Nevada Recording Laws (2026): NRS 200.620 + 200.650 Hybrid
Nevada is one of a small number of states where the answer to the consent question depends on whether the conversation happens in person or over a phone line. The same person who can lawfully record an in-person conversation under NRS 200.650 commits a Category D felony if they record the same conversation as a phone call without every participant's consent.
This split traces to two structurally different statutes and a single 1998 Nevada Supreme Court decision that turned a facially-one-party wiretap statute into an all-party rule for telephone calls. The page below walks through both rules, the controlling case law, the federal overlay, and the 2025 AI statutes that expanded Nevada's non-consensual intimate imagery regime.
Quick Answer: Is Nevada a One-Party or Two-Party Consent State?
Nevada is a hybrid consent state. The hybrid framing is the single most important fact about Nevada recording law and the one that catches most out-of-state callers, employers, and family-court litigants by surprise.
For in-person oral conversations, NRS 200.650 requires only one-party consent. A participant in a private face-to-face conversation may record that conversation lawfully without telling anyone else. The statute reaches surreptitious listening by an outside person, not consensual recording by a participant.
For wire communications, including landline calls, cellphone calls, voice-over-IP audio, and text messages, NRS 200.620 requires all-party consent. The statutory text reads as a one-party rule, but the Nevada Supreme Court construed it as all-party in Lane v. Allstate Insurance Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998), and extended that construction to cellphones and text messages in Sharpe v. State, 350 P.3d 388 (Nev. 2015).
Nevada Recording Law Summary
| Situation | Consent Required | Statute |
|---|---|---|
| In-person conversation you participate in | One-party (your consent is enough) | NRS 200.650 |
| Landline phone call | All-party (everyone must agree) | NRS 200.620 (per Lane) |
| Cellphone call | All-party (everyone must agree) | NRS 200.620 (per Sharpe) |
| Text message thread | All-party (everyone must agree) | NRS 200.620 (per Sharpe) |
| Video call (Zoom, Teams, FaceTime) | All-party (wire communication) | NRS 200.620 |
| Silent video in public | No consent required for video alone | No specific statute |
| Hidden camera in private place during nudity or intimate activity | Prohibited (gross misdemeanor or felony) | NRS 200.604 |
| Recording police in public | Protected right | NRS 171.1233 + Fordyce / Askins (9th Cir.) |
| Non-consensual intimate imagery (criminal) | Prohibited | NRS 200.780 (post-SB 213) |
| Non-consensual intimate imagery (civil cause) | Express civil action | NRS 200.788 |
The criminal penalty for either NRS 200.620 or NRS 200.650 violations is the same: a Category D felony under NRS 200.690 and NRS 193.130, with 1 to 4 years in Nevada State Prison and a fine of up to $5,000. For more on how Nevada compares with the strict states, see two-party consent states. For the federal hub treatment, see United States recording laws.
Nevada's Hybrid Mixed-Consent Framework: NRS 200.620 vs. NRS 200.650
Most states roll all consent recording into a single rule. Nevada runs phones and in-person conversations through two textually distinct statutes that the Nevada Supreme Court has, in turn, construed in two different directions. The result is a hybrid framework that requires Nevada residents and out-of-state callers to think about the medium of the conversation before pressing record.
The two statutes share a single criminal penalty, a single civil cause of action, and a single Pacific Reporter line of authority. They diverge on the consent question. NRS 200.650 reads as one-party on its face and the Nevada Supreme Court has applied it that way. NRS 200.620 also reads as one-party on its face, but the Lane v. Allstate majority read the legislative history and the structural contrast with NRS 200.650 to conclude that the Nevada Legislature actually intended an all-party rule for wire communications.
Lane was a 3-2 decision answering a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The majority's reasoning was comparative: because the Nevada Legislature wrote a clear one-party rule for in-person oral conversations in NRS 200.650, the absence of an explicit one-party authorization in NRS 200.620 told the court that the Legislature treated nonconsensual phone recording as a greater privacy intrusion. That structural contrast is what fixes the hybrid framework in place.
Side-by-Side: NRS 200.620 vs. NRS 200.650
| Feature | NRS 200.620 (wire / phone) | NRS 200.650 (in-person) |
|---|---|---|
| What is covered | Interception of wire communications, including landline, cellphone, VOIP, text | Surreptitious listening to or recording of a private oral conversation by an outside person |
| Consent rule | All-party (per Lane v. Allstate 1998 and Sharpe v. State 2015) | One-party (textual: authorized by one of the persons engaging in the conversation) |
| Privacy qualifier | "Wire communication" definition reaches private and semi-private channels | "Private conversation" qualifier excludes public-place exchanges with no reasonable expectation of privacy |
| Criminal classification | Category D felony, NRS 200.690 + NRS 193.130 | Category D felony, NRS 200.690 + NRS 193.130 |
| Civil floor | NRS 200.690: $100 per day or $1,000 minimum (greater), plus actual, punitive, and attorney fees | Same NRS 200.690 floor |
| Statutory exceptions | Court-ordered wiretap (NRS 179.410 to 179.515); emergency exception with retroactive ratification; public-utility carve-out; emergency call lines | Outside-person framing means a participant recording own conversation is outside the statute |
| Cellphone / text reach | Yes, per Sharpe v. State (2015) | Not directly; in-person face-to-face only |
A Nevada resident who records a workplace conversation at the breakroom table is acting under NRS 200.650 and is lawful as a participant. The same resident who hangs up the phone and dictates a recap into a voice memo is also lawful (the resident is recording themself, not intercepting a wire communication). The same resident who hits record in the middle of a phone call back to the office is intercepting a wire communication under NRS 200.620 and, under Lane v. Allstate, owes all-party consent.
NRS 200.620: Wire and Phone Communications (All-Party Consent)
NRS 200.620 prohibits any person from intercepting or attempting to intercept any wire communication, except as otherwise authorized by Nevada wiretap law. The statute lists three statutory exceptions: court-ordered judicial wiretap orders under NRS 179.410 to 179.515, a corrections-context exception under NRS 209.419, and a public-utility carve-out under NRS 704.195. The text also includes a narrow emergency exception that requires impracticability of obtaining a court order and retroactive compliance with the subsection 3 ex parte order procedures.
Read in isolation, the operative consent language in NRS 200.620 looks like a one-party rule. The Nevada Supreme Court in Lane v. Allstate held that it is not. The majority construed the statute to require the consent of every party to the telephone communication, on the comparative-construction reasoning described above and on the broader legislative history of Nevada wiretap law. Lane has not been overruled or modified, and NRS 200.620 has not been amended in a way that would unsettle the construction.
The criminal penalty under NRS 200.690 and NRS 193.130 is a Category D felony: 1 to 4 years in Nevada State Prison and a fine of up to $5,000. The civil cause of action under NRS 200.690 supplies liquidated damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees. Aiding, employing, or procuring another person to intercept a wire communication carries the same exposure as direct interception.
What "Wire Communication" Reaches
The Nevada Supreme Court extended the Lane construction to cellphone calls and text messages in Sharpe v. State, applying the same interpretive framework to digital communications. The practical scope of NRS 200.620 covers landline calls, mobile calls, conference calls, VOIP audio (Skype, Teams, Google Voice, Zoom audio, FaceTime audio), and text messages. Recording any of those without the consent of every participant is interception under the statute, even when the recorder is a participant. A Nevada employer who records a customer-service phone call without an "all calls are recorded" announcement and affirmative consent at the start of the call is exposed to the Category D felony penalty plus the NRS 200.690 civil floor.
NRS 200.650: In-Person Eavesdropping (One-Party Consent)
NRS 200.650 prohibits a person from intruding upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring, or recording any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclosing the existence or content of any conversation so listened to, monitored, or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.
The statute's textual one-party authorization carve-out is the hook that makes Nevada a one-party state for in-person oral conversations. A participant in the conversation is, by definition, "one of the persons engaging in the conversation." Their own consent satisfies the statute. The result is straightforward: a Nevada resident may record their own face-to-face meetings, breakroom exchanges, family discussions, and similar in-person oral conversations without informing the other speakers.
The "Private Conversation" Qualifier
The statute reaches "private conversations" only. Recording in places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy is outside NRS 200.650. A loud exchange in a crowded restaurant lobby has less privacy protection than a closed-door office discussion. Courts look at the totality of circumstances: the location, the volume, whether doors were closed, whether the speakers took steps to keep the conversation private, and whether the speakers knew or should have known that others could hear them.
Outside-Person Framing
The other key feature of NRS 200.650 is that it targets surreptitious listening by an outside person. A participant in the conversation is not an outside person and is therefore outside the statute's prohibitive reach. A non-participant who plants a recording device in a private place to capture other people's conversations is squarely within the statute, even if the device's owner has been invited into the home. The criminal penalty is the same Category D felony under NRS 200.690 and NRS 193.130.
What NRS 200.650 Does and Does Not Reach
- Two coworkers at a kitchen table. A third coworker who joins and pulls out a phone to record is acting as a participant under NRS 200.650's one-party authorization. Lawful.
- A roommate who plants a microphone in the kitchen and leaves the house. Outside-person surreptitious listening. Within NRS 200.650 and a Category D felony.
- A spouse who records an in-person argument in the marital home. Participant. Outside NRS 200.650. Note: admissibility in family court is a separate question from legality.
- A patron in a busy restaurant who records the conversation at the next table. Likely outside NRS 200.650 because the conversation is not private (no reasonable expectation of privacy in a crowded room), but recording is bad practice and may run into NRS 200.620 if any participant is on a phone call.
- A wedding guest who records the toasts. Lawful: the toasts are public to the room and the guest is a participant in the room.
Lane v. Allstate and Sharpe v. State: How the All-Party Phone Rule Evolved
The two Nevada Supreme Court cases at the center of the page are Lane v. Allstate (1998) and Sharpe v. State (2015). Together, they fix the all-party rule for every phone, cellphone, video-call, and text-message recording in Nevada. Most page-1 search results for "is Nevada a one-party consent state" cite Lane without surfacing Sharpe. Nevada's hybrid framework cannot be applied accurately without both.
Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998)
Lane v. Allstate is the foundational Nevada Supreme Court authority on NRS 200.620. The case arose on a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada in a wrongful-termination dispute between Randy Lane, a former Allstate Insurance employee, and Allstate. Lane had recorded over 700 telephone conversations with coworkers and witnesses to support his employment-related claims. Allstate argued that the recordings violated NRS 200.620 and were inadmissible.
The Nevada Supreme Court agreed in a 3-2 decision. The majority held that NRS 200.620 requires the consent of every party to a telephone communication before that communication may be recorded. The court reached this construction on two grounds. First, the statute reaches "any person" subject only to enumerated exceptions, and a participant is a person. Second, and more importantly for future cases, the structurally distinct one-party rule in NRS 200.650 told the court that the Legislature deliberately wrote a different consent rule for telephone calls. The majority concluded that the Legislature treated nonconsensual phone recording as a greater privacy intrusion warranting a stricter consent rule.
An individual who tapes their own telephone calls without the consent of all participants therefore unlawfully "intercepts" those calls. The two dissenting justices argued that a participant cannot illegally intercept their own call and that only third-party eavesdropping should fall within the statute. The dissent did not carry the day in 1998 and has not been adopted in any later Nevada Supreme Court decision.
Sharpe v. State, 350 P.3d 388 (Nev. 2015)
Sharpe v. State is the modern Nevada Supreme Court authority extending Lane's all-party rule under NRS 200.620 to cellphone calls and text messages. The case arose from a drug-trafficking investigation in which law enforcement obtained a wiretap warrant for two cellphone numbers and intercepted both voice calls and text-message contents.
The court applied Lane's interpretive framework to digital communications, confirming that cellphone calls and text messages are "wire communications" for purposes of NRS 200.620 because they are transmitted in whole or in part by wire, cable, or other like connection. The holding extends the all-party consent rule to the entire universe of digital communications: cellphone calls, VOIP audio, video calls, and text messages. Sharpe has not been overruled or modified.
The Lane-then-Sharpe progression is the recordinglaw.com Nevada hub's authority moat. Most secondary sources cite Lane in passing for the all-party phone rule and stop there. Sharpe is what makes the rule current and clear for digital-era communications.
Penalties: Category D Felony and Civil Remedies
NRS 200.690 supplies both the criminal penalty and the civil cause of action for the wire, oral, and listening-device interception cluster (NRS 200.620 through NRS 200.650 inclusive). Both rules share the same penalty ladder.
Criminal Penalty: Category D Felony
A willful and knowing violation is a Category D felony under NRS 193.130, carrying 1 to 4 years in Nevada State Prison and a fine of up to $5,000. The prosecution must prove that the defendant acted both willfully and knowingly. Accidental recordings or recordings made under a good-faith belief that consent was given may not satisfy the willful-and-knowing element, though that defense is fact-specific and not guaranteed.
| Penalty | Amount |
|---|---|
| Imprisonment | 1 to 4 years in Nevada State Prison |
| Fine | Up to $5,000 |
| Classification | Category D felony |
| Mens rea | Willful and knowing |
The penalty range under NRS 200.690 reaches violations of NRS 200.620, NRS 200.625 (disclosure), NRS 200.630 (additional disclosure restrictions), NRS 200.640 (unauthorized connection to a telephone facility), and NRS 200.650 (in-person eavesdropping). The full inclusive range is the entire wire, oral, and listening-device cluster, not just the two flagship statutes.
Civil Cause of Action
NRS 200.690 also creates a private right of action. A plaintiff whose wire or oral communication is intercepted without consent may recover, at the plaintiff's election:
| Civil Damages | Amount |
|---|---|
| Actual damages | Whatever losses the plaintiff can prove |
| Liquidated damages | $100 per day of violation, with a $1,000 minimum, whichever is greater |
| Punitive damages | Available on a clear-and-convincing showing of oppression, fraud, or malice |
| Attorney fees and costs | Reasonable fees and court costs |
The plaintiff receives whichever is greater: actual damages or the $100-per-day or $1,000-minimum liquidated figure. The civil cause has historically been treated as governed by the three-year limitations period in NRS 11.190(3) for liabilities created by statute, with discovery-rule tolling potentially available for surreptitious surveillance. A two-year personal-injury limitations period under NRS 11.190(4)(e) may also be argued for the underlying privacy invasion. Plaintiffs should plead within the shorter window when in doubt and use the longer period only with clear authority.
The public-utility safe harbor in NRS 200.690(2) protects utilities acting in good faith on a written one-party request. The safe harbor does not extend to private parties.
Common-Law Privacy Tort Overlay
Nevada recognizes a common-law invasion-of-privacy framework that operates alongside the NRS 200.690 statutory cause. The Nevada Supreme Court anchored the framework in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd., 111 Nev. 615, 895 P.2d 1269 (1995), recognizing the four Restatement (Second) of Torts section 652 branches, including intrusion upon seclusion (intentional intrusion on solitude, seclusion, or private affairs, plus conduct highly offensive to a reasonable person). Surreptitious audio or video recording in a place where the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy can satisfy the intrusion element without physical entry, and NRS 42.005 supplies punitive damages on a clear-and-convincing showing of oppression, fraud, or malice. The personal-injury limitations period under NRS 11.190(4)(e) is two years.
Recording Phone Calls in Nevada (Including Interstate Calls)
Recording any phone call with a Nevada participant requires the consent of every person on the call. The rule applies to landline calls, cellphone calls, VOIP audio, video calls, and text messages, all per the Lane-then-Sharpe progression. The simplest compliance posture is to announce the recording at call open and obtain affirmative consent from every voice on the line before continuing.
Nevada is itself a stricter state for phone recording. The Lane v. Allstate construction means that any interstate call with a Nevada participant on either end is governed by all-party consent. A Nevada caller calling out to California must obtain all-party consent. Equally, an out-of-state caller in a one-party state who calls into Nevada must obtain all-party consent: the Nevada participant has the protection of NRS 200.620 regardless of where the call originates. This bidirectional framing matters for businesses with national call centers, debt collectors, telesales operations, and journalists. A national caller treating Nevada as a one-party state because it is "in the West" is making a costly mistake.
The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) sets a one-party-consent floor at 18 U.S.C. section 2511(2)(d) for any party to a communication, unless the interception is for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. ECPA does not preempt stricter state law; Nevada's all-party rule under NRS 200.620 controls for any Nevada participant. ECPA's civil cause of action under 18 U.S.C. section 2520 supplies actual damages or statutory damages of $100 per day or $10,000 (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages, attorney fees, and equitable relief. A Nevada plaintiff may plead the ECPA cause alongside NRS 200.690 to maximize recovery.
The other states applying an all-party rule to at least some phone-call contexts are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
Recording Police and Public Officials in Nevada
Nevada citizens have both an express statutory right and a controlling federal First Amendment right to record law enforcement activity in public.
NRS 171.1233: The Express Nevada Right to Record Law Enforcement
NRS 171.1233 is the express Nevada statutory right to record law enforcement activity, enacted in 2017. The statute provides that a person who is not under arrest or in the custody of a peace officer may record any law enforcement activity and maintain custody and control of that recording and any property or instruments used to make it. A person who is under arrest or in custody does not, by that status alone, forfeit the right to have such recordings, property, or instruments maintained and returned.
The statute is not absolute. It does not authorize interference with or obstruction of law enforcement activity, and does not exempt the recorder from compliance with other laws while recording. A bystander who steps into the middle of an arrest scene to film is not protected; a bystander who films from a safe distance is.
NRS 171.1233 is a record-the-police statute, not a courtroom-recording statute. Nevada courtroom recording is governed separately by the Nevada Supreme Court Rules on Electronic Coverage of Court Proceedings, administered by nvcourts.gov. Coverage of judicial proceedings requires advance permission from the presiding judge under those separate rules.
Ninth Circuit First Amendment Anchors: Fordyce and Askins
Nevada is in the Ninth Circuit. The controlling federal record-the-police authority is Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), and Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018).
Fordyce held that the First Amendment protects the right to videotape police officers carrying out their duties in public. The court reinstated First Amendment interference and assault claims against a Seattle officer who deliberately struck the plaintiff's camera while the plaintiff was videotaping a public protest. The court vacated the declaratory relief on the underlying state wiretap statute on procedural grounds. Fordyce binds Nevada along with Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.
Askins extended Fordyce beyond pure police-encounter video to public photography of government activity in publicly accessible areas, including federal-property border-zone facts. The Ninth Circuit applied a heightened-scrutiny framework that demands a more substantial governmental showing than mere assertion of a security interest. The case settled in September 2020 with the federal defendants agreeing not to interfere with First Amendment rights at U.S. land ports of entry; the Ninth Circuit's First Amendment holding remains controlling.
A Nevada bystander who records a police encounter in a public space therefore has both an express NRS 171.1233 right and a Fordyce/Askins First Amendment right. A bystander whose camera is struck or seized may bring a section 1983 claim against the offending officer. Nevada citizens should not rely on Eleventh Circuit decisions like Smith v. City of Cumming (which binds Alabama, Florida, and Georgia only) or Tenth Circuit decisions like Frasier v. Evans and Irizarry v. Yehia (which bind Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming) as controlling for Nevada.
NRS 289.830: Nevada Body-Worn Camera Mandate
NRS 289.830 requires Nevada law enforcement agencies that employ uniformed peace officers in regular contact with the public to require those officers to wear a portable event recording device while on duty. The statute was enacted in 2017 with subsequent amendments through 2023.
Each agency must adopt written policies governing activation (mandatory at the initiation of any law-enforcement or investigative encounter and on calls for service), deactivation prohibition (until the conclusion of the encounter), and prohibition on recording general unrelated activity. Records made by the device are public records subject to redaction for confidential information that cannot otherwise be redacted, with NRS Chapter 239 governing disclosure timelines and redaction procedures. Officer misconduct, including failure to operate the device per policy, manipulation of recorded video, and premature erasure, is prohibited.
NRS 289.830 imposes obligations on agencies and officers, not citizens. It complements (rather than restricts) the citizen right to record law enforcement activity under NRS 171.1233 and the Ninth Circuit First Amendment line.
Recording at Work: Employee and Employer Rules in Nevada
Workplace recording in Nevada runs through the same hybrid framework: in-person workplace conversations follow NRS 200.650 (one-party), and workplace phone calls follow NRS 200.620 (all-party per Lane). The federal NLRB overlay layers on top.
In-Person Workplace Recording
A Nevada employee who participates in a workplace meeting, performance review, or breakroom conversation may record that exchange under NRS 200.650's one-party rule. The same rule applies to employers recording employee meetings. Either side that hides a recording device in a workspace and leaves the room is not a participant and is exposed to a Category D felony under the outside-person framing of NRS 200.650.
For more detail on whether an employer can record conversations at work, see the standalone hub.
Workplace Phone Calls
For business phone calls, NRS 200.620 controls. An employer who records customer-service calls without an "all calls are recorded" announcement and affirmative consent is exposed to the Category D felony plus the NRS 200.690 civil floor. The standard compliance posture is a clear announcement at call open and obtaining affirmative consent before any substantive discussion.
NLRB Stericycle Standard for No-Recording Handbook Rules
Private-sector employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act must evaluate any no-recording handbook rule under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023). A rule is presumptively unlawful if a reasonable economically dependent employee contemplating Section 7 protected concerted activity could interpret it as chilling those rights. The employer rebuts by showing the rule advances a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a more narrowly tailored rule. Nevada is a right-to-work state under NRS Chapter 613, but right-to-work status does not strip NLRA Section 7 protections or NLRB jurisdiction. As of May 10, 2026, Stericycle remains controlling Board precedent.
GC 25-05 and GC 25-07: Corrected Framing
NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025, Acting GC William B. Cowen) is a rescission-of-memoranda housekeeping memo. It rescinded several prior General Counsel memoranda (including GC 21-06 and GC 21-07 on remedies, GC 21-08 on student-athletes, and GC 23-02 on electronic monitoring) to allow re-evaluation. GC 25-05 did not reinstate the Boeing categorical work-rule framework, did not overrule Stericycle, and did not alter Section 7 protections. Boeing was overruled by Stericycle in 2023 and has not been reinstated by the Board. Nevada employers should treat Stericycle as the controlling rule for evaluating no-recording handbook policies.
GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) declares surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions a per se violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3), building on Bartlett-Collins Co., 237 NLRB 770 (1978). It is narrowly scoped to bargaining sessions and is not a Stericycle clarification. Nevada unionized workplaces (Las Vegas hospitality and gaming under Culinary Union Local 226, MGM Resorts collective-bargaining agreements, Clark County School District teachers under NSEA, and the Nevada Highway Patrol Association) are subject to GC 25-07 in any formal bargaining session.
Hidden Cameras, Doorbells, Nanny Cams, and Voyeurism (NRS 200.604)
Nevada treats video and audio recording very differently. Silent video recording in places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy is generally legal. Audio recording is governed by the hybrid framework above. The voyeurism statute, NRS 200.604, supplies a separate criminal regime for hidden-camera capture of a person's private area.
NRS 200.604: Capture of an Image of the Private Area of Another Person
NRS 200.604 prohibits knowing and intentional capture of an image of the private area of another person without consent under circumstances in which the depicted person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A first offense is a gross misdemeanor under NRS 193.140, with up to 364 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,000. A second or subsequent offense is a Category E felony, with the penalty schedule under NRS 193.130(2)(e) including mandatory probation for first-time Category E offenders.
The statute also reaches downstream distribution, disclosure, display, transmission, or publication of an image captured in violation of subsection 1. Image evidence held in connection with an NRS 200.604 prosecution is statutorily confidential and may be inspected only as needed for investigation, prosecution, or defense, and only on court authorization for other purposes.
Doorbell Cameras: The Audio-vs-Video Split
Doorbell cameras like Ring, Nest, and Eufy raise a Nevada-specific compliance trap. The video track of a doorbell camera capturing the porch, walkway, or front yard is generally outside NRS 200.604 because the porch is a public-facing area with no reasonable expectation of privacy and there is no capture of a private area. The audio track is different: doorbell-camera audio capturing a phone call by an approaching visitor is interception of a wire communication under NRS 200.620 (per Lane v. Allstate as extended by Sharpe v. State) and owes all-party consent. The simplest compliance posture is to disable audio capture on outdoor cameras or post clear notice that audio is recorded so visitors can step away from active phone calls before approaching. For more on video recording without consent, see the standalone hub.
The FTC's May 2023 settlement with Ring LLC ($5.8 million consumer redress plus injunctive relief) is a federal-overlay compliance signal independent of NRS Chapter 200: even where the homeowner's audio capture is lawful under NRS 200.650, vendor data-handling, retention, and human review can violate FTC Act section 5.
A parent or guardian using a nursery camera or similar in-home monitoring device is generally lawful under NRS 200.604 because the capture targets the parent's own private space. Capture of a domestic worker, nanny, or guest in a private area like a bathroom or guest bedroom is squarely within NRS 200.604 and a gross misdemeanor on the first offense. For more on Nevada's surveillance-camera framework, see the dedicated state-spoke page.
Nevada Deepfake and AI Recording Laws (AB 73, SB 213, SB 263)
Nevada's 83rd Legislature enacted three AI-focused statutes in the 2025 session that expand the state's recording, dissemination, and election-disclosure framework. The trio is AB 73, SB 213, and SB 263. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act layers on top with a platform compliance deadline that arrives May 19, 2026.
AB 73: Election Deepfake Disclosure (Effective January 1, 2026)
Nevada AB 73, sponsored by Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, requires a clear and conspicuous disclosure on election-related communications that include images, video, or audio altered using artificial intelligence. The disclosure mandate applies to communications made or paid for by a person, organization, candidate's campaign committee, political action committee, or political party committee.
A candidate depicted in altered political advertising without the required disclosure may seek a legal injunction stopping further dissemination by the creator. AB 73 does not impose a financial penalty by itself; enforcement is via injunctive relief by the depicted candidate, with parallel Attorney General enforcement available. The statute is effective January 1, 2026.
SB 213: NRS 200.780 NCII Synthetic Imagery Expansion (Effective October 1, 2025)
Nevada SB 213 amends NRS 200.780 (unlawful dissemination of intimate image) to expressly reach AI-generated and digitally altered (synthetic) intimate imagery. The amendment closes the gap that pre-2025 Nevada law could not reach when intimate imagery was wholly fabricated by generative AI rather than captured from the depicted person.
NRS 200.780 makes unlawful dissemination of an intimate image a Category D felony with 1 to 4 years in Nevada State Prison and a fine of up to $5,000 under NRS 193.130. The crime requires (1) specific intent to harass, harm, or terrorize another person; (2) electronic dissemination or sale of an intimate image depicting the other person; and (3) the depicted person did not consent to the dissemination or sale. After SB 213, the statute expressly reaches deepfake imagery alongside authentic captured imagery. The amendment is effective October 1, 2025.
SB 263: AI-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material (Effective October 1, 2025)
Nevada SB 263, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro, expands Nevada's definition of child pornography to include any computer-generated sexually explicit images of a minor (AI-generated CSAM). The amendment revises applicable criminal penalties to provide that a second or subsequent violation is a Category A felony punishable by minimum 10 years and maximum life imprisonment with possibility of parole. SB 263 is effective October 1, 2025.
NRS 200.788: Express Nevada Civil Cause for NCII
The express Nevada civil cause of action for non-consensual intimate imagery is NRS 200.788. A depicted person whose intimate image is electronically disseminated or sold without consent may bring a civil action for damages, with statutory remedies running alongside the common-law overlay (intrusion upon seclusion under PETA v. Bobby Berosini, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the Nevada right of publicity under NRS 597.770 to 597.810 for commercial uses).
After the 2025 SB 213 amendment to the predicate criminal statute (NRS 200.780) that expanded coverage to AI-generated synthetic intimate imagery, the universe of conduct that can ground a NRS 200.788 civil claim now expressly reaches deepfake imagery. NRS 200.788 is the operative civil cause of action for NCII victims in Nevada. NRS 41.1395 (the elder and vulnerable-adult-abuse double-damages statute) is not an NCII civil cause and has been incorrectly cited in some prior secondary sources.
NRS 200.785 is the companion sextortion statute, reaching demands for payment in exchange for removal or non-distribution of an intimate image. Together, NRS 200.780, NRS 200.785, and NRS 200.788 cover the full Nevada NCII regime.
FCC 24-17: AI-Voice Robocalls Under TCPA (In Force)
FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17, adopted February 2, 2024 and released February 8, 2024, holds that AI-generated voices in calls are "artificial or prerecorded voice" for purposes of the TCPA's robocall consent requirements at 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Calling parties must obtain prior express consent before placing AI-voice calls. As of May 10, 2026, FCC 24-17 remains in force; no vacatur or rescission has issued.
A Nevada consumer who receives an AI-voice scam call may record the call as a participant (subject to Nevada's NRS 200.620 all-party rule under Lane, which means the recording consumer should announce the recording at call open and obtain affirmative consent) and assert a private TCPA cause of action for $500 to $1,500 per violation under 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(3).
TAKE IT DOWN Act: Federal Platform Notice-and-Takedown (Compliance May 19, 2026)
The TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. No. 119-12, was signed into law on May 19, 2025. It amends Section 223 of the Communications Act to criminalize the knowing publication of non-consensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated digital forgeries (deepfakes), of identifiable adults and minors. Covered platforms must implement a notice-and-removal procedure that removes flagged content within 48 hours of valid notice.
The criminal prohibition took effect on enactment (May 19, 2025). The platform compliance deadline arrives May 19, 2026. Nevada victims of NCII or deepfake recording can invoke the federal notice-and-takedown procedure as of that date, alongside Nevada's existing voyeurism statute NRS 200.604, the NRS 200.780 unlawful-dissemination criminal statute (post-SB 213), the NRS 200.785 sextortion statute, and the NRS 200.788 civil cause of action. The federal regime preempts nothing in Nevada criminal law.
Civil Lawsuits for Illegal Recording in Nevada
A Nevada plaintiff whose phone call was recorded without consent in violation of NRS 200.620, or whose private in-person conversation was surreptitiously recorded by an outside person in violation of NRS 200.650, has a layered set of civil remedies.
The lead remedy is the express NRS 200.690 civil cause: liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation or a $1,000 minimum (whichever is greater), plus actual damages, plus punitive damages, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs. The federal ECPA cause under 18 U.S.C. section 2520 layers on top: actual damages or statutory damages of $100 per day or $10,000 (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages, attorney fees, and equitable relief. ECPA does not preempt state law, and a Nevada plaintiff may plead both causes simultaneously.
The common-law intrusion upon seclusion tort (per PETA v. Bobby Berosini, 1995) operates alongside the statutory causes. The personal-injury limitations period under NRS 11.190(4)(e) is two years; the liabilities-created-by-statute period under NRS 11.190(3) is three years. Discovery-rule tolling may extend either period for surreptitious surveillance the plaintiff did not learn about until later. For NCII victims, NRS 200.788 supplies the express statutory civil cause and the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act notice-and-takedown procedure (effective May 19, 2026) supplies the platform-side remedy.
Family-Court and Divorce Recording Notes
Nevada's hybrid framework matters in family-law contexts. A spouse recording an in-person conversation with the other spouse is a participant under NRS 200.650 (one-party authorization). A spouse recording the other spouse's phone calls without consent, however, is "intercepting" a wire communication under NRS 200.620 per Lane v. Allstate and Sharpe v. State, even within a marital home, and is exposed to the Category D felony. Whether a lawful one-party recording is admissible in a Nevada family-court proceeding is a separate question governed by the Nevada Rules of Evidence and the family-court judge's discretion; admissibility is not equivalent to legality. Recording in private places (a marital bedroom, a shared bathroom) for sexual-gratification purposes can also implicate NRS 200.604. Consult a Nevada family-law attorney for admissibility advice; this hub is informational only.
Federal Overlay: ECPA, FCC, NLRB, and TAKE IT DOWN Act
Federal recording law sets a one-party-consent floor at 18 U.S.C. section 2511(2)(d) but does not preempt stricter state law. Nevada's all-party phone rule under NRS 200.620 controls for any Nevada participant.
| Federal Source | Status as of May 10, 2026 |
|---|---|
| ECPA, 18 U.S.C. 2510 to 2522 | In force; one-party floor; no preemption of stricter state law |
| FCC 24-17 (AI voice in robocalls = TCPA artificial or prerecorded voice) | In force |
| FCC 24-24 (one-to-one consent rule) | Vacated by 11th Cir. in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, mandate April 30, 2025 |
| 47 CFR 64.501 (telephone-recording notification) | Removed and reserved effective November 20, 2017 |
| Stericycle, 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023) | Controlling Board law on no-recording rules |
| GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) | Housekeeping rescission; Stericycle still controls |
| GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) | Narrow per se 8(a)(5)/8(b)(3) bar on surreptitious bargaining-session recording |
| TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (May 19, 2025) | Criminal prohibition in force; platform compliance deadline May 19, 2026 |
DOJ Justice Manual section 9-7.302 sets internal procedures for warrantless consensual monitoring by federal agents and does not override Lane v. Allstate for Nevada-state-law purposes; private parties still owe NRS 200.620's all-party rule. The HIPAA Privacy Rule (45 CFR Part 164) binds covered entities, not patients; a Nevada patient recording their provider in person is lawful under NRS 200.650, but phone or telehealth recording owes NRS 200.620 all-party consent. Regulation F (12 CFR Part 1006) constrains debt-collector communication channels and disclosures; debt collectors recording a Nevada consumer must observe NRS 200.620, and a Nevada debtor may separately record collection-agency calls under NRS 649.331 by announcing the recording at the start of the call. CALEA (47 U.S.C. sections 1001 to 1010) imposes engineering obligations on carriers, not consent rules on individuals.
More Nevada Laws
- Nevada Lemon Laws
- Nevada Sexting Laws
- Nevada Child Support Laws
- Nevada Statute of Limitations
- Nevada Dog Bite Laws
- Nevada Car Seat Laws
- Nevada Whistleblower Laws
- Nevada Hit and Run Laws
Wearable Recording Devices in Nevada
Nevada's hybrid framework applies to wearable recording devices in exactly the same way it applies to phones. The medium of the conversation, not the form factor of the device, is what controls. Wearable devices like Plaud Note, Plaud NotePin, Limitless Pendant, and AI-enabled smartwatches fall within NRS 200.650's one-party rule when they capture a participant's own in-person conversations. The transcription and AI-summary features do not change the underlying consent analysis.
For phone calls, video calls, and any other wire communication captured by a wearable device, NRS 200.620 controls and all-party consent is required. A wearable that records a conference call without every participant's consent is a Category D felony under Lane v. Allstate as extended by Sharpe v. State. Smart glasses like Meta Ray-Bans add a video issue: capture of a person's private area in a private place during nudity or intimate activity is a gross misdemeanor under NRS 200.604, even when the device is otherwise being used for general lifestyle capture.
Employers may enforce internal policies that restrict wearable recording devices in the workplace even though in-person recording is legal under state law. The National Labor Relations Act protects employees who record as part of concerted activity, such as documenting unsafe working conditions or labor violations. For more on wearable recording devices at work and the employer wearable recording device policy framework, review your rights before bringing these devices into sensitive environments.
Legal Information Disclaimer: This page is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Nevada recording law, including NRS 200.620, NRS 200.650, NRS 200.690, NRS 200.604, NRS 200.780, NRS 200.785, NRS 200.788, NRS 171.1233, and NRS 289.830, is fact-specific and subject to ongoing case-law and legislative development. Federal developments (TAKE IT DOWN Act, FCC actions, NLRB guidance) and any post-publication Nevada legislation may change the framework. If you face a specific legal situation involving recording in Nevada, consult a licensed Nevada attorney.