EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsNorth Dakota Laws flagNorth Dakota Laws
North Dakota flag

North Dakota

North Dakota Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of August 15, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed August 15, 202614 min read
North Dakota Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

North Dakota is a one-party consent state under N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(3)(c). If you are a party to the conversation, you can record it without telling anyone else. Recording a conversation you are not part of, without any party's consent, violates section 12.1-15-02(1)(a), a Class C felony carrying up to five years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Violations also expose the recorder to civil liability under federal , because North Dakota's wiretap chapter contains no state-law civil cause of action.

North Dakota recording law at a glance

QuestionAnswer
Consent ruleOne-party consent
Main statuteN.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(3)(c)
When it is illegalRecording a wire or oral communication without being a party and without any party's consent
Criminal penaltyClass C felony: up to 5 years, $10,000 fine (N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-32-01(4))
Civil penaltyNo state-law claim; federal provides the greater of $100/day or $10,000 in statutory damages, plus punitives, attorney fees
Hidden camerasClass A misdemeanor (Class C felony on enhancement) under N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-20-12.2
Recording policeNot criminally prohibited; but the 8th Circuit has not recognized a clearly established First Amendment right to record

For a closer look at any of these rules, jump to the in-depth guide index at the bottom of this page.

North Dakota small audio recorder and over-ear headphones resting on a stack of legal documents

Recording in-person conversations in North Dakota

North Dakota's consent rule is found in N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(3)(c). A person who is a party to a wire or oral communication may record it without notifying other participants, as long as the recording is not made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. That two-prong condition (party status plus lawful purpose) is the full test for civilian recording.

The "oral communication" definition in section 12.1-15-04(5) adds a threshold filter. The statute only covers communications "uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." A private conversation at home clearly qualifies. An open-air exchange on a busy street corner, easily overheard by bystanders, may not qualify as a covered "oral communication" at all, meaning recording it raises no issue under section 12.1-15-02 in the first place.

The unlawful-purpose carve-out matters practically. Recording a coworker to document an HR complaint is not a criminal purpose, and the defense applies. Recording the same coworker to facilitate extortion is a criminal purpose, and the defense fails even though you are a party to the conversation. The North Dakota Supreme Court confirmed this federal-floor analysis in State v. Loh, 2010 ND 66, holding that the state constitution does not raise the consent bar above the federal one-party baseline at (2)(d).

North Dakota's one-party rule mirrors federal law closely. When a party intercepts with no unlawful purpose, both the state and federal regimes are satisfied simultaneously.

Recording phone calls in North Dakota

The same one-party rule applies to phone calls. A party to any landline, cell, VoIP, or video call may record it without announcing the recording. The underlying statute is the same section 12.1-15-02(3)(c), and the unlawful-purpose limit is the same.

For interstate calls, the conservative rule is to comply with the stricter state's law. If one participant is in California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, or Washington (all all-party states), notify everyone at the outset. A few other states carry real but more nuanced exposure for phone calls specifically: Nevada is treated as functionally all-party for phone calls under the fractured Nevada Supreme Court decision in Lane v. Allstate Insurance Co.; Connecticut's criminal law is one-party, but C.G.S. 52-570d imposes civil liability for recording a private phone call unless all parties consent, the recording is preceded by recorded verbal notice, or an audible beep tone is used; and Oregon requires one-party consent for phone calls but all-party consent for in-person conversations under ORS 165.540. Delaware's classification is contested and is best treated with the same caution. A North Dakota resident who does not notify all parties when calling into any of these states will be lawful under North Dakota law but potentially liable under the other state's law.

The federal "beep tone" notice requirement under 47 C.F.R. 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017. There is no federal or North Dakota state-level beep-tone rule in force today, and no North Dakota Public Service Commission recording rule exists. Any source citing such a rule is citing an obsolete or phantom standard.

For details on recording rules in specific call contexts, see the North Dakota Phone Call Recording Laws sub-page.

North Dakota hand reaching toward a wall-mounted intercom speaker panel in a blurred apartment lobby

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

North Dakota's hidden-camera statute is N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-20-12.2, titled "Surreptitious intrusion." It reaches both visual capture (observing, photographing, recording) and audio capture (amplifying, broadcasting sounds) from a dwelling, hotel sleeping room, tanning booth, or other place where a person reasonably expects privacy. The base offense is a Class A misdemeanor (up to 360 days, $3,000 fine). Enhancement to a Class C felony (up to 5 years, $10,000 fine) applies on a second offense, after a prior section 12.1-20-12.1 conviction, on a sex-offender-registry trigger, or when the victim is a minor.

A common error in third-party summaries: section 12.1-20-12.1 is indecent exposure (the actor's own exposure of genitalia in a public place or to a minor), not voyeurism. Section 12.1-20-12.2 is the actual hidden-camera and voyeurism statute.

The intent element in section 12.1-20-12.2 is what separates lawful security cameras from felony voyeurism. The statute requires both sexual-gratification intent (to arouse, appeal to, or gratify the actor's lust, passions, or sexual desires) and intent to intrude on or interfere with the occupant's privacy; both elements are required together, not either alone. A Ring doorbell aimed at your own front porch, capturing conversations with visitors who have no expectation of privacy in a public-facing area, does not trigger the statute under normal use. A hidden camera installed in a guest bedroom or rental bathroom with that dual intent does.

One additional audio caveat: a camera that records conversations inside a private space (where participants expect privacy) may independently trigger section 12.1-15-02's interception prohibition, even without a sexual-intent element. Both statutes can apply to the same device in a private setting.

For deeper coverage, see the North Dakota Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws and North Dakota Security Camera Laws sub-pages.

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

Penalties for illegal recording in North Dakota

Criminal and civil penalties occupy separate tracks in North Dakota because the wiretap chapter has no civil cause of action.

Criminal track:

OffenseStatuteClassMaximum penalty
Intentional interception of wire or oral communicationN.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(1)(a)Class C felony5 years, $10,000
Intentional disclosure or use of unlawfully intercepted communicationN.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(1)(b)Class C felony5 years, $10,000
Secret loitering to overhear with intent to vex, annoy, or injureN.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(2)Class A misdemeanor360 days, $3,000
Trafficking in intercepting devicesN.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-03Class C felony5 years, $10,000
Surreptitious intrusion (hidden cameras in private places)N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-20-12.2Class A misdemeanor (Class C felony on enhancement)360 days/$3,000 base; 5 years/$10,000 enhanced

Interception, disclosure, and use are each separate offenses. A person who intercepts a single call and then shares the recording with a third party has committed two Class C felonies.

The disclosure felony does not reach an innocent recipient who played no role in the illegal interception. In Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment bars criminal or civil liability, under a state or federal wiretap statute, for publishing a lawfully obtained recording of an unlawfully intercepted communication that involves a matter of public concern, so long as the publisher did not participate in the illegal interception.

Civil track:

North Dakota's wiretap chapter (Chapter 12.1-15) contains no civil cause of action. Section 12.1-15-04 is definitions only. A plaintiff whose communications were unlawfully intercepted must sue under federal 18 U.S.C. 2520, which provides the greater of actual damages plus violator profits, $100 per day per violation, or $10,000 statutory damages, plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees, with a two-year statute of limitations from the date of reasonable discovery.

Supplemental claims may also lie: common-law intrusion on seclusion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or the chapter 32-49 civil NCII cause of action where the facts support those theories.

Recording the police in North Dakota

Recording police in a public space is not criminally prohibited under North Dakota law. A citizen who records officers during a public encounter is a party to the communication (or the communication is not a covered "oral communication" at all in an open-air setting), and no North Dakota statute bars photography or video recording in public.

The civil-rights posture is materially weaker in the Eighth Circuit than elsewhere. The Eighth Circuit has not recognized a clearly established First Amendment right to record police for qualified-immunity purposes. Molina v. Book, No. 21-1830 (8th Cir. Feb. 2, 2023; cert. denied Feb. 20, 2024), affirmed qualified immunity for officers on First Amendment right-to-record claims, holding the right was not clearly established in 2015. Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021), similarly upheld qualified immunity on the First Amendment recording claim. Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020), clearly established only the Fourth Amendment right of passive observation, not the right to record.

This diverges from the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, which have all recognized some clearly established right to record police. In practical terms, a North Dakota citizen who records police in public commits no crime but carries weaker ground for a federal civil-rights damages claim if an officer retaliates.

The counterweight is North Dakota's open-meeting statute. N.D. Cent. Code 44-04-19 grants an express statutory right to photograph, audio-record, video-record, and broadcast live the non-executive-session portion of any open public meeting, subject only to reasonable restrictions to avoid active interference with the meeting's conduct.

For more, see the North Dakota Laws on Recording Police sub-page.

North Dakota glass-walled conference room with figures behind translucent doors

Special topics in North Dakota

Workplace recording (NLRB overlay)

North Dakota's one-party rule extends to the workplace: an employee who is a party to a meeting may record it without disclosure. The NLRB's Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), governs employer no-recording work rules. Under Stericycle, a broad blanket prohibition is presumptively unlawful; the employer must show the rule advances a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a more narrowly tailored rule. Stericycle remains controlling law despite NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025), which was only a housekeeping rescission of prior GC memoranda and did not reinstate the earlier Boeing standard or overrule Stericycle. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) separately declared surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions a per se unfair-labor-practice violation, but that is narrowly scoped to the bargaining table and does not change the general one-party workplace rule.

AI, deepfakes, and political content

North Dakota enacted 2025 HB 1167, adding a new section to N.D. Cent. Code chapter 16.1-10 requiring the disclaimer "This content generated by artificial intelligence" on any political communication created in whole or in part with AI. Governor Armstrong signed it April 11, 2025, with a default effective date of August 1, 2025. Violation is a Class A misdemeanor under the Corrupt Practices Act. A companion bill, HB 1320 (general deepfake criminal ban), failed on House second reading 17-69 on January 21, 2025, so North Dakota has no general deepfake criminal statute outside the political-disclosure context.

Nonconsensual intimate images (NCII) and the TAKE IT DOWN Act

N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-17-07.2 criminalizes distribution of intimate images without consent, at the Class A misdemeanor level, with an intimate-image definition that explicitly includes "computer or computer-generated image or picture" (an AI and deepfake hook). The companion civil cause of action is N.D. Cent. Code chapter 32-49 (Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act; 2023 SB 2041), which provides statutory damages up to $10,000 per defendant, monetary-gain disgorgement, exemplary damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief, with a six-year statute of limitations from discovery (tolled until age 18 for minors). The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025), overlays federal criminal liability for knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated deepfakes, and requires covered platforms to implement 48-hour notice-and-removal procedures by May 19, 2026.

Body-worn cameras and open records

North Dakota has no statewide body-worn-camera operations statute, retention floor, or activation mandate. Agency policy governs. On the records side, N.D. Cent. Code 44-04-18.7(9) classifies body-camera footage taken in a private place as an exempt record under the Open Records Law, but the exemption is discretionary (not mandatory), so release remains possible at agency discretion. Public-place footage is presumptively open.

Federal overlay (ECPA and TCPA)

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act at (2)(d) sets the one-party-consent floor that North Dakota's section 12.1-15-02(3)(c) matches. The civil remedy at 18 U.S.C. 2520 is North Dakota wiretap plaintiffs' only civil hook, for the reasons described in the penalties section. On the FCC-TCPA side, FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) holds that AI-generated voice calls are "artificial or prerecorded voice" calls under , requiring prior express consent. FCC Order 24-24 (the one-to-one consent rule) was vacated nationally by Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025).

  • August 1, 2025: HB 1167 effective date, mandating AI-content disclosure on North Dakota political communications (signed April 11, 2025).
  • May 19, 2025: Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12) signed; criminal provisions immediate; platform 48-hour removal requirement effective May 19, 2026.
  • June 25, 2025: NLRB GC 25-07 declares surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions a per se unfair labor practice.
  • April 30, 2025: 11th Circuit mandate in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC vacating FCC's one-to-one consent rule; pre-rule (f)(9) reinstated.
  • February 20, 2024: Supreme Court denied certiorari in Molina v. Book, leaving the 8th Circuit's no-clearly-established-right posture intact.
  • January 21, 2025: ND HB 1320 (general deepfake criminal ban) failed House second reading 17-69; North Dakota remains without a general deepfake statute.
  • August 2, 2023: NLRB issued Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113, setting the current employer work-rule standard.
  • 2023: Chapter 32-49 (Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act) enacted by 2023 SB 2041.

North Dakota recording laws in depth

The pages below each cover a specific recording context in detail.

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More North Dakota 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 North Dakota attorney.

More North Dakota Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is North Dakota a one-party or two-party consent state?

North Dakota is a one-party consent state. Under N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(3)(c), a person who is a party to a wire or oral communication may record it without notifying other participants, as long as the recording is not made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. The rule mirrors the federal one-party floor at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d).

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

Yes, if you are a party to the call and the recording is not for a criminal or tortious purpose. The one-party consent rule in N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(3)(c) applies to landline, cellular, and VoIP calls alike. If the other party is in an all-party consent state such as California, Illinois, or Pennsylvania, you should notify all parties to comply with the stricter state rule.

What is the penalty for illegally recording someone in North Dakota?

Illegally intercepting a wire or oral communication is a Class C felony under N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(1)(a), with a maximum of 5 years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine under N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-32-01(4). Disclosing or using an unlawfully intercepted recording is a separate Class C felony. Secret loitering to overhear a conversation is a Class A misdemeanor (up to 360 days and $3,000).

Can I sue someone for recording me without consent in North Dakota?

Not under a North Dakota state wiretap theory. Chapter 12.1-15 contains no civil cause of action. You must sue under federal 18 U.S.C. 2520, which provides the greater of actual damages plus violator profits, $100 per day per violation, or $10,000 statutory damages, plus punitive damages and attorney fees, with a two-year limitations period from reasonable discovery.

Are hidden cameras and nanny cams legal in North Dakota?

Hidden cameras are legal in your own home in spaces where no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a front entryway. Placing a camera in a guest bedroom, bathroom, or other private space with both sexual-gratification intent and intent to intrude on privacy violates N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-20-12.2 (surreptitious intrusion), a Class A misdemeanor with a Class C felony enhancement. Audio capture in private spaces can also trigger the interception felony under section 12.1-15-02.

Can I record police officers in North Dakota?

Yes, recording police in a public space is not a crime under North Dakota law. However, the Eighth Circuit has not recognized a clearly established First Amendment right to record police, meaning an officer who retaliates against a person recording in public may be shielded by qualified immunity in a federal civil-rights suit. North Dakota does have an express statutory right to record open public meetings under N.D. Cent. Code 44-04-19.

Can my employer ban recording in the workplace?

Employers can adopt narrowly tailored no-recording rules, but a broad blanket prohibition is presumptively unlawful under the NLRB's Stericycle standard. The employer must show the rule advances a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a narrower rule. An employee who records an HR meeting to document harassment is also exercising Section 7 NLRA rights that a broad no-recording policy cannot lawfully prohibit.

Does North Dakota have a deepfake or AI-voice law?

Partially. HB 1167 (signed April 11, 2025, effective August 1, 2025) requires the disclaimer 'This content generated by artificial intelligence' on AI-generated political communications, with Class A misdemeanor penalties. A general deepfake criminal ban (HB 1320) failed 17-69 in January 2025. The criminal NCII statute at N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-17-07.2 covers AI-generated intimate images by definition.

Updates

Expanded the interstate-call warning list, which previously omitted Nevada, Connecticut, Montana, Oregon, and Delaware, five states with real (if sometimes nuanced) all-party exposure for recorded phone calls.

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

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Corrected two restatements (a KeyTakeaways bullet and the at-a-glance table) of the federal 18 U.S.C. 2520 civil-damages figure that framed $10,000 as a cap — the statute awards whichever is greater of $100/day or $10,000, meaning a violation lasting more than 100 days yields more than $10,000.

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Restructured page per the recording-redo template spec: added AEO lede, at-a-glance table, reorganized into core consent sections (in-person, phone, hidden cameras, penalties, police), condensed special topics (workplace/NLRB, AI/deepfakes, NCII/TAKE IT DOWN, body cameras, federal overlay) into short subsections, added in-depth sub-page index, refreshed FAQ to 8 Q&A, and prepended this UpdatesLog entry. Fact correction: HB 1167 signing date corrected from April 10 to April 11, 2025 per the official ndlegis.gov bill overview. All statutes, case citations, and penalty amounts from the 2026-05-13 audit confirmed unchanged.

Refresh: Rebuilt the Chapter 12.1-15 structure so that section 12.1-15-02 is the interception felony (Class C; up to 5 years and $10,000 under section 12.1-32-01(4)) with the one-party-consent and law-enforcement defenses INSIDE section 12.1-15-02(3)(b) and (c); section 12.1-15-03 is the device-trafficking felony (NOT the consent-exceptions provision); section 12.1-15-04 is definitions only (oral communication REP at subsection 5; common-carrier wire-communication definition at subsection 6); section 12.1-15-05 is paper-mail interception (Class A misdemeanor); and section 12.1-15-06 is the implanted-microchip prohibition (Class A misdemeanor). Surfaced the load-bearing differentiator that North Dakota has NO state-law civil cause of action under the wiretap statute and that civil plaintiffs must use federal 18 U.S.C. 2520 (greater of actual plus profits, $100 per day, or $10,000 statutory, plus punitives and reasonable attorney fees; two-year SoL). Stripped any inherited phantom 'North Dakota Workplace Privacy Act' and phantom 'North Dakota Electronic Communications Privacy Act' labels and any phantom North Dakota Public Service Commission call-recording or beep-tone framing. Corrected the visual-side bifurcation: section 12.1-20-12.1 is INDECENT EXPOSURE (actor's own exposure of penis, vulva, or anus in a public place, to a minor, or by unsolicited electronic means; Class A misdemeanor basic, Class C felony on enhancement); section 12.1-20-12.2 (surreptitious intrusion) is North Dakota's actual voyeurism and hidden-camera statute (Class A misdemeanor; Class C felony on second offense, prior section 12.1-20-12.1 conviction, sex-offender-registry trigger, or minor victim), reaching BOTH visual and audio capture from a dwelling, a hotel sleeping room, or a tanning booth. Added the criminal nonconsensual-intimate-image statute at section 12.1-17-07.2 (Class A misdemeanor) with the explicit 'computer or computer-generated image' AI and deepfake hook, plus the civil NCII chapter at chapter 32-49 (Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act; 2023 SB 2041, 68th Legislative Assembly; $10,000 statutory damages cap per defendant; monetary-gain disgorgement; exemplary damages; attorney fees; injunctive relief; six-year SoL from discovery at section 32-49-06; tolled until age 18 for minors; repealed predecessor section 32-03-58). Added the 2025 AI-political-disclosure statute at chapter 16.1-10 (2025 HB 1167, 69th Legislative Assembly; signed by Governor Kelly Armstrong on April 11, 2025; default effective date August 1, 2025; House 93-0; Senate 46-0 as amended; mandatory 'This content generated by artificial intelligence' disclaimer on political communications created in whole or in part with AI; violation is a Class A misdemeanor under the Corrupt Practices Act). Documented that 2025 HB 1320 (general deepfake video and image criminal prohibition) FAILED on House second reading by a vote of 17-69 on January 21, 2025, so North Dakota has NO general deepfake criminal ban outside the political-disclosure context and the section 12.1-17-07.2 computer-generated-image coverage. Cited State v. Loh, 2010 ND 66, in vendor-neutral form only (no N.W.2d pin), and framed it as the only North Dakota Supreme Court decision squarely on Chapter 12.1-15 consensual monitoring (declined to follow State v. Goetz, 2008 MT 296; the North Dakota Constitution lacks Montana's explicit right-of-individual-privacy clause; federal one-party-consent framework controls). Reframed the Eighth Circuit record-the-police triad: Molina v. Book, No. 21-1830 (8th Cir. Feb. 2, 2023), as 'affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded' on qualified-immunity grounds (a third plaintiff's separate First Amendment retaliation claim involving distinct protected speech survived; cert. denied Feb. 20, 2024); Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. Jan. 5, 2021), as qualified immunity on First Amendment right-to-record, REVERSED on Fourth Amendment device-seizure (12-day phone-and-camera seizure was unreasonable); Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020), as a Fourth Amendment passive-observation case that did NOT recognize a clearly established First Amendment right to record. Framed the Eighth Circuit as in the minority no-clearly-established-right camp on record-the-police alongside the Tenth Circuit, in material divergence from the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuits. Replaced the legacy body-camera framing with section 44-04-18.7(9) (private-place body-camera image is an exempt record under the Open Records Law; release is discretionary, not mandatory) and section 44-04-19 (express public right to photograph, audio-record, video-record, and broadcast live the non-executive-session portion of any open public meeting, subject only to reasonable limitations to avoid active interference). Confirmed North Dakota has NO statewide body-worn-camera operations mandate, NO retention floor, and NO activation policy; the North Dakota Highway Patrol runs an agency-wide program supported by a 2023 federal Bureau of Justice Assistance Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program grant. Reframed NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025; Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen) as a housekeeping rescission of prior General Counsel memoranda citing case-backlog management; GC 25-05 did NOT reinstate Boeing and did NOT overrule Stericycle. Confirmed Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), remains the controlling NLRB work-rule standard for North Dakota private-sector employers covered by the NLRA, with North Dakota's right-to-work status under N.D. Const. art. XIV section 1 and N.D. Cent. Code chapter 34-01 not stripping NLRB jurisdiction. Added NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) narrowly scoped to surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se Section 8(a)(5) or 8(b)(3) violation (builds on Bartlett-Collins Co., 237 NLRB 770 (1978); does NOT change ND general one-party-consent rule for workplace audio). Updated federal overlay: 47 C.F.R. 64.501 REMOVED effective Nov. 20, 2017 (no beep-tone framework lives anywhere; older guidance referencing the section 64.501 framework is obsolete); FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) in force on AI voice calls under the TCPA; FCC Order 24-24 (one-to-one consent rule) VACATED nationally by Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025; mandate Apr. 30, 2025); federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (S. 146, 119th Cong.), signed May 19, 2025, with covered-platform 48-hour notice-and-removal compliance mandatory May 19, 2026 (6 days from this refresh publication date). Honestly disclosed the section 12.1-15-04(6) cellphone-coverage gap (common-carrier-facilities language drafted for the landline era; untested in North Dakota courts) and recommended the conservative practical treatment of cellphone calls as covered. Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with ndlegis.gov, attorneygeneral.nd.gov, ndcourts.gov, ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov, media.ca11.uscourts.gov, uscode.house.gov, nlrb.gov, ftc.gov, congress.gov, and federalregister.gov primary sources. The page now satisfies the 12-H2-section dossier outline with no phantom statutes, no em-dashes, vendor-neutral State v. Loh citation, and full preservation of all binder writer_directives.

Refresh: Rebuilt the Chapter 12.1-15 structure so that section 12.1-15-02 is the interception felony (Class C; up to 5 years and $10,000 under section 12.1-32-01(4)) with the one-party-consent and law-enforcement defenses INSIDE section 12.1-15-02(3)(b) and (c); section 12.1-15-03 is the device-trafficking felony (NOT the consent-exceptions provision); section 12.1-15-04 is definitions only (oral communication REP at subsection 5; common-carrier wire-communication definition at subsection 6); section 12.1-15-05 is paper-mail interception (Class A misdemeanor); and section 12.1-15-06 is the implanted-microchip prohibition (Class A misdemeanor). Surfaced the load-bearing differentiator that North Dakota has NO state-law civil cause of action under the wiretap statute and that civil plaintiffs must use federal 18 U.S.C. 2520 (greater of actual plus profits, $100 per day, or $10,000 statutory, plus punitives and reasonable attorney fees; two-year SoL). Corrected the visual-side bifurcation: section 12.1-20-12.1 is INDECENT EXPOSURE; section 12.1-20-12.2 is the actual voyeurism and hidden-camera statute. Added 2025 HB 1167 AI political-disclosure statute, NCII statutes, Eighth Circuit record-the-police triad (Molina, Robbins, Chestnut), Stericycle/GC 25-05/GC 25-07, TAKE IT DOWN Act, and federal [TCPA](/us-laws/tcpa) overlay. Replaced all commercial-codifier URLs with primary sources.

Added wearable recording devices section and 2 new FAQs about AI voice recorders and smart glasses

The Law Behind This Article

This article rests on 4 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.

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) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at ecfr.gov

Cited in 840 court opinions1990s: 42000s: 582010s: 2732020s: 505Most 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)

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

Also relied on in: Michigan Recording Laws (2026): Consent Rules and Participant Exception, TCPA Explained: Robocall, Text, and Telemarketing Law (2026), TCPA Damages and Lawsuits: Penalties, Settlements (2026)

United States Code Title 18

§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 397 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) · as of 2026-08-12 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 2,045 court opinions1960s: 51970s: 2581980s: 2991990s: 3792000s: 4272010s: 2972020s: 380Most recently applied by a court: 2026

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: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use

§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 111 of our articles
Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any 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, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 860 court opinions1960s: 21970s: 951980s: 1151990s: 1532000s: 1962010s: 1302020s: 169Most recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573) · Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41) · DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)

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

Also relied on in: Alabama Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know, Alaska Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026), Arkansas Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)

United States Code Title 47

§ 227Restrictions on use of telephone equipmentIn forcecited in 36 of our articles
As used in this section— The term “automatic telephone dialing system” means equipment which has the capacity— to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and to dial such numbers. The term “established business relationship”, for purposes only of subsection (b)(1)(C)(i), shall have the meaning given the term in section 64.1200 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2003, except that— such term shall include a relationship between a person or entity and a business subscriber subject to the same terms applicable under such section to a relationship between a person or entity and a residential subscriber; and an established business relationship shall be subject to any time limitation established pursuant to paragraph (2)(G)).1  So in original. Second closing parenthesis probably should not appear.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 3,209 court opinions1990s: 372000s: 3082010s: 11342020s: 1730Most recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (Supreme Court of the United States 2016, 577 U.S. 153) · Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Stevens & Ricci Inc (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2016, 835 F.3d 388) · Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (Supreme Court of the United States 2021, 592 U.S. 395)

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

Also relied on in: Massachusetts Recording Laws (2026): Two-Party Consent Rules, California Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained

Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →

Sources and References

  1. ndlegis.gov.gov
  2. ndlegis.gov.gov
  3. ndlegis.gov.gov
  4. ndlegis.gov.gov
  5. ndlegis.gov.gov
  6. ndlegis.gov.gov
  7. ndlegis.gov.gov
  8. ndlegis.gov.gov
  9. ndcourts.gov.gov
  10. ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov.gov
  11. ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov.gov
  12. ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov.gov
  13. nlrb.gov.gov
  14. nlrb.gov.gov
  15. nlrb.gov.gov
  16. uscode.house.gov.gov
  17. uscode.house.gov.gov
  18. docs.fcc.gov.gov
  19. media.ca11.uscourts.gov.gov
  20. federalregister.gov.gov
  21. congress.gov.gov
  22. attorneygeneral.nd.gov.gov
Share: