Is Texas a One-Party Consent State? Recording Laws (2026)

Quick Answer

Texas is a one-party consent state under Tex. Penal Code § 16.02. If you are a party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication, you may lawfully record it without telling anyone else. There is no beep-tone or oral-disclosure requirement. Recording a conversation you are not part of is a second-degree felony, with civil exposure starting at $10,000 per occurrence under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.004.

Information last verified on May 9, 2026.

Key Point	Answer
Consent Type	One-Party
Can you record your own calls?	Yes
Must you inform others?	No
Primary Statute	Tex. Penal Code § 16.02
Criminal Penalty	Second-degree felony (2 to 20 years)
Civil Damages	$10,000 per-occurrence floor plus actual and punitive damages
Right to Record Police	Yes (Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 5th Cir. 2017)

Texas Penal Code 16.02: What the Wiretap Statute Says

Tex. Penal Code § 16.02 is the controlling Texas wiretap and electronic-surveillance statute. Subsection (b) creates the offense: a person commits a crime if the person intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures another to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication. The same subsection criminalizes intentional disclosure or intentional use of contents the user knew or had reason to know were obtained by interception.

Subsection (c)(4) supplies the one-party-consent rule, but it does so as an affirmative defense rather than as an element of the offense. Specifically, § 16.02(c)(4)(A) and (B) provide that it is an affirmative defense to prosecution for a non-color-of-law actor to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication if the actor is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties has given prior consent, unless the interception is for the purpose of committing an unlawful act. In plain English: you, the participant, do not need anyone else's permission to record. You only lose that protection if you are recording in furtherance of a crime or tortious act.

Section 16.02 was last substantively amended by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1058 (H.B. 2931), effective January 1, 2019. The 88th and 89th Legislatures did not amend § 16.02. The one-party framework therefore remains stable as of May 2026.

Key Definitions Under § 16.02 and Article 18A.001

The statute reaches three categories of communication. Wire communication means an aural transfer, including phone calls on landlines, cell phones, and interconnected VoIP, governed by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 18A.001. Oral communication means an in-person utterance by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, in circumstances justifying that expectation. Electronic communication is the catchall: text messages, emails, instant messages, and the audio leg of videoconferences such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, FaceTime, and Google Meet are all electronic communications under art. 18A.001 and are subject to § 16.02's one-party rule.

Recording Phone Calls in Texas (Including Calls to Other States)

Yes, you can record any Texas phone call you participate in without telling the other party. This applies to landline, cell, VoIP, and the audio leg of video calls. The legal hook is Tex. Penal Code § 16.02(c)(4)(A) (you are a party) or (B) (a different participant has given consent). Texas imposes no general beep-tone, recorded notice, or oral-disclosure obligation on private parties.

You cannot lawfully install a recording device on someone else's phone or in a room you do not occupy to capture conversations you are not part of. That is third-party interception under § 16.02(b) and is a second-degree felony.

Cross-State Calls: Stricter State's Law Usually Wins

Federal law sets a one-party consent floor at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) but does not preempt stricter state statutes. When a Texas caller and an out-of-state participant are on the same call, courts generally apply the law of whichever state has the stronger privacy interest in the communication, which is usually the state with the stricter consent rule. The cleanest practice is simple: if any participant is in an all-party state, get consent from everyone before recording.

Caller in Texas, recipient in...	Practical Rule	Disclose Before Recording?
Texas (or any one-party state)	Texas one-party rule applies	No, but optional
California	All-party consent, Cal. Penal Code § 632	Yes
Florida	All-party consent, Fla. Stat. § 934.03	Yes
Illinois	All-party consent, 720 ILCS 5/14-2	Yes
Maryland	All-party consent, Md. Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402	Yes
Massachusetts	All-party consent, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99	Yes
Montana	Consent or notification required	Yes
New Hampshire	All-party consent, N.H. Rev. Stat. § 570-A:2	Yes
Pennsylvania	All-party consent, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5704	Yes
Washington	All-party consent, Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030	Yes

A short oral disclosure on the call ("I am recording this conversation, is that all right with you?") and an audible affirmative response from the other party is generally sufficient to satisfy the stricter state's rule.

Business Call Recording

Texas businesses can record calls for quality assurance, training, and compliance under one-party consent because the business is a party to its own customer calls. Many businesses still announce the recording (a beep tone, a recorded greeting, or a written policy in the service agreement) because they cannot always know which state the caller is in. Federal Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA, 47 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1010) applies to telecommunications carriers, not to private parties recording their own calls.

Recording In-Person Conversations: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

For in-person audio under § 16.02, the controlling question is whether the speaker had a reasonable expectation that the conversation was not subject to interception. The same Katz-style test that governs Fourth Amendment privacy controls Texas's "oral communication" definition. A whispered conversation in a private office is protected. A normal-volume conversation at a busy coffee shop counter that anyone nearby can hear is generally not protected.

You can lawfully record in-person conversations in Texas when:

• You are a participant in the conversation.
• You are in a public place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
• You have consent from at least one party (which can be yourself).

You may not record when you are a non-participant and have no participant's consent, when you record in a place a person reasonably expects to be private (bathrooms, changing rooms, a closed-door home you were not invited into), when you record privileged conversations to which you are not the holder of the privilege, or when you record for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.

Recording in Your Own Home

You can record conversations in your own home if you are participating. You cannot plant a hidden device and leave to capture conversations during your absence; that is third-party interception. You also cannot record guests in areas where they would reasonably expect privacy, such as a bathroom or a guest bedroom. Hidden-camera footage of intimate areas crosses out of the wiretap statute and into Tex. Penal Code § 21.15 (Invasive Visual Recording), discussed below.

Criminal Penalties: 2nd-Degree Felony Under § 16.02

Unlawful interception under § 16.02 is a felony of the second degree. The sentencing range under Tex. Penal Code § 12.33 is 2 to 20 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice plus a fine of up to $10,000.

Two narrower variants drop the offense to a state jail felony under Tex. Penal Code § 12.35: § 16.02(d), illegal use of a pen register or similar device, and § 16.02(g), manufacture, possession, or sale of an interception device. State jail felonies carry 180 days to 2 years in a state jail facility plus a fine up to $10,000.

Offense	Statute	Classification	Sentencing Range
Illegal interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications	§ 16.02(b)	2nd-degree felony	2 to 20 years TDCJ; up to $10,000 fine
Disclosure of intercepted contents	§ 16.02(b)	2nd-degree felony	2 to 20 years TDCJ; up to $10,000 fine
Use of intercepted contents	§ 16.02(b)	2nd-degree felony	2 to 20 years TDCJ; up to $10,000 fine
Pen-register / trap-and-trace misuse	§ 16.02(d)	State jail felony	180 days to 2 years; up to $10,000 fine
Manufacture, possession, sale of interception device	§ 16.02(g)	State jail felony	180 days to 2 years; up to $10,000 fine

Civil Damages: $10,000 Per-Occurrence Floor Under Section 123.004

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Chapter 123 creates a private cause of action for victims of unlawful interception. § 123.002 grants standing to a party whose communication was intercepted, used, or divulged in violation of § 16.02. § 123.004 provides the remedies, and the dollar figure is the most commonly misstated fact in popular write-ups of Texas recording law.

The $10,000 figure is a floor per occurrence, not a cap. A successful plaintiff under § 123.004 is entitled to:

• An injunction restraining further interception, disclosure, or use.
• Statutory damages of $10,000 for each occurrence.
• All actual damages in excess of $10,000.
• Punitive damages in an amount determined by the court or jury.
• Reasonable attorney's fees and court costs.

A plaintiff does not need to prove actual harm to collect the $10,000 per occurrence. The illegal interception itself triggers the floor. If actual damages exceed $10,000, the plaintiff recovers the actual amount on top of the per-occurrence statutory minimum.

Video and Hidden Cameras: Penal Code 21.15 (Post-H.B. 1465)

Plain video recording of people in public places is generally lawful in Texas without consent. The wiretap statute does not reach silent video, and Texas has no general right-of-publicity statute that prohibits taking someone's photograph in a public place.

Video recording crosses into criminal territory under Tex. Penal Code § 21.15, the Invasive Visual Recording statute. Section 21.15(b) makes it an offense to photograph, videotape, film, broadcast, or transmit a visual image of a person's intimate areas without consent and with intent to invade privacy or gratify sexual desire.

What H.B. 1465 (89R, 2025) Changed

The 89th Texas Legislature passed H.B. 1465, effective September 1, 2025. Two changes matter:

1. Broader location element. Pre-2025, § 21.15 reached recordings made in a "bathroom or changing room." H.B. 1465 broadened that to any "place in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy," and added a statutory definition of that phrase: a location where a reasonable person would believe they could undress or be in a state of undress without concern about being photographed or visually recorded. The statute lists bathrooms, bedrooms, and changing rooms as examples but the definition is not limited to those locations.
2. Mandatory sex-offender registration. H.B. 1465 amended Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 62.001(5) to add § 21.15 convictions to the list of reportable offenses triggering Texas sex-offender registration. A § 21.15 conviction post-9/1/2025 carries that consequence in addition to the criminal sentence.

The base offense remains a state jail felony, punishable by 180 days to 2 years in a state jail facility plus a fine up to $10,000. The expanded location element materially broadens hidden-camera prosecution risk in private homes, hotel rooms, gym areas, and similar spaces. For a deeper treatment, see our guide on whether it is illegal to video record someone without their consent.

A separate statute, Tex. Penal Code § 21.16 (Unlawful Disclosure or Promotion of Intimate Visual Material), commonly called Texas's nonconsensual-intimate-imagery or "revenge porn" law, criminalizes disclosure of intimate visual material that was originally made under an expectation of confidentiality, even where the original recording itself was consensual.

Deepfakes and AI Voice: Penal Code 21.165, Chapter 98B, and Bus. & Com. Code Ch. 121

The 89th Legislature also enacted three statutes targeting AI-generated and "deepfake" intimate imagery, all effective September 1, 2025. Together they form the most aggressive state-level deepfake regime in the country as of May 2026.

Tex. Penal Code § 21.165 (Criminal Deepfake Statute)

Tex. Penal Code § 21.165, as amended by Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., S.B. 441, criminalizes the knowing production or distribution by electronic means of "deep fake media" that appears to depict a real person with intimate parts exposed or engaged in sexual conduct, without the effective written consent of the depicted person. S.B. 441 replaced the prior term "deep fake video" with "deep fake media" to reach still images and any AI-generated, machine-learning-generated, or software-generated visual depictions. A new subsection (b-1) added a Class B misdemeanor threat offense for threats to produce or distribute deepfake media with intent to coerce, extort, harass, or intimidate. Calibrated third-degree felony enhancements apply to repeat offenders and to depictions of persons younger than 18.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 98B (Civil Companion)

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Chapter 98B, as amended by S.B. 441, extends civil liability for unlawful disclosure of intimate visual material to "artificial" intimate visual material, meaning AI-generated or otherwise synthetically created imagery. Two practical features matter:

• A 72-hour website takedown duty. Website owners and operators face liability if they fail to remove offending material within 72 hours after receiving a valid removal request from the depicted person.
• Recoverable damages include actual damages, exemplary damages, court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and injunctive relief.

Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ch. 121 (AI Generator Duties)

H.B. 421 (89R, 2025) added Chapter 121 to Title 5, Subtitle C of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. The chapter targets the upstream tools that produce explicit deepfakes. Owners of "deep fake generators" must:

• Use a commercially reasonable age-verification method on any depicted person.
• Obtain written consent before generating explicit deepfake material depicting any adult.
• Categorically refuse to generate explicit deepfake material depicting a minor.

The chapter creates a private cause of action for actual damages including mental anguish, court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and exemplary damages on prevailing.

If you are the subject of a deepfake hosted on a third-party platform, our DMCA Takedown Notice Generator covers the copyright pathway. The Chapter 98B 72-hour takedown letter is a separate Texas-law remedy, and the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act creates a third notice-and-removal pathway, discussed in the federal-overlay section below.

Recording Police in Texas: Turner v. Lieutenant Driver

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, held in Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017) that the First Amendment protects the right to record police officers performing their duties in public, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The right was clearly established in the Fifth Circuit prospectively as of February 2017, meaning officers who interfere with lawful public-space recording after that date violate clearly established law and forfeit qualified immunity.

Verified May 2026: Turner remains good law in the Fifth Circuit. There has been no en banc or Supreme Court review. The Fifth Circuit has applied Turner in subsequent qualified-immunity decisions including Buehler v. Dear (5th Cir. 2022) without narrowing the substantive First Amendment right.

In Texas, you can:

• Film traffic stops, including your own.
• Record arrests happening in public spaces.
• Document interactions with police, sheriff, or constable's deputies.
• Livestream encounters from public areas.

Limits still apply. Do not interfere with police operations, do not trespass to get a better angle, and follow lawful orders to step back so officers can perform their duties. Tex. Penal Code § 38.15 (Interference with Public Duties) reaches conduct that obstructs an officer's work, but it cannot be used to punish recording itself.

Recording Government Meetings

The Texas Open Meetings Act, Tex. Gov't Code Chapter 551, requires most government meetings to be open to the public. Recording at public meetings of city councils, county commissioners courts, school boards, and the legislature is generally permitted. Government bodies may impose reasonable rules about equipment placement and obstruction, but they cannot prohibit recording at a public meeting outright.

Workplace Recording: Federal NLRA Overrides Blanket Bans

Texas at-will and right-to-work status does not exempt private-sector employers from the National Labor Relations Act. Section 7 of the NLRA protects employees engaging in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection. Recording can be Section 7 activity when done to document unsafe conditions, wage and hour issues, or harassment.

Stericycle Sets the Handbook Standard

The NLRB's decision in Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) reset the standard for evaluating workplace rules including no-recording policies. Under Stericycle, a rule is presumptively unlawful if a reasonable employee, economically dependent on the employer and contemplating Section 7 protected concerted activity, could interpret it to chill those rights. The employer must rebut the presumption by proving a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be achieved with a more narrowly tailored rule. Blanket "no recording at any time, anywhere" handbook provisions are vulnerable.

What GC 25-05 and GC 25-07 Did and Did Not Change

NLRB Acting General Counsel William Cowen issued a housekeeping memorandum, GC 25-05, on February 14, 2025, rescinding various Biden-era General Counsel memoranda. GC 25-05 did not rescind Stericycle, and it did not rescind the Board's McLaren Macomb decision. Stericycle therefore remains the controlling standard for workplace handbook rules.

The Acting General Counsel followed up with GC 25-07 on June 25, 2025, arguing that surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions by either employer or union is a per se NLRA violation. GC 25-07 is narrower than Stericycle and addresses bargaining-table recording specifically. It does not undo employee one-party-consent recording of supervisor or HR conversations under Texas law.

Can You Record Your Texas Employer?

Yes. Texas one-party consent under § 16.02 lets a Texas employee record their own conversations with a supervisor, HR representative, or coworker without notice. This is commonly used to document harassment or discrimination, preserve performance reviews, and protect the employee in disputes. Two cautions:

• Your employer may have an internal policy against recording. Even if recording is legal under Texas law, violating handbook policy can support discipline (subject to Stericycle's reasonable-employee analysis where the policy is overbroad).
• A recording made for the purpose of committing a crime or tortious act loses the § 16.02(c)(4) affirmative defense. Stay on the protected side of that line.

Our deeper treatment lives at Can an employer record conversations without consent?.

Can Your Texas Employer Record You?

Generally yes, in common work areas (open offices, hallways, break rooms) where employees have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Employers cannot record in bathrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, or other spaces designated for personal privacy without crossing § 21.15. Texas does not require employer notice or employee consent for one-party recording of internal calls because the employer is itself a party to the call. There is no Texas analog to California Labor Code § 432.7's mandatory employee-recording disclosure.

Recording in Family and Divorce Cases

Recordings lawfully made under § 16.02 (one-party consent by a participant) are generally admissible in Texas civil and family proceedings, subject to authentication under Tex. R. Evid. 901 and the balance test in Tex. R. Evid. 403.

The vicarious-consent doctrine (a parent recording a minor child's communications with another adult on the theory that the parent consents on behalf of the child) is not uniformly recognized in Texas and has not been definitively resolved by the Texas Supreme Court. Federal circuits split on the doctrine. Treat any Texas vicarious-consent recording as risky and consult a Texas family-law attorney before relying on it as evidence in custody or divorce litigation.

You can lawfully record:

• Conversations with your ex-spouse or co-parent that you participate in.
• Custody-exchange interactions you are present for.
• Voicemails, texts, and emails sent to you.

You should not:

• Plant a recording device to capture conversations between your child and the other parent in your absence.
• Use a child as a covert recorder.
• Assume a recording, even when lawful, will be persuasive. Family judges sometimes view secretly recorded hostile exchanges as reflecting on the recording party as well as the subject.

Specific Situations

Can I Record My Landlord in Texas?

Yes, if you are a participant. Recording landlord interactions can document verbal repair promises, harassment or illegal entry, and disputes about lease terms or security deposits.

Can I Record My Doctor in Texas?

Yes. As a participant in your own appointment, you may record your provider under Texas one-party consent. HIPAA's Privacy Rule (45 C.F.R. Part 164) governs the provider's downstream sharing of any recording in the provider's possession; it does not prohibit a patient from recording their own visit. Some practices have policies asking patients not to record. The provider may decline to continue an appointment, but the patient is not violating Texas law by recording.

Can I Record CPS Workers?

Yes. Child Protective Services workers are government employees, and you can record interactions you participate in. Many family-law attorneys recommend it for an accurate record.

Can I Use a Dashcam in Texas?

Yes. Dashcams are legal in Texas. There is no specific state restriction on personal dashcam use. Mount the camera so it does not obstruct your view of the road, and remember that audio recording inside the cabin follows § 16.02 one-party consent. For broader treatment, see dashboard camera legality and privacy laws.

Does Texas Require a Beep Tone or Oral Disclosure?

No. Texas imposes no general beep-tone or oral-disclosure requirement on private parties. Historical FCC carrier-level rules at 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 was the legacy "telephone-recording-disclosure" rule for common carriers and was REMOVED effective November 20, 2017. It is no longer live federal regulation and never applied to ordinary citizens or businesses recording their own calls.

Federal Overlay: ECPA, FCC AI-Voice Rule, NLRB Stericycle, TAKE IT DOWN Act, HIPAA

Federal recording law operates on top of Texas state law. Federal does not preempt Texas's stricter and more specific rules, and Texas does not preempt federal. The five overlays that matter for Texas recording in 2026:

1. ECPA: One-Party Consent Floor

18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) permits interception by a party to the communication, or by any other party with one-party consent, so long as the interception is not for a criminal or tortious purpose. Texas § 16.02 mirrors this floor. There is no preemption issue for Texas-to-Texas recording. The federal one-party consent rule for federal investigations is documented in DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302 (consensual monitoring). For the full federal framework, see our guide to the federal Wiretap Act and ECPA.

2. FCC 24-17: AI-Generated Voice Treated as Artificial Under TCPA

The FCC released Declaratory Ruling FCC 24-17 on February 8, 2024, confirming that AI-generated or voice-cloned calls are "artificial or prerecorded voice" calls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227. Calls made with synthetic voices require the called party's prior express consent and must include caller identification, a callback number, and an opt-out method. Status: active as of May 2026. The relevance to Texas recording is that AI-cloning a recorded voice for outbound calls triggers TCPA liability independent of state wiretap statutes.

3. FCC 24-24: One-to-One Consent Rule (Vacated)

The FCC's One-to-One Consent Rule (FCC 24-24) was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025). The mandate issued April 30, 2025, making the vacatur effective on that date. Always note the vacatur when citing FCC 24-24. Do not assume any post-vacatur FCC final rule formally striking the requirement unless verified directly from an FCC docket.

4. NLRB Workplace Standard

Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), remains the controlling Board standard for evaluating no-recording handbook rules in private-sector workplaces (see workplace section above). NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) did not rescind Stericycle. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) addresses surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions specifically.

5. TAKE IT DOWN Act (Federal Notice-and-Removal Regime)

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, S. 146, 119th Cong., was signed May 19, 2025. It criminalizes knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions and "digital forgeries" (deepfakes) of identifiable individuals via interactive computer service. The criminal provisions took effect immediately on signing.

The platform notice-and-removal compliance deadline is May 19, 2026, which is days away as of this article's review date. Covered platforms must implement a notice-and-removal process and act within 48 hours of valid notice. For Texas readers, the TAKE IT DOWN Act runs alongside Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Chapter 98B's 72-hour takedown duty (state) and copyright-based DMCA notices, giving subjects of nonconsensual or deepfake intimate imagery three parallel pathways.

6. HIPAA Does Not Bar Patient Recording

The HIPAA Privacy Rule (45 C.F.R. Part 164) applies to covered entities (providers, health plans, clearinghouses) and limits how they use and disclose protected health information. HIPAA does not prohibit a patient from audio-recording the patient's own visit. Texas one-party consent governs the patient's recording legality; HIPAA limits the provider's downstream sharing of any recording in the provider's possession.

Useful Federal-Caveat Block

Two federal items often appear in popular write-ups but should be treated carefully:

• DEFIANCE Act 2025: Passed the Senate by unanimous consent in 2024 and was reintroduced in 2025; status remains pending in the House as of this review. Cite as proposed legislation only, or omit.
• FCC NPRM 24-84 (AI-disclosure rules for political and other calls): a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, not a final rule. Do not frame as binding law.

Texas Recording Laws by Topic

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

• Texas Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
• Texas Dashcam Laws: Legality, Placement Rules, and Evidence Use
• Texas Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Privacy, and Rights
• Texas Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Provider Rules
• Texas Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent and Interstate Rules
• Texas Laws on Recording Police: Rights, Limits, and Body Cameras
• Texas Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Exceptions
• Texas School Recording Laws: Classrooms, Cameras, and Student Privacy
• Texas Security Camera Laws: Residential, Commercial, and Privacy Rules
• Texas Video Recording Laws: What Is Legal and What Is Not
• Texas Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Statutes and Penalties
• Texas Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights

Frequently Asked Questions