Utah Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties

Utah is a one-party consent state under Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4, meaning you can record any call or conversation you participate in without notifying other parties. Illegal recording is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

Quick Answer: Is Utah a One-Party or Two-Party Consent State?

Yes, Utah is a one-party consent state under the Utah Interception of Communications Act, Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4. A person not acting under color of law may intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication if that person is a party to the communication, or if any one party has given prior consent. Either branch alone is sufficient, provided the recording is not made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of state or federal law.

The defining structural feature of Utah recording law is the severity of the baseline penalty. Illegal recording is presumptively a third-degree felony under 77-23a-4, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. A narrow Class B misdemeanor alternative under 77-23a-4(10)(b) reaches only first-offense, non-commercial, non-tortious interceptions of unscrambled radio-band communications.

The civil cause of action under Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-11 is the strongest leverage point in the Utah recording-laws stack: the floor is the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, or $100 per day of violation, or $10,000, whichever is greater, plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees, with a two-year discovery-rule statute of limitations.

Key Point	Details
Audio consent rule	One-party (Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4)
Statutory citation	Utah Interception of Communications Act, Title 77 Chapter 23a
Criminal classification	Third-degree felony (presumptive)
Criminal penalty	Up to 5 years prison; up to $5,000 fine (76-3-203(3); 76-3-301)
Class B misd. carve-out	77-23a-4(10)(b): first offense + non-tortious + non-commercial + radio/cordless/public-band/non-encrypted
Civil cause of action	77-23a-11: greater of actual + profits, or $100/day, or $10,000
Statute of limitations (civil)	2 years from discovery
Voyeurism	Utah Code Ann. 76-9-702.7
Authentic NCII	76-5b-203
Counterfeit / AI / deepfake NCII	76-5b-205
Election synthetic media	20A-11-1104 (created by SB 131 (2024))
Tenth Circuit doctrine	Frasier (2021) qualified immunity pre-May 2019; Irizarry (2022) clearly established post-May 2019
Body-worn camera	Title 77 Chapter 7a (77-7a-103, 77-7a-104)

Title 13 vs Title 77: Clearing Up Utah's Two Recording Statutes

A search for "utah recording laws" surfaces two unrelated statutory chapters. Utah Code Ann. Title 13 Chapter 10 is the Unauthorized Recording Practices Act. It governs bootleg recordings of live performances, unauthorized commercial sound recordings, and the labeling of physical recording media. It is unrelated to the consent rules in this guide.

The consent and wiretap rules covered here sit in Title 77 Chapter 23a, the Utah Interception of Communications Act. The two chapters share the word "recording" but address completely different conduct. Title 13 Chapter 10 is a copyright-adjacent piracy statute. Title 77 Chapter 23a is the wiretap and electronic-eavesdropping statute. When this article says "Utah recording laws," it refers to Title 77 Chapter 23a.

What Utah Code 77-23a-4 Actually Says About Consent

Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4 is the offenses provision of the Utah Interception of Communications Act. The statute makes it a crime to intentionally or knowingly intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure another person to intercept, any wire, electronic, or oral communication.

The consent rule sits inside the same section. A person not acting under color of law may lawfully intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication if (a) that person is a party to the communication, or (b) one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of state or federal laws. Either branch (party-to-the-conversation or one-party prior consent) is sufficient on its own.

The "criminal or tortious purpose" qualifier is the structural gatekeeper. A consent-based interception loses its safe harbor when the recording is made to facilitate blackmail, extortion, fraud, defamation, or another statutory or common-law tort. The qualifier mirrors the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) and is interpreted in parallel.

What the Statute Covers

Utah's recording law applies to three categories of communication, each defined by Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-3:

• Wire communications. Phone calls (landlines, cellular, cordless), Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), and other voice transmissions made in part through wire, cable, or like connection.
• Oral communications. In-person conversations uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying that expectation.
• Electronic communications. Text messages, email, video calls, and other digital transmissions not falling within the wire or oral categories.

The "oral communication" definition embeds a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy element. Public speech and conversations in places where bystanders can ordinarily overhear (sidewalks, lobbies, retail floors, public meetings) generally fall outside the statute even when one party is hostile to the recording.

Use and Disclosure Liability Under 77-23a-5

Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-5 is a parallel third-degree-felony provision targeting downstream conduct. It is unlawful to intentionally use, disclose, or attempt to use or disclose contents of a wire, electronic, or oral communication knowing or having reason to know the information was obtained through unlawful interception in violation of Chapter 23a.

This reaches recipients (newsroom editors, employers, attorneys, social-media uploaders) who knowingly republish or use unlawfully intercepted material. The penalty range tracks 77-23a-4: up to 5 years in prison under 76-3-203(3) and a $5,000 fine under 76-3-301. Use and disclosure liability is independent of whether the recipient was personally involved in the interception itself.

One-Party vs Two-Party Consent in Plain English

In a one-party consent state like Utah, only one person in the conversation needs to know about and consent to the recording. That person can be you. You do not need to announce that the call is being recorded or to ask anyone else's permission, provided your purpose is not criminal or tortious.

In contrast, two-party (or all-party) consent states like California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington require every party to a confidential communication to consent before the recording is lawful.

This distinction matters when a Utah call crosses state lines. Where the call touches a stricter state, the conservative posture is to comply with that state's rule.

Criminal Penalties: Third-Degree Felony Under Utah Code 77-23a-4

The presumptive penalty for an unlawful interception under 77-23a-4 is a third-degree felony. Utah's classification structure under Utah Code Ann. 76-3-203(3) authorizes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for any third-degree felony, and 76-3-301 caps the fine at $5,000.

This third-degree-felony baseline applies even to a first-offense violation. Utah's recording-law penalty regime is therefore harsher than the misdemeanor baselines used in most one-party-consent peer states. A first-offense Utah recording charge can carry the same maximum prison exposure as a first-offense Utah aggravated-assault charge.

Conduct	Statute	Classification	Maximum Penalty
Unlawful interception (presumptive)	77-23a-4	Third-degree felony	Up to 5 years prison; up to $5,000 fine
Use or disclosure of unlawfully intercepted communication	77-23a-5	Third-degree felony	Up to 5 years prison; up to $5,000 fine
First-offense radio-band carve-out	77-23a-4(10)(b)	Class B misdemeanor	Up to 6 months jail; up to $1,000 fine

The Narrow 77-23a-4(10)(b) Class B Misdemeanor Carve-Out

Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4(10)(b) provides a narrow Class B misdemeanor first-offense alternative to the third-degree-felony baseline. The carve-out is not a general first-offense reduction. It applies only when all four of the following cumulative conditions are met:

1. First offense. The actor has no prior conviction under Chapter 23a.
2. Not for tortious or illegal purpose. The recording was not made to facilitate any criminal or tortious act.
3. Not for commercial advantage or private financial gain. The recording was not made for direct or indirect commercial purpose, including resale, monetization, or competitive advantage.
4. Specific media only. The intercepted communication is one of: (i) the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, (ii) a cordless telephone communication, (iii) a public-band frequency, or (iv) a non-encrypted private channel.

The Class B misdemeanor sentencing range is set by Utah Code Ann. 76-3-204(2) (up to 6 months in jail) and 76-3-301 (up to $1,000 fine).

The fourth condition is the practical limiter. Modern cellular voice traffic on encrypted channels is the everyday case, and the encrypted-channel filter places it outside the carve-out. Standard wire-line phone calls are wire communications, not radio-band, and are also outside. In-person face-to-face conversations subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy are oral communications, not radio interceptions, and are outside. Wi-Fi and VoIP voice traffic are wire or electronic communications, not radio-band, and are outside. Any commercial-purpose recording is outside regardless of medium.

What the carve-out actually reaches is a narrow set of fact patterns: scanner-radio interception of unscrambled police channels by a hobbyist, accidental interception of a baby-monitor frequency, capture of a CB or amateur-radio public-band transmission, or interception of a legacy cordless-phone handset that broadcasts on an unencrypted band. Outside those scenarios, the third-degree-felony baseline controls.

Civil Damages Under Utah Code 77-23a-11

Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-11 is the civil cause of action that runs in parallel with the third-degree-felony criminal liability. A person whose wire, electronic, or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of Chapter 23a may recover the greater of:

• Actual damages suffered by the plaintiff, plus any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation; or
• Statutory damages of $100 per day for each day of violation; or
• $10,000 (whichever is greater).

The $10,000 figure is a floor, not a ceiling. A plaintiff recovers the larger of the three calculations even on a short-duration violation. A single one-minute recording that produced no measurable actual damages still triggers a $10,000 statutory-damages award if the plaintiff prevails on liability.

Beyond the damages floor, 77-23a-11 authorizes:

• Punitive damages in appropriate cases, where the violator acted willfully or with reckless indifference to the plaintiff's rights.
• Reasonable attorney's fees.
• Reasonably incurred litigation costs.
• Preliminary, equitable, and declaratory relief, including an order enjoining further use, disclosure, or distribution of the recording.

The two-year statute of limitations under 77-23a-11 is a discovery rule, not a date-of-violation rule. The clock starts running when the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation. A plaintiff who learns of a covert recording years after the fact has two years from the date of discovery to file suit.

Civil recovery does not require a prior criminal conviction. The civil cause of action is independent: the plaintiff can sue regardless of whether prosecutors decline to charge or whether the criminal case ends in acquittal. The civil burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Utah civil floor mirrors the federal floor under 18 U.S.C. 2520 (the ECPA private right of action), which also uses the greater-of $100/day-or-$10,000 structure. A Utah plaintiff can plead state and federal claims in the alternative; preemption does not bar parallel state recovery.

When You Can Record (Phone, In-Person, Video, Hidden Camera)

Utah's one-party consent rule applies to the audio interception layer. Pure visual recording, recording in public spaces, and recording in your own home each follow distinct rules.

Phone Calls

You may record any phone call you are a party to, including landline, cellular, cordless, VoIP (Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet), and audio captured during a video call. Under 77-23a-4 you do not need to inform the other party. Under federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d), the same one-party rule applies. No state or federal statute imposes a "beep tone" notice requirement; former 47 C.F.R. 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017.

Business call recording for quality assurance, training, compliance, or dispute resolution is lawful in Utah where the business is a participant in the call. Many Utah businesses still announce recording at the start of the call as a courtesy and to manage caller expectations across multistate operations.

In-Person Conversations

You may record any in-person conversation you participate in, provided the conversation occurs in a setting where the speaker has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Conversations in public places (sidewalks, parks, retail floors, stadiums, public meetings) generally fall outside the "oral communication" definition under 77-23a-3 because the privacy expectation does not exist.

You may not plant a recording device and walk away to capture a conversation you are not part of. The one-party consent rule requires that the consenting party actually be present in the conversation at the time of recording. A device-only third-party interception is the classic violation pattern under 77-23a-4.

Video-Only Recording

Title 77 Chapter 23a regulates audio interception, not video-only capture. Video recording in public spaces (streets, parks, public meetings, retail areas) is generally lawful. Dashcams, exterior security cameras pointed at the street, drone photography in public airspace, and filming public protests are not regulated by 77-23a-4 standing alone.

The constraint on video shifts to Utah's voyeurism statute when the video targets a private space. Utah Code Ann. 76-9-702.7 criminalizes intentional use of any technology to secretly record video of a person where the depicted person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Bathrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, private bedrooms, and similar settings are protected even from video-only recording.

Hidden Cameras, Ring Doorbells, and Nanny Cams

A Ring doorbell or comparable smart camera at the front porch capturing incidental audio of street-side conversations generally falls outside the "oral communication" definition under 77-23a-3 because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in audible street speech. The same camera positioned to capture audio of guests, service workers, or visitors inside a private space (foyer, hallway, living room) where those persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy can trigger interception exposure under 77-23a-4 if no party to the conversation consents.

A nanny cam in a child's bedroom or in the home babysitter's quarters can satisfy 77-23a-4 if a participant (the parent monitoring) has consented and is treated as a party for the household-monitoring purpose. Best practice is a written house policy disclosed to caregivers, plus signage at entry points.

The 2023 Federal Trade Commission stipulated order in United States v. Ring LLC (No. 1:23-cv-01549, D.D.C. May 31, 2023) imposed $5.8 million in consumer redress and a comprehensive privacy program based on findings that Ring had given employees and contractors broad access to customer video without adequate consent. The order limits human review of customer video absent express informed consent. Utah households using cloud-camera vendors should review the vendor's audio-capture policy and storage settings.

The Utah Consumer Privacy Act at Utah Code Ann. 13-61-101 et seq. imposes additional notice and opt-out requirements when a controller extracts biometric data (voiceprints, faceprints) from recorded audio or video and meets the volume and revenue thresholds. The UCPA uses an opt-out model and does not require affirmative consent before recording or biometric processing.

Recording Police in Utah: The Frasier-Then-Irizarry Progression (10th Cir.)

Utah sits in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, alongside Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. The federal record-the-police framework for Utah is a two-step progression: Frasier v. Evans governs incidents predating May 26, 2019, and Irizarry v. Yehia governs incidents on or after that date.

Frasier v. Evans (10th Cir. 2021): The Predecessor

Frasier v. Evans, 992 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 427 (2021), was the Tenth Circuit's first major opinion to confront the right to record police. The underlying incident occurred in August 2014, when Denver police officers detained citizen Levi Frasier and demanded the tablet on which he had recorded officers using force during a parking-lot arrest.

The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity. The court held that any First Amendment right to record police was not "clearly established" in the Tenth Circuit as of August 2014, and that internal Denver Police Department training instructing officers that the public has a First Amendment right to record was "irrelevant" to the qualified-immunity analysis because "judicial decisions are the only valid interpretive source of the content of clearly established law." The court assumed without deciding that such a right exists, but found the right was not yet clearly established within the circuit. All defendant officers received qualified immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on November 1, 2021.

For Utah federal Section 1983 plaintiffs, Frasier remains controlling for any qualified-immunity defense based on conduct predating May 26, 2019. A plaintiff whose recording rights were violated by Utah police before that date will run into Frasier on the qualified-immunity prong even though the underlying conduct was unconstitutional.

Irizarry v. Yehia (10th Cir. 2022): The Controlling Case

Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022) reversed the district court's grant of qualified immunity and recognized the clearly-established First Amendment right to film police. The underlying incident occurred on May 26, 2019, when YouTube journalist Abade Irizarry was filming a DUI traffic stop in Lakewood, Colorado. Officer Ahmed Yehia stood in front of Irizarry to obstruct his filming, then shined a flashlight into his camera, then drove a police cruiser at the journalists.

The Tenth Circuit held: "Although the Tenth Circuit had not previously recognized a First Amendment right to film police performing their duties in public, the right exists and was clearly established when the incident occurred." The Tenth Circuit thereby joined the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits as the seventh federal circuit of appeals to recognize the right. Officer Yehia's qualified immunity was revoked and the panel remanded the case for trial.

For Utah federal Section 1983 plaintiffs, Irizarry binds the District of Utah and the Tenth Circuit for any incident on or after May 26, 2019. A Utah civilian who films officers during a public encounter has a clearly-established First Amendment right under Irizarry that is enforceable through 42 U.S.C. 1983 against officers who interfere, retaliate, or destroy the recording.

Practical Takeaway for Utah Civilians

You may film Utah police officers performing public duties: traffic stops, arrests, public-space encounters, public-meeting appearances, and protest policing. Practical limits: do not physically interfere with the officer's work, comply with lawful time-place-and-manner orders to maintain a safe distance, and do not trespass onto private property to get a better angle. An officer cannot lawfully seize your phone, force you to delete footage, or threaten arrest solely because you were filming in a public place.

Unlike Colorado, Utah does not have a standalone statutory civilian right-to-record-police statute analogous to C.R.S. 16-3-311. Utah civilians rely on the federal constitutional right under Irizarry (enforceable through 42 U.S.C. 1983) plus the Utah one-party-consent rule under 77-23a-4 for the audio component of the recording. There is no Utah-specific statutory damages remedy for officer interference; recovery runs through the federal Section 1983 path with attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988.

Utah's Body-Worn Camera Regime (Title 77 Chapter 7a)

Utah's body-worn camera framework sits in Title 77 Chapter 7a of the Utah Code. The chapter governs the conduct of Utah law enforcement officers when they use body-worn cameras, not civilian recording of officers. The civilian-recording right is the Irizarry First Amendment right discussed above.

Utah Code Ann. 77-7a-103 is the definitions section. It defines "body-worn camera" as a video recording device that is carried by, or worn on the body of, a law enforcement officer and that is capable of recording the operations of the officer. The term excludes dashboard-mounted cameras and cameras intended to record clandestine investigation activities. "Law enforcement encounter" is defined to include enforcement stops, dispatched calls, field interrogations, uses of force, execution of warrants, and traffic stops.

Utah Code Ann. 77-7a-104, last amended effective May 7, 2025, sets the activation rules. An officer must activate the body-worn camera prior to any law enforcement encounter, or as soon as reasonably possible, and record in an uninterrupted manner until the conclusion of the encounter, except as interruption is permitted under the section. A healthcare-facility carve-out limits activation inside hospitals, health-care facilities, human-service programs, and clinics to actual law enforcement encounters with notice under 77-7a-105.

The Utah-specific structural feature is 77-7a-104(11): a violation of the activation rules may not serve as the sole basis to dismiss a criminal case or charge. Defense counsel cannot move to dismiss prosecution evidence solely because the arresting officer failed to activate the body-worn camera. The clause narrows the suppression remedy that defendants might otherwise pursue under federal due-process or state evidence-rule theories. Body-cam non-activation can still serve as one factor in a broader suppression argument or in a credibility challenge at trial; it just cannot stand alone.

The remainder of Title 77 Chapter 7a covers notice and privacy (77-7a-105), GRAMA disclosure (77-7a-106), and privileged or confidential recordings (77-7a-107). GRAMA is the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act, and it controls public access to body-worn camera footage retained by Utah law enforcement agencies.

Utah Voyeurism and Intimate-Image / NCII Rules

Utah's visual-recording family runs parallel to the audio interception statutes. Three sections sit on the visual side: 76-9-702.7 (voyeurism), 76-5b-203 (authentic intimate-image distribution), and 76-5b-205 (counterfeit intimate-image distribution). All three operate independently of 77-23a-4 and can stack with the interception statute in a single fact pattern.

Voyeurism Under 76-9-702.7

Utah Code Ann. 76-9-702.7 is Utah's voyeurism statute. The statute reaches three distinct conduct tracks:

• Recording-by-technology of body parts where the depicted person has a reasonable expectation of privacy is a Class A misdemeanor for an adult-depicted recording (up to 364 days in jail; up to $2,500 fine). It is a third-degree felony if the depicted person is a child under 14.
• Distribution of recordings procured in violation of the recording-track is itself a third-degree felony for an adult-depicted image. It is a second-degree felony (1 to 15 years prison; up to $10,000 fine) if the depicted person is a child under 14.
• Viewing-only without recording is a Class B misdemeanor with minor enhancements.

The statute applies to any technology, including smartphones, tablets, smart glasses, hidden cameras, body-worn cameras used for non-law-enforcement purposes, and AI-enabled wearable recorders. The reasonable-expectation-of-privacy element is the gating question: a public-space recording does not trigger 76-9-702.7 even if the subject is unhappy about it.

Utah's HB 21 (2025), the Criminal Code Recodification effective May 7, 2025, reorganized chapter taxonomy in Title 76 Chapters 9 and 10 but did not move voyeurism out of 76-9-702.7. The substantive elements and penalty classifications are unchanged. The recodification is a structural-format event, not a substantive amendment.

Authentic NCII Under 76-5b-203

Utah Code Ann. 76-5b-203 is Utah's authentic intimate-image distribution statute, the so-called revenge-porn provision. An actor commits the offense by knowingly or intentionally distributing to a third party (or knowingly duplicating or copying) an intimate image of an adult where:

1. The actor knows or should know that the distribution would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress or harm;
2. The depicted individual has not consented;
3. The intimate image was created or provided to the actor under circumstances in which the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy; and
4. Actual emotional distress or harm is caused.

A violation is a Class A misdemeanor on first offense (up to 364 days jail; up to $2,500 fine) and a third-degree felony on a second or subsequent conviction not arising from a single criminal episode (up to 5 years prison; up to $5,000 fine). Section 76-5b-203 covers authentic intimate images of an actually-photographed person.

Counterfeit / AI / Deepfake NCII Under 76-5b-205

Utah Code Ann. 76-5b-205 is Utah's counterfeit intimate-image statute and the primary deepfake-NCII criminal hook. An actor commits unlawful distribution of a counterfeit intimate image by knowingly or intentionally distributing such an image where the actor knows or should know that distribution would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional or physical distress or harm, the depicted individual has not consented, and the counterfeit image was created or provided to the actor without the depicted individual's knowledge and consent.

The statutory definition of "counterfeit intimate image" expressly includes any visual depiction, photograph, film, video, recording, picture, or computer or computer-generated image, picture, or video that has been edited, manipulated, or altered to depict an identifiable individual's exposed genitals, female breast, or sexually explicit conduct. The definition expressly reaches AI-generated, digitally altered, edited, or manipulated visual depictions of an identifiable individual.

Penalty structure: Class A misdemeanor first offense; third-degree felony on second or subsequent conviction arising from a separate criminal episode; third-degree felony aggravated (when the depicted individual is a child).

The 76-5b-203 / 76-5b-205 distinction matters because a deepfake of an identifiable person is not an authentic intimate image. A prosecutor charging the wrong section can lose the case on element mismatch. A civil plaintiff who cites only 76-5b-203 in a deepfake context may face dismissal. Both sections must be cited where the conduct involves AI-altered or AI-generated imagery.

The 2025 federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146, 119th Cong., Pub. L. 119-12), signed May 19, 2025, adds a parallel federal criminal prohibition for both authentic and counterfeit non-consensual intimate visual depictions. Covered platforms must implement a 48-hour notice-and-takedown procedure by May 19, 2026 (imminent as of this update). Utah victims now have layered state-and-federal remedies and a platform-side takedown remedy.

For ongoing harms, victims can also pursue downstream removal under the DMCA takedown notice generator where copyright leverage applies.

Utah's Deepfake and AI Synthetic Media Regime

Utah enacted a foundational AI legislative package in the 2024 General Session and refined it in 2025. Three statutory hooks sit on the deepfake / AI side: the election synthetic-media disclosure regime, the Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act, and the counterfeit intimate-image hook discussed above.

Election Synthetic Media Disclosure (20A-11-1104 / SB 131 (2024))

Utah Code Ann. 20A-11-1104, created by SB 131 (2024 General Session), was signed by Governor Spencer Cox on March 13, 2024 and took effect May 1, 2024.

The statute requires AI-content disclosure on political and election communications:

• Audio communications containing synthetic audio media intended to influence voting and depicting a candidate or election content must include audibly at the beginning and end of the communication the words "Contains content generated by AI."
• Visual communications containing synthetic media must display in legible writing throughout the duration of each portion of the communication containing synthetic media the words "This video content generated by AI" (for video) or "This image generated by AI" (for image).

The civil penalty is $1,000 per violation. The statute also authorizes a court or sentencing body to consider AI use as an aggravating factor in sentencing for crimes facilitated by synthetic media.

Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act (Title 13 Chapter 72a / SB 149 (2024))

SB 149 (2024 General Session), the Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act, was signed by Governor Cox on March 13, 2024 and took effect May 1, 2024. It is codified at Utah Code Ann. Title 13 Chapter 72a.

The Act:

• Establishes the Utah Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy within the Department of Commerce.
• Brings generative AI usage within Utah's existing consumer protection laws so that businesses are responsible when AI deceives consumers in commercial transactions.
• Requires regulated professionals (physicians, accountants, attorneys, and other licensed professions) to prominently disclose the use of AI in advance of consumer-facing interactions where an AI agent is doing the talking.

Utah was the first U.S. state to regulate private-sector use of generative AI in consumer interactions through a dedicated statutory framework.

2025 Refinements: HB 452 and SB 332

The 2025 General Session refined the AI Policy Act framework. HB 452 (2025) and SB 332 (2025) both took effect May 7, 2025. Together they adjust the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy's authorities, refine disclosure requirements for regulated professions, and clarify the consumer-protection-overlay framework.

For recording-laws analysis, the AI Policy Act is most relevant when downstream AI processing (transcription, voice cloning, biometric extraction, automated summarization) is applied to a recorded audio or video file. The recording itself is governed by 77-23a-4. The processing layer is governed by Title 13 Chapter 72a plus the Utah Consumer Privacy Act sensitive-data provisions.

Recording at Work in Utah: Employee vs Employer Rights

Utah is an at-will employment state with a layered workplace-recording regime. The Utah one-party consent rule under 77-23a-4 controls the criminal and civil interception layer. The federal National Labor Relations Act controls the employer-policy layer.

Employees Recording Their Employer

You may record any conversation at work that you participate in: a one-on-one with your supervisor, a performance review, a disciplinary meeting, an HR investigation interview, or a peer conversation about working conditions. The Utah one-party consent rule under 77-23a-4 controls. You do not need to inform the other participants.

This can be valuable evidence in harassment, discrimination, retaliation, wage-and-hour, or wrongful-termination cases. See can I record my boss harassing me for the recording-as-evidence framework, and wearable recording devices at work for the device-specific considerations.

The constraint is policy-side, not statute-side. Many Utah employers maintain workplace no-recording policies. Violating an internal policy is not a crime under 77-23a-4, but it can lead to discipline or termination.

NLRB Stericycle, GC 25-05, and GC 25-07

The framework for evaluating employer no-recording policies under federal labor law shifted in 2023. Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) replaced the prior Boeing categorical work-rule framework. To defend a no-recording or no-photography rule against a Section 8(a)(1) facial challenge, the employer must show the rule advances a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a more narrowly tailored rule. A reasonable economically dependent employee's reading of the rule governs.

Stericycle remains controlling Board precedent. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) is a housekeeping rescission of prior General Counsel enforcement memoranda. It narrows the Acting General Counsel's enforcement posture but does not overrule Stericycle and is not a Boeing-era reinstatement. The Board itself has not revisited Stericycle.

NLRB GC 25-07 (June 26, 2025) addresses a narrow question: surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions is a per se violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3) (the duty to bargain in good faith). GC 25-07 is not a broad Stericycle clarification. It applies at the bargaining table, not to general workplace recording.

For Utah employers, the practical posture is: draft no-recording policies narrowly tailored to legitimate confidentiality, safety, or HIPAA interests, with an explicit carve-out for Section 7 protected concerted activity. Utah's right-to-work status under 34-34-7 governs union-security clauses; it does not remove NLRA Section 7 coverage.

See [can an employer record conversations without consent](/can-an-employer-record-conversations-without-consent/) for the deeper treatment.

Employer Surveillance of Employees

Utah employers may record in common work areas where employees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy: sales floors, warehouses, shared open-plan offices, parking lots, and customer-facing service areas. Employers may not record in bathrooms, locker rooms, or private break areas where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Audio recording in the workplace where the employer is not a participant in the conversation can violate 77-23a-4 even when video is permitted, because the audio interception statute is medium-specific and the employer is not a "party" for purposes of the consent rule.

When the Call Crosses State Lines (UT, CA, NV, WA, AZ, HI)

Utah-originated calls that touch a non-Utah party can implicate the other state's recording rule. Federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. 2511 is a one-party-consent floor; it does not preempt stricter state law. The conservative posture for cross-state calls is to comply with the stricter state's rule.

State	Consent Rule	Statute
Utah	One-party	Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4
California	All-party	Cal. Penal Code 632
Nevada (phone)	All-party (per Lane v. Allstate)	NRS 200.620
Nevada (in-person)	One-party	NRS 200.650
Washington	All-party	RCW 9.73.030
Arizona	One-party	A.R.S. 13-3005
Hawaii (general)	One-party	HRS 803-42
Hawaii (private place, REP)	All-party	HRS 711-1111
Idaho	One-party	Idaho Code 18-6702
Wyoming	One-party	Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702

California (UT-CA calls): Cal. Penal Code 632 requires all parties to a confidential communication to consent. The conservative posture for a UT-CA call is to comply with California's all-party rule. Notify the California party at the start of the call and obtain consent on the record.

Nevada (UT-NV calls): Nevada is a hybrid state. NRS 200.620 makes phone interception all-party under Lane v. Allstate (Nev. 2014). NRS 200.650 makes in-person one-party. A UT-NV phone call must satisfy the all-party rule.

Washington (UT-WA calls): RCW 9.73.030 is all-party. A UT-WA call requires Washington-side consent.

Arizona (UT-AZ calls): Arizona is one-party under A.R.S. 13-3005. The Utah and Arizona rules align; one-party consent is sufficient.

Hawaii (UT-HI calls): Hawaii is hybrid. HRS 803-42 is generally one-party, but HRS 711-1111 makes recording in a private place (where the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy) all-party. A UT-HI call originating from a Hawaii party in a private setting may require Hawaii-side consent.

For the deeper interstate analysis, see two-party / all-party consent states and the federal recording laws hub.

Using a Recording in Court: Divorce, Custody, Criminal Cases

Utah courts evaluate recordings under standard rules of evidence. Recordings made lawfully under 77-23a-4 are generally admissible. Recordings made in violation are subject to suppression and can expose the recorder to criminal and civil liability.

Statutory Suppression Under 77-23a-7

Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-7 is the express suppression remedy for unlawfully intercepted communications. Evidence obtained in violation of Chapter 23a is generally inadmissible in Utah criminal proceedings. The same principle applies in administrative proceedings under standard exclusionary doctrine.

Authentication and Hearsay

Utah Rules of Evidence 901 governs authentication: a recording proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter is what it purports to be. Metadata, timestamps, chain of custody, witness identification of voices, and absence of edit indicators all matter.

The hearsay framework under URE 801 to 807 governs recorded statements. Common admissibility hooks for recordings include party-opponent statements (URE 801(d)(2)) (a party's own statement against them is not hearsay), present sense impression (URE 803(1)), then-existing state of mind (URE 803(3)), excited utterance (URE 803(2)), and business records (URE 803(6)).

Family-Court Considerations

Utah family courts generally admit lawfully obtained recordings as evidence in divorce and custody cases. Practical considerations:

• Do not record children's private conversations to which you are not a party. The one-party rule requires participation.
• Do not direct or coach children to secretly record the other parent. Family-court judges view such conduct as manipulative.
• Recordings of harassment, threats, or substance-impaired parenting are commonly admitted where authentication satisfies URE 901.
• A spouse who records a conversation in which they are a party to corroborate a domestic-violence allegation has a clear 77-23a-4 safe harbor.

Civil Cases

Civil courts evaluate recordings under the same authentication, hearsay, and prejudice framework. Recordings obtained in violation of 77-23a-4 are typically excluded under URE 403 (prejudice), and the recorder can face a counterclaim for damages under 77-23a-11.

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

Federal law sits underneath the Utah-specific rules and applies in parallel.

ECPA: 18 U.S.C. 2510 to 2522

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act at 18 U.S.C. 2510 to 2522 sets the federal floor. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) is one-party consent with the same criminal-or-tortious-purpose qualifier as 77-23a-4. 18 U.S.C. 2520 is the federal civil cause of action: actual damages, statutory damages of the greater of $100/day or $10,000, punitive damages, attorney fees, and equitable relief. Utah plaintiffs typically plead state and federal claims together.

DOJ Justice Manual 9-7.302

DOJ Justice Manual 9-7.302 governs federal investigators conducting warrantless one-party consensual monitoring under 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(c). Federal investigators in the District of Utah may record with one party's consent without a warrant, subject to internal DOJ supervisory-approval rules for sensitive cases (members of Congress, attorney-client situations, members of the news media). The Justice Manual is internal DOJ guidance and does not create a private right of action.

FCC 24-17 (AI Voice in Robocalls)

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17, adopted February 2, 2024 and released February 8, 2024, classifies AI-generated voices in robocalls as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Calling parties must obtain prior express written consent before placing AI-voice calls to wireless numbers and to residential lines for marketing. The ruling remains in force and applies to all callers reaching Utah numbers. The TCPA private right of action authorizes $500 per violation, trebled for willful or knowing violations.

FCC 24-24 Vacated

The FCC's One-to-One Consent rule (FCC 23-107 / FCC 24-24, codified at 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(10)) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025). The panel decision issued January 24, 2025; the appellate mandate issued April 30, 2025. Both dates are correct procedural milestones. The vacatur applies nationally because it set aside the FCC rule itself. Pre-existing TCPA prior-express-written-consent rules under 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2) to (3) and (f)(9) govern marketing calls and texts to Utah numbers.

Removed: 47 C.F.R. 64.501

The legacy carrier recording-disclosure beep-tone rule at 47 C.F.R. 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017 by the FCC's Modernizing Common Carrier Rules order, 82 Fed. Reg. 48,766 (Oct. 20, 2017). It is not live federal regulation. Utah callers should not rely on it as authority. State law (77-23a-4) controls for individuals.

TAKE IT DOWN Act

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146, 119th Cong., Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) amends Section 223 of the Communications Act to criminalize knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated digital forgeries (deepfakes). The criminal prohibition is in force as of enactment. Covered platforms must implement a 48-hour notice-and-takedown procedure by May 19, 2026 (imminent as of this update). The Federal Trade Commission enforces the platform compliance obligation. Utah victims of authentic NCII (76-5b-203) or counterfeit / AI NCII (76-5b-205) now have a parallel federal criminal hook plus a platform-side takedown remedy.

HIPAA, CFPB Reg F, and CALEA

Three additional federal frameworks layer onto Utah recording analysis where the conduct involves health-care, debt-collection, or carrier-engineering:

• HIPAA Privacy Rule at 45 C.F.R. Part 164 binds Utah covered entities (Intermountain Health, University of Utah Health, MountainStar Healthcare, Steward Health Care, Revere Health) and their business associates. A patient may record their own visit under one-party consent; a covered entity recording the patient typically needs HIPAA authorization.
• CFPB Regulation F at 12 C.F.R. Part 1006 implements the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Utah debt collectors need only one party's consent to record collection calls; out-of-state collectors calling Utah consumers from a two-party state must comply with that state's stricter rule.
• CALEA at 47 U.S.C. ch. 9 imposes engineering obligations on Utah telecom carriers to enable lawful court-ordered interception. Utah law enforcement obtaining a Title III order or a state-court interception order under 77-23a-8 (warrant) and 77-23a-10 (recordkeeping) relies on CALEA-mandated carrier capabilities.

Specific Recording Situations

Can I Record My Landlord in Utah?

Yes, when you participate in the conversation. Recordings of verbal repair commitments, lease disputes, security-deposit conversations, and landlord harassment are common in Utah small-claims and tenant-rights cases. Store recordings securely and authenticate with date, time, and location notes.

Can I Record My Doctor in Utah?

Yes. Patient-side recording of a medical appointment you attend is lawful under 77-23a-4. HIPAA does not block patient-side recording. The provider may have an internal facility policy about recording, and a private clinic could ask you to stop or to leave; that is a private-property issue, not a Utah recording-law issue.

Can I Record DCFS Workers?

Yes. Utah Division of Child and Family Services workers are government employees, and you can record interactions with them in which you participate. Many parents record DCFS visits to maintain an accurate record of what was said and agreed upon.

Can I Record My Ex-Spouse or Co-Parent?

Yes, during conversations you participate in. Do not record children's private conversations to which you are not a party, and do not direct children to secretly record the other parent. Utah family courts admit lawfully obtained recordings but view coached or third-party-engineered recordings unfavorably.

Can I Use a Dashcam in Utah?

Yes. Dashcams are legal in Utah. Mount the camera so it does not obstruct the driver's view. Audio recording inside the vehicle follows one-party consent rules under 77-23a-4, with the driver typically the participating party. See dashcam legality and privacy laws.

Wearable Recording Devices, AI Voice Recorders, and Smart Glasses

Utah's one-party consent framework permits recordings made with wearable devices: smartwatches, body cameras, AI voice recorders (Plaud NotePin, Limitless Pendant, Friend AI), and smart glasses (Meta Ray-Bans, Snap Spectacles). When you are a participant in the conversation, you can lawfully capture it with any device on your person without notifying others.

Smart glasses raise an additional layer because they capture video alongside audio. While 77-23a-4 focuses on audio interception, 76-9-702.7 prohibits recording individuals in locations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Using smart glasses in public spaces is generally lawful. Pointing them toward private areas (changing rooms, bathrooms, private bedrooms) without consent violates 76-9-702.7 regardless of whether you are a party to any audio conversation.

Employer policies can restrict device use on company premises. The NLRB Stericycle framework limits how broadly employers may write such policies. See employer wearable recording device policy and wearable recording devices at work.

Recent Legislative Changes in Utah

• HB 21 (2025 General Session): Criminal Code Recodification, effective May 7, 2025. Structural reorganization of Title 76 Chapters 9 and 10. Did not change substantive elements or penalty classifications for 76-9-702.7, 76-5b-203, or 76-5b-205. Did not touch 77-23a-4. Voyeurism remains at 76-9-702.7.
• HB 452 (2025 General Session): Artificial Intelligence Amendments, effective May 7, 2025. Refined the SB 149 Utah AI Policy Act framework, adjusted disclosure requirements for regulated professions, and clarified Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy authorities.
• SB 332 (2025 General Session): Artificial Intelligence Revisions, effective May 7, 2025. Companion AI-policy refinements alongside HB 452.
• SB 131 (2024 General Session): Information Technology Act Amendments, signed March 13, 2024, effective May 1, 2024. Created Utah Code Ann. 20A-11-1104 election synthetic-media disclosure requirements with $1,000 civil penalty per violation.
• SB 149 (2024 General Session): Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act, signed March 13, 2024, effective May 1, 2024. Codified at Title 13 Chapter 72a. Established the Utah Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy and the consumer-protection-overlay framework for generative AI.
• 77-7a-104 amendment (2025): Body-worn camera activation rules amended effective May 7, 2025. Section 77-7a-104(11) preserves the Utah-specific narrowing of the suppression remedy.

More Utah Laws

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

Utah Recording Laws by Topic

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

• Utah Audio Recording Laws
• Utah Dashcam Laws
• Utah Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws
• Utah Medical Recording Laws
• Utah Phone Call Recording Laws
• [Utah Laws on Recording Police](/united-states-recording-laws/one-party-consent-states/utah-recording-laws/police/)
• Utah Laws on Recording in Public
• Utah School Recording Laws
• Utah Security Camera Laws
• Utah Video Recording Laws
• Utah Voyeurism Laws
• Utah Workplace Recording Laws