Recording Laws in Virginia: Va. Code 19.2-62 + Court Use
Is Virginia a One-Party or Two-Party Consent State?
Virginia is a one-party consent state for criminal wiretap purposes under Va. Code § 19.2-62. If you are a party to a conversation, or if any one party to the conversation has given you prior consent, you may lawfully record it without telling the other participants. The statute reaches phone calls, in-person oral conversations, and electronic communications, and it applies to purely intrastate communications without any state-line requirement.
But Virginia is also the rare one-party state where lawful recordings often cannot be used as evidence. Under a separate civil-evidence statute, Va. Code § 8.01-420.2, no mechanical recording of a telephone conversation is admissible in any civil proceeding unless every party to the call knew it was being recorded, or a narrow criminal-conduct exception applies. The criminal one-party rule and the civil-court evidence rule point in opposite directions for the same recording, and that paradox is the single most important thing for any Virginian to understand before pressing the record button.
| Key Point | Answer |
|---|---|
| Consent rule (criminal) | One-party consent |
| Primary criminal statute | Va. Code § 19.2-62 |
| Criminal classification | Class 6 felony (subsection A) |
| Criminal sentence | 1 to 5 years prison OR up to 12 months jail and $2,500 fine (Va. Code § 18.2-10(f)) |
| Civil damages | $400/day or $4,000 minimum (or $800/$8,000 for privileged communications) (Va. Code § 19.2-69) |
| Civil-court evidence rule | Phone recordings inadmissible unless ALL parties knew (Va. Code § 8.01-420.2) |
| Voyeurism / hidden camera | Va. Code § 18.2-386.1 |
| Deepfake / AI intimate imagery | Va. Code § 18.2-386.2 (expanded 2024 c. 697) |
| Record-the-police | Protected speech under Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't, 59 F.4th 674 (4th Cir. 2023) |
| Federal floor | ECPA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522 |
What Va. Code § 19.2-62 Actually Says
Virginia's wiretap chapter sits in Title 19.2, Chapter 6 of the Code of Virginia, running from § 19.2-61 through § 19.2-70.3. The operative provision for recording is § 19.2-62, titled "Interception, disclosure, etc., of wire, electronic or oral communications unlawful; penalties; exceptions."
Subsection A makes it a crime for any person to intentionally intercept, disclose, or use the contents of a wire, electronic, or oral communication, or to procure another person to do so, except as specifically allowed elsewhere in the chapter. The statute applies to purely intrastate communications and does not require that the communication cross a state line.
Subsection B sets out the exceptions. The one-party participant exception is in subsection B(2):
"It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception."
That language is the source of Virginia's one-party consent rule. A spouse can record their own phone call. An employee can record their own meeting with HR. A patient can record their own visit with a doctor. None of those recordings violate § 19.2-62 because the recorder is a party to the conversation.
Subsection C is a different offense entirely. It targets unauthorized divulgence by an officer, agent, or employee of an electronic communication service provider who passes along the contents of an intercepted communication, and it is the only Class 1 misdemeanor in the wiretap chapter. Subsection C does not apply to private individuals. It is not a "first-offense alternative" to subsection A. Anyone who tells you that a Virginia wiretap violation drops to a misdemeanor on the first offense is reading a different statute or a stale California-style framework that has no counterpart in Virginia practice.
When You Can Record (Phone, In-Person, Video, Hidden Camera)
Virginia's one-party rule looks deceptively simple, but the legality of a recording depends on what is being recorded, where, and by whom. Here is the mode-by-mode picture.
Phone Calls
You can record any phone call you are a participant in. Under § 19.2-62(B)(2), your own consent satisfies the statute, and you do not have to announce that you are recording. The rule covers landline calls, cellular calls, and VoIP services like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and WhatsApp. It also covers conference calls so long as you are personally on the line.
What you cannot do is plant a device on a phone line and capture calls you are not a party to, even on your own family's home line. That is third-party interception under § 19.2-62(A) and it is a Class 6 felony.
Recording a call across state lines is its own problem. If the other party is in a two-party consent state like Maryland, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Washington, Massachusetts, or Illinois, the stricter state's law may also apply to the call. The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act sets a one-party floor under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), but ECPA does not preempt stricter state law. The conservative practice for any Virginian calling someone in a stricter state is to obtain explicit consent or consult counsel first.
In-Person Conversations
You can record any in-person conversation you are participating in, anywhere in Virginia, without telling the other parties. The same one-party participant rule in § 19.2-62(B)(2) governs in-person oral communications.
The statute's reach to oral communications is limited by the federal-style "expectation of privacy" framing built into the definition. An oral communication is one uttered "by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." A loud conversation in a coffee shop is generally not protected oral communication, because nobody can reasonably expect privacy there. A quiet conversation in a closed therapist's office is protected, and recording it as a non-participant would be a felony.
If you are not part of the conversation, you generally cannot record it without consent of at least one participant. Hidden devices left in a room to capture conversations between others are the canonical § 19.2-62(A) violation.
Video Recording in Public
Virginia has no general statutory prohibition on video recording in public places. You may film on public streets, parks, and sidewalks. You may record public meetings, government proceedings, and law-enforcement activity in view from a public vantage point. Audio capture by the same device is governed by the one-party rule in § 19.2-62.
Hidden Cameras and Private Places
Virginia's voyeurism statute, Va. Code § 18.2-386.1, makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to knowingly and intentionally videotape, photograph, or film any nonconsenting person who is nude or in a state of undress in a place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The statute also reaches devices placed directly beneath or between a person's legs to capture intimate parts ("upskirt" and "downblouse" devices), regardless of where that placement occurs.
The classification escalates to a Class 6 felony when the victim is under 18 or when the offender has a prior conviction within the previous 10 years. The peeping-and-spying statute, Va. Code § 18.2-130, separately makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to peep or spy into a dwelling, restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, or bedroom where the person inside has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Hidden cameras in your own home are not automatically illegal. If you are present and recording your own interactions, the one-party rule controls. If you leave a camera running to capture conversations between guests in your absence, you are not a party to those conversations and the recording violates § 19.2-62(A) as to the audio. Cameras in bathrooms, guest bedrooms, or any other room where a guest has a reasonable expectation of privacy raise the additional voyeurism and peeping risks.
The Civil-Court Paradox: Va. Code § 8.01-420.2
Virginia's defining recording-law quirk has nothing to do with the wiretap chapter at all. It sits in the civil practice title, at Va. Code § 8.01-420.2. The verbatim statutory text reads:
"No mechanical recording, electronic or otherwise, of a telephone conversation shall be admitted into evidence in any civil proceeding unless (i) all parties to the conversation were aware the conversation was being recorded or (ii) the portion of the recording to be admitted contains admissions that, if true, would constitute criminal conduct which is the basis for the civil action, and one of the parties was aware of the recording and the proceeding is not one for divorce, separate maintenance or annulment of a marriage. The provisions of this section shall not apply to emergency reporting systems operated by police and fire departments and by emergency medical services agencies, nor to any communications common carrier utilizing service observing or random monitoring as permitted by § 19.2-62."
Read that carefully. A Virginia phone-call recording made lawfully under § 19.2-62's one-party rule is presumptively inadmissible in any civil proceeding unless one of two narrow exceptions applies.
Exception 1: All-Party Awareness
The first exception requires that every party to the call was aware it was being recorded. In practice, Virginia practitioners satisfy this exception with a recorded all-party declaration at the beginning of the call: "This call is being recorded. Do you consent?" If every party answers in the affirmative, the call clears the § 8.01-420.2 hurdle. If any party was unaware, even a spouse or a close family member, the recording is inadmissible.
Exception 2: Criminal-Conduct Admissions (Narrow)
The second exception is narrower than it looks. It requires four things at once: (1) the portion of the recording the offering party wants to admit contains admissions that, if true, would constitute criminal conduct; (2) that criminal conduct is the basis for the civil action being litigated; (3) at least one of the parties to the call was aware of the recording; AND (4) the proceeding is not one for divorce, separate maintenance, or annulment of a marriage.
The fourth element is the killer in family court. Even where a spouse records the other admitting to criminal conduct that grounds a civil action, § 8.01-420.2's criminal-conduct exception expressly carves out divorce, separate-maintenance, and annulment matters. A lawfully recorded confession of criminal abuse, captured under the one-party rule, is still inadmissible in the divorce trial that follows.
Two Carve-Outs at the End
The statute exempts two categories from § 8.01-420.2 entirely: emergency reporting systems operated by police, fire, and EMS agencies (so 911 recordings come in), and communications common carriers conducting service observing or random monitoring as permitted by § 19.2-62 (so carrier-side quality-monitoring recordings come in).
Telephone Conversations Only
The statute by its terms applies only to telephone conversations. It does not exclude in-person oral recordings, video recordings, or text-message logs from civil-court use. Practitioners frequently treat § 8.01-420.2 as a broader civil-court-admissibility caution because the policy underlying it (protecting parties from secret-recording surprise in civil litigation) seems to extend further, but the statute's plain reach is telephone conversations and the writer of any draft motion should not stretch it beyond that.
The Practical Consequence
A Virginia client comes to you with a recording of a spouse, a coworker, a contractor, or a business partner that captures a damaging admission. Under § 19.2-62, the recording is criminally lawful. Under § 8.01-420.2, you cannot put it into evidence in a civil divorce, custody, employment, contract, or personal-injury suit unless every party knew about the recording, or unless the narrow criminal-conduct exception applies AND the case is not a divorce, separate-maintenance, or annulment matter.
The lawful one-party recording is, in most civil contexts, useful only as an investigation aid: to refresh recollection, to brief a witness, or to surface leads that can be developed into independent admissible evidence. It is rarely the smoking gun that a Virginia litigant believes it will be when they first hand it to counsel.
Criminal Penalties Under Va. Code § 19.2-62
A violation of § 19.2-62(A) is a Class 6 felony in every case. There is no first-offense alternative classification, and there is no separate misdemeanor track for ordinary unauthorized interception. The Class 1 misdemeanor in subsection C is a different offense (service-provider divulgence) and is not a sentencing option for participants who illegally record.
The 18.2-10(f) Sentencing Branches
What some commentary describes as a "first-offense alternative" or a misdemeanor downgrade is actually a built-in sentencing alternative for all Class 6 felonies in Virginia, not a separate misdemeanor classification. Under Va. Code § 18.2-10(f), every Class 6 felony carries:
- A term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five years; OR
- In the discretion of the jury, or of the court trying the case without a jury, confinement in jail for not more than 12 months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.
The conviction is a felony in either case. The 12-month / $2,500 branch is a sentencing alternative the trier of fact may select, not a separate misdemeanor classification. A defendant convicted under § 19.2-62(A) and sentenced to 6 months in jail with a $1,500 fine still walks out of court a convicted felon under Virginia law.
Subsection C: The Service-Provider Misdemeanor
§ 19.2-62(C) makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor for an officer, agent, or employee of an electronic communication service provider to intentionally divulge the contents or substance of any intercepted communication without authorization. Under Va. Code § 18.2-11(a), the Class 1 misdemeanor sentence is confinement in jail for not more than 12 months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both. Subsection C does not reach private individuals who participate in or overhear conversations.
Penalty Summary Table
| Violation | Class | Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| Unlawful interception of wire, electronic, or oral communication (no party consents) | Class 6 felony | 1 to 5 years prison OR up to 12 months jail and $2,500 fine (§ 18.2-10(f)) |
| Disclosure or use of unlawfully intercepted contents | Class 6 felony | Same |
| Manufacture, sale, or possession of surreptitious-interception device (§ 19.2-63) | Class 6 felony | Same |
| Service-provider unauthorized divulgence (§ 19.2-62(C)) | Class 1 misdemeanor | Up to 12 months jail and $2,500 fine (§ 18.2-11(a)) |
| Voyeurism, first offense (§ 18.2-386.1) | Class 1 misdemeanor | Up to 12 months jail and $2,500 fine |
| Voyeurism, victim under 18 or repeat within 10 years | Class 6 felony | 1 to 5 years prison OR up to 12 months jail and $2,500 fine |
| Nonconsensual dissemination of intimate images, including AI deepfakes (§ 18.2-386.2) | Class 1 misdemeanor | Up to 12 months jail and $2,500 fine |
| Peeping or spying (§ 18.2-130) | Class 1 misdemeanor | Up to 12 months jail and $2,500 fine |
Criminal-Side Exclusionary Rule
Va. Code § 19.2-65 bars unlawfully intercepted communications and any evidence derived from them from any trial, hearing, or proceeding before a Virginia court, grand jury, or agency, where disclosure of the intercepted contents would itself violate the chapter. This is Virginia's wiretap-specific fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree rule, and it is structurally distinct from the civil-evidence rule in § 8.01-420.2.
Civil Damages Under Va. Code § 19.2-69
A Virginian whose communication is unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, or used has a civil cause of action under Va. Code § 19.2-69. The remedies are substantial.
Standard recovery:
- Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at $400 per day of violation OR $4,000, whichever is higher.
- Punitive damages.
- A reasonable attorney fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Enhanced recovery for privileged communications:
Where the intercepted communication is between persons in one of the statute's enumerated privileged relationships, the floor doubles to $800 per day of violation OR $8,000, whichever is higher. The privileged categories listed in § 19.2-69 are:
- Persons married to each other (spouses)
- Attorney and client
- A licensed practitioner of one of the healing arts and patient
- A licensed professional counselor (as defined in Va. Code § 54.1-3500) or clinical psychologist and client
- A member of the clergy and a person seeking spiritual counsel or advice
The good-faith reliance defense is narrow: § 19.2-69 expressly provides that good-faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization is a complete defense to civil and criminal liability under the chapter. There is no good-faith mistake-of-law defense beyond that.
The civil cause of action is independent of any criminal prosecution. A victim may sue under § 19.2-69 even if no criminal charges were ever filed, and the criminal acquittal of an accused interceptor does not bar the civil claim.
Recording at Work: Employee vs Employer Rights
Virginia's one-party rule applies in the workplace just as it does anywhere else. An employee who is part of a conversation with a manager, an HR representative, a coworker, or a vendor may record it without notifying anyone. Employees who use recordings to document workplace harassment, performance reviews, or contested terminations are operating within § 19.2-62.
Employers in Virginia who are themselves a party to the conversation may also record without notifying the other party under § 19.2-62(B)(2). Virginia does not require employer notice or signage. The federal call-monitoring framework in 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 (the legacy "telephone-recording-disclosure" rule for common carriers) was REMOVED effective November 20, 2017 and never displaced Virginia's one-party rule for end users.
NLRB Limits on Blanket No-Recording Rules
Where Virginia employers run into trouble is with blanket workplace policies that prohibit any recording on company premises. Under the National Labor Relations Board's controlling test in Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), a workplace rule is presumptively unlawful under Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA if it could be reasonably interpreted by an economically dependent employee as chilling Section 7 activity, even if the employer did not intend that effect. The employer can rebut the presumption by showing a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a more narrowly tailored rule.
Practical consequence in Virginia workplaces: a blanket "no recording on premises" policy is at risk of NLRB invalidation unless it is narrowly tailored to a specific, demonstrable business interest. Bargaining-unit employees who record protected concerted activity (such as discussing wages, hours, or unsafe conditions) generally have NLRA protection regardless of the company policy.
The NLRB's General Counsel guidance posture has shifted in 2025. The Abruzzo-era guidance memos applying Stericycle were rescinded by acting GC Cowen on Feb. 14, 2025 (GC 25-05). GC Memo 25-07 (June 26, 2025) treats surreptitious recording of a collective-bargaining session as a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith under Section 8(a)(5)/8(d). GC 25-07 is narrowly about bargaining sessions and is not a general Stericycle implementation memo.
Cross-link: see Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? for the multi-state employer overlay.
Ring Doorbells, Nanny Cams, and Home Surveillance
Virginia's general approach to consumer security cameras is permissive. There is no Virginia statute that bans Ring doorbells, indoor nanny cams, or whole-home surveillance systems. The recording-law analysis splits along an audio / video axis.
Video-Only Capture
A camera that captures video without audio raises no § 19.2-62 issue at all (the statute reaches wire, oral, and electronic communications, not silent video). Privacy-protected location restrictions still apply: a camera pointed into a neighbor's bedroom window, or installed in a guest bathroom, can violate the voyeurism statute (§ 18.2-386.1) or the peeping statute (§ 18.2-130) regardless of audio.
Audio-Capable Capture
The moment your security camera captures audio, § 19.2-62 applies to the audio track. A Ring doorbell capturing your own front-porch conversation is fine because you are typically a party to the conversation (you live there and respond). A nanny cam capturing your child's interaction with a caregiver is fine if you are giving consent on behalf of yourself as a party (the caregiver-child interaction is a different fact pattern that warrants legal advice if the nanny is unaware).
A doorstep audio recording of a private conversation between two third parties standing on your porch, where you are not a participant and they are not aware they are being recorded, is harder to defend. Practitioners typically rely on the diminished expectation of privacy in a public-facing porch conversation, but the statute is silent on the point and the safer practice is to disclose audio capture with visible signage.
FTC v. Ring (2023)
Connected-camera vendors operate under FTC v. Ring LLC, FTC Matter No. 2023113, which settled in 2023 for $5.8 million in consumer redress and a comprehensive privacy and security program order. The Ring order requires affirmative express consent for any human review of audio or video captured by Ring devices. Virginia consumers using Ring products receive that vendor-side protection automatically; the obligation runs against Ring, not against the device owner.
Cross-link: Ring Doorbell Laws for the device-specific deep dive.
Voyeurism, Hidden Cameras, and AI-Generated Intimate Imagery
Virginia has a layered statutory scheme for non-consensual intimate imagery, and the 2024 legislative session added a critical extension to reach AI-generated content.
Voyeurism (§ 18.2-386.1)
Va. Code § 18.2-386.1 makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to knowingly and intentionally videotape, photograph, or film a nonconsenting person who is totally nude, clad in undergarments, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, in a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel or motel room, tanning bed or booth, bedroom, or other location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The statute also reaches devices placed directly beneath or between a person's legs to capture the person's intimate parts when the person has not consented.
The classification escalates to a Class 6 felony when the victim is under 18 at the time of the offense or when the offender has a prior § 18.2-386.1 conviction within the previous 10 years.
Nonconsensual Intimate Image Distribution (§ 18.2-386.2)
Va. Code § 18.2-386.2 makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to maliciously disseminate or sell any videographic or still image depicting a person who is nude or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, where the disseminator knows or has reason to know they are not licensed or authorized to do so.
The 2024 General Assembly extended § 18.2-386.2 to reach synthetic and AI-generated imagery. Under 2024 Acts of Assembly Chapter 697 (HB 926), patroned by Del. Irene Shin and effective July 1, 2024, the statute's definition of "another person" was amended to include any person whose image was used in creating, adapting, or modifying a videographic or still image with the intent to depict an actual person and who is recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic.
The amended language reaches deepfakes, face-swapped imagery, and other AI-generated or AI-modified intimate images so long as the depicted person is recognizable as an actual real person. The same 2024 legislation also extended the statute of limitations for misdemeanor violations of §§ 18.2-386.1 and 18.2-386.2 to five years from the offense or one year from the victim's discovery, whichever is later.
The voyeurism and NCII statutes in §§ 18.2-386.1 and 18.2-386.2 are the operative provisions. Older citations to nonexistent neighboring section numbers in this range circulate online and should be disregarded.
Cross-link: Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? for the cross-state video framework.
Federal Backstop: TAKE IT DOWN Act
Federal law overlays Virginia's NCII framework through the TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12, signed into law on May 19, 2025. The Act criminalizes the knowing publication, without consent, of intimate visual depictions of minors or non-consenting adults, including AI-generated deepfakes. Adult-victim NCII carries up to two years in federal prison; minor-victim NCII carries up to three years. The Act also requires online platforms to remove flagged NCII content within 48 hours of victim notice. The TAKE IT DOWN Act supersedes the unenacted DEFIANCE Act of 2024 (S. 3696), which expired with the 118th Congress. As of May 2026, the Act is active federal law.
Victims who need help removing AI-generated intimate imagery can use our DMCA Takedown Notice Generator to draft a copyright-based takedown request to a hosting platform.
Recording Police and Public Officials in Virginia
Recording the police is constitutionally protected First Amendment speech in Virginia. The controlling Fourth Circuit precedent is Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't, 59 F.4th 674 (4th Cir. 2023).
In Sharpe, a passenger in a vehicle pulled over for a traffic stop began livestreaming the encounter on Facebook. An officer ordered her to stop livestreaming, citing a town policy that prohibited livestreaming traffic stops. She sued the officer in his individual capacity and the town in its official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment violations.
The Fourth Circuit held that "recording police officers performing their public duties is protected by the First Amendment." On the official-capacity claim against the town, the court vacated the district court's order declaring the policy constitutional and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the town must demonstrate the policy is sufficiently grounded in and tailored to strong governmental interests to survive intermediate scrutiny, a burden the town had not met at the pleading stage. On the individual-capacity claim against the officer, the court affirmed dismissal on qualified-immunity grounds because the right to livestream a traffic stop was not "clearly established" at the time of the 2018 stop.
Sharpe is controlling authority in Virginia because Virginia is in the Fourth Circuit (along with Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia). After Feb. 7, 2023, the right to record police performing their public duties is "clearly established" in the Fourth Circuit, which means the qualified-immunity analysis is no longer available to officers acting after that date for ordinary police-recording First Amendment claims.
Practical limits on the right to record police remain. You may not interfere with police operations. You may not trespass to get a better angle. You must comply with lawful time-place-manner orders such as instructions to step back to a safe distance. The right is to record from a vantage point where you have a lawful right to be.
Body-Worn Cameras
Virginia law-enforcement agencies that deploy body-worn cameras must adopt a written operating policy under Va. Code § 15.2-1723.1. The policy must be informed by the model policy promulgated by the Department of Criminal Justice Services and adopted with public-comment opportunity. Body-worn camera footage is generally treated as a criminal investigative file under Va. Code § 2.2-3706.1, with public access governed by Virginia's Freedom of Information Act.
Custodial Interrogation Recording
Under Va. Code § 19.2-390.04, Virginia law-enforcement officers must make an audiovisual recording of any custodial interrogation conducted at a place of detention, or an audio recording where audiovisual recording is not feasible. Limited exceptions exist for equipment failure and exigent public-safety circumstances. Failure to record does not by itself render the resulting statements inadmissible, but courts may consider the lack of recording when weighing the evidence.
Recording Government Meetings
Virginia's Freedom of Information Act (Va. Code § 2.2-3700 et seq.) requires most government meetings to be open to the public, and recording of public meetings is generally permitted. You may record meetings of boards of supervisors, city councils, school boards, planning commissions, public hearings, and General Assembly proceedings.
Federal Overlay: ECPA, FCC Robocall Rules, and TAKE IT DOWN Act
Federal law sits underneath Virginia's wiretap statute and floors (but does not preempt) the state's one-party consent rule.
ECPA (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522)
The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522, sets a one-party consent floor for intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), it is not unlawful for a person to intercept a communication where that person is a party or where one of the parties has given prior consent, unless the interception is for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act. Virginia's § 19.2-62 sits at the federal floor; ECPA and Virginia law operate in parallel.
For federal investigators, the one-party rule for non-telephonic consensual monitoring is set out in DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302. Federal agents conducting consensual monitoring in Virginia operate under the same one-party permission as private parties.
FCC AI-Voice Robocall Rule (FCC 24-17)
The Federal Communications Commission declared on Feb. 8, 2024, that AI-generated and voice-cloned calls are "artificial or prerecorded voice" calls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, requiring prior express consent of the called party before initiation, plus identification and opt-out disclosures. See FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (CG Docket No. 23-362). The ruling is active and in force as of May 2026 with no vacatur or stay.
FCC One-to-One Consent Rule (FCC 24-24): VACATED
The FCC's One-to-One TCPA Consent Rule (FCC 24-24, Second Report and Order in CG Docket No. 02-278) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025), with mandate issued April 30, 2025. The FCC formally eliminated the rule by final action in September 2025. There is no active federal one-to-one consent obligation. Older sources that describe FCC 24-24 as in force are stale.
TAKE IT DOWN Act
See the dedicated treatment in the voyeurism / NCII section above. The Act is operative federal law as of May 2026.
CFPB Regulation F and HIPAA
Two other federal frameworks come up routinely in Virginia recording questions but neither displaces the one-party rule. CFPB Regulation F (12 C.F.R. § 1006.6) does not impose a federal recording-disclosure mandate on debt-collection calls, so a Virginia consumer can lawfully record an incoming collector call under § 19.2-62. HIPAA's Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. Part 164, binds covered entities and their business associates, not patients; a Virginia patient may record their own medical encounter under the one-party rule. Providers can set facility policies barring third-party recording in clinical areas, but those are facility access rules, not HIPAA mandates. A third party who illegally records a privileged medical conversation faces enhanced civil damages under § 19.2-69 ($800/day or $8,000 minimum).
Vehicle Dashcams and Cross-State Calls
Virginia has no statute prohibiting in-vehicle dashboard cameras for personal use. Under § 19.2-62(B)(2), a driver who is a party to a conversation may record audio inside the vehicle under the one-party rule without notice to passengers. Window-tint and obstructed-view rules in Va. Code § 46.2-1052 do not bar windshield-mounted dashcams provided they do not obstruct the driver's view.
Recordings from private dashcams are admissible in Virginia criminal proceedings on the same evidentiary footing as other digital recordings. For civil proceedings, § 8.01-420.2 governs telephone-conversation recordings only; dashcam audio captured inside a vehicle is in-person oral communication, not a telephone conversation, and the civil-court evidence rule does not by its terms exclude it.
For cross-state calls (Virginia caller, two-party-state recipient or vice versa), the conservative rule is to follow the stricter state's law. Virginia neighbors several stricter states, including Maryland, and a Virginian on a call with a Maryland resident should obtain explicit consent before recording.
Wearable Recording Devices in Virginia
Virginia's one-party consent framework under § 19.2-62 extends to wearable devices: smartwatches, AI voice recorders, body-mounted cameras, and smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Bans. If you are a participant in the conversation, you can lawfully capture it with any device on your person, including wearable recording devices at work. Smart glasses add a video dimension, and pointing them into private spaces still triggers the voyeurism statute regardless of audio consent. Phone calls captured by wearable devices remain subject to the § 8.01-420.2 civil-court evidence limitation; the form factor does not change the civil-admissibility analysis.
Virginia Recording Law FAQ
Virginia Recording Laws by Topic
Each of the 12 pages below covers a specific Virginia recording-law context in greater depth than this hub can. Use them to drill into the rule that applies to your situation.
- Virginia Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
- Virginia Dashcam Laws: Installation, Audio, and Evidence Rules
- Virginia Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance and Privacy Rights
- Virginia Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and Healthcare Privacy
- Virginia Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know
- Virginia Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limitations
- Virginia Laws on Recording in Public: Rights and Restrictions
- Virginia School Recording Laws: Student, Parent, and Teacher Rights
- Virginia Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules
- Virginia Video Recording Laws: Surveillance Rules and Privacy Limits
- Virginia Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections
- Virginia Workplace Recording Laws: Employee Rights and Employer Rules