalists.

Federal Overlay: ECPA, FCC, NLRB, and TAKE IT DOWN Act

Federal law sits underneath Nebraska's wiretap chapter and supplements it in several ways. None of the federal pieces displaces the Nebraska one-party rule for recordings made in Nebraska, but several create additional remedies and obligations.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. 2510 to 2522, is a one-party consent floor at the federal level. Section 2511(2)(d) is the exact textual analog to Nebraska's Section 86-290(2)(c), including the criminal-or-tortious-purpose carve-out. ECPA's parallel civil action at 18 U.S.C. 2520 does authorize punitive damages, in contrast with Section 86-297. Plaintiffs with federal hooks can layer the federal action on top of the state claim.

DOJ Justice Manual Section 9-7.302 sets the federal one-party-consent default for federal investigators. Federal agents in the District of Nebraska follow the DOJ default regardless of state-law rule, subject to internal-approval rules for sensitive cases involving Members of Congress, attorney-client situations, or members of the news media.

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (the AI-voice TCPA ruling) remains in force as discussed above. FCC 24-24 (the one-to-one consent rule) was vacated by the 11th Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC with the mandate issuing April 30, 2025; do not cite it as active. The legacy 47 C.F.R. 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017 and should not be cited as live.

The federal 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 effective May 19, 2026. Nebraska victims have a federal remedy alongside post-LB80 Section 28-311.08 and post-LB371 UCRUDIIA.

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), 47 U.S.C. 1001 to 1010, imposes engineering obligations on telecommunications carriers to enable lawful court-ordered interception. The HIPAA Privacy Rule at 45 C.F.R. Part 164 binds Nebraska covered entities and business associates, not patients; a patient may record their own visit under Nebraska's one-party rule, while a covered entity recording the patient needs HIPAA-compliant authorization. CFPB Regulation F at 12 C.F.R. Part 1006 does not impose an affirmative two-party consent requirement, so Nebraska debt collectors operating in-state need only one party's consent under Section 86-290(2)(c) plus federal ECPA.

Recording Court Hearings and Public Meetings in Nebraska

Members of the public have a statutory right to record open meetings of public bodies under Neb. Rev. Stat. 84-1412, the Open Meetings Act provision, subject to reasonable rules adopted by the public body to ensure orderly conduct of the meeting. Public bodies cannot prohibit recording altogether. Citizens, journalists, and advocacy groups may record:

• City council meetings
• County board meetings
• School board meetings
• State legislative committee proceedings
• Public hearings on rulemaking, zoning, and budgets
• Virtual conference meetings held by public bodies under the Open Meetings Act

Recording in Nebraska state courtrooms is governed by the Nebraska Supreme Court's expanded-media-coverage rules, which require advance application to the presiding judge for cameras, recording equipment, or broadcast media. Federal trial courts in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska generally prohibit recording, photography, and broadcast under their local rules; appellate proceedings in the 8th Circuit have separate and somewhat more permissive rules. Confirm the specific local rule with the clerk before bringing equipment to a federal proceeding.

Recent Legal Developments in Nebraska

2025 LB80 Section 52 (consolidation of Section 28-311.08)

LB80, signed by Governor Pillen on May 20, 2025, repealed the prior NCII statute at Section 28-311.09 and the threat-to-distribute provision at Section 28-311.11, consolidating their substantive prohibitions into the multi-branch Section 28-311.08. Older guides and briefs that cite Section 28-311.09 are referencing repealed law.

2025 LB371 (UCRUDIIA AI-image extension)

LB371, signed May 30, 2025, extends the UCRUDIIA civil cause of action to AI-generated and digitally manipulated intimate imagery. Civil track only; provides a private right of action to the depicted person.

2025 LB383 (CSAM Prevention Act)

LB383, signed May 20, 2025, renames the prior Child Pornography Prevention Act and adds prohibitions covering AI-generated and computer-generated child sexual abuse material.

2026 LB525 (Conversational AI Safety Act)

LB525, signed April 14, 2026, becomes operative July 1, 2027 and requires chatbot-disclosure to minor account holders, disclosure to any user a reasonable person would mistake for human, and a suicidal-ideation response protocol. Nebraska is the fourth state to enact a chatbot-disclosure law.

2026 LB204 indefinite postponement (Biometric Autonomy Liberty Law)

LB204 was indefinitely postponed on April 17, 2026 after carryover from the 2025 session. Nebraska does not currently have a BIPA-style biometric privacy statute.

2026 LB615 indefinite postponement (political deepfake bill)

LB615 was indefinitely postponed on April 17, 2026. Nebraska does not currently have a political-deepfake disclosure statute.

More Nebraska Laws

• Nebraska Lemon Laws
• Nebraska Hit and Run Laws
• Nebraska Statute of Limitations
• Nebraska Dog Bite Laws
• Nebraska Whistleblower Laws
• Nebraska Car Seat Laws
• Nebraska Sexting Laws
• Nebraska Child Support Laws

Nebraska Recording Laws by Topic

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

• Nebraska Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
• Nebraska Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026)
• Nebraska Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Audio, and Privacy Rights (2026)
• Nebraska Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent (2026)
• Nebraska Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026)
• Nebraska Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits (2026)
• Nebraska Public Recording Laws: Filming in Public Spaces and Government Meetings (2026)
• Nebraska School Recording Laws: Student, Parent, and Teacher Rights (2026)
• Nebraska Security Camera Laws: Rules for Homes, Businesses, and HOAs (2026)
• Nebraska Video Recording Laws: What You Can and Cannot Film (2026)
• Nebraska Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Privacy Protections (2026)
• Nebraska Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026)