The short version
Federal law, under the Wiretap Act, generally lets a private person who is a party to a communication, or who has prior consent from one party, intercept and record it (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)), unless the interception is made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of federal or state law. States can be stricter. Most have one-party rules. A smaller group has stricter or mixed recording rules: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington. Their tests are not the same: some require everyone's consent, some require everyone to be warned or to know, and more than one is genuinely disputed. DialBreeze's conservative operating policy is to treat every state in that group as all-party whatever the exact test, so that is how we run, not a statement of what the law requires in each one.
If you are not sure where someone is, many businesses assume the stricter rule and tell them at the start of the call. This is general information, not legal advice. Ask your own lawyer about your campaign.
Does live transcription count as recording?
Recording laws are written around intercepting or recording a communication. Federal law defines interception as the aural or other acquisition of the contents of a communication through a device (18 U.S.C. 2510(4)), and a live transcript is a written record of what was said, so a lawyer could argue live speech-to-text falls under the same rules, in particular in all-party states. Illinois law also addresses transcription of electronic communications, though that does not conclusively settle live speech-to-text of an ordinary voice call. There is no uniform 50-state rule and no definitive state-by-state resolution for live speech-to-text alone, but Montana expressly addresses warning the parties about transcription or recording, and the federal definition of interception supports treating live transcription as potentially covered. The careful approach is to treat recording and transcription the same way: give the same notice and ask for the same consent for both.
That is how DialBreeze treats it, and it is also the practical position: DialBreeze records the audio and transcribes it together when the linked recording and transcription setting is on, so the ordinary recording laws above apply whether or not live transcription would be treated as a separate interception. The acknowledgment you accept when you turn it on reads: “By turning on Breeze mode, you confirm that you have permission to contact the people on your lists, and your calls will be recorded and transcribed. You are responsible for any notice or consent that recording or transcription requires under applicable local law.”
How to disclose
Many businesses make a short statement at the start of the call, before anything substantive is said, for example: "This call is being recorded and transcribed. Do I have your permission?" Because recording begins as soon as a call connects when that setting is on, the statement belongs in your opening script. Where consent is refused or unclear, many businesses do not continue recording or transcribing, and end the call instead. An opening question does not replace consent that the law requires before recording begins: because the linked setting records from the moment a call connects, where prior consent is required, get it before connecting with the setting on, or do not use the setting on that call. Notification alone is not a substitute for consent everywhere, silence is not agreement everywhere, and a note that a person was told does not by itself establish consent; if you need consent, keep evidence of the consent you actually got, or keep the statutory notice your state allows. Your lawyer can give you wording that fits your state and your industry.
DialBreeze does not play this notice for you. Say it yourself at the start of the call, or in your opening script. DialBreeze also has no separate recording-only control to switch mid-call, so if the person objects, the reliable move is to end the call.
All 50 states and D.C.
This table is based on the September 2024 Justia 50-state survey and the statutes it names, not on a fresh 2026 review of every statute and case. Where the survey and a statute differ, the statute governs. Laws change; check the statute before you rely on it. Where a state has a separate rule for in-person conversations, only the phone rule is shown.
| State | Rule for phone calls | Statute (Justia) | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | One-party | Code of Alabama Section 13A-11-30 | |
| Alaska | One-party | Alaska Statutes Section 42.20.310 | |
| Arizona | One-party | Arizona Revised Statutes Section 13-3005 | |
| Arkansas | One-party | Arkansas Code Section 5-60-120 | |
| California | All-party | California Penal Code Section 632 | Section 632.7 separately covers calls involving cellular or cordless phones. |
| Colorado | One-party | Colorado Code Section 18-9-303 | |
| Connecticut | Mixed | Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 53a-189; Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-570d | Criminal law is one-party, but recording a phone call without everyone's consent can bring civil liability under Section 52-570d. Treat as all-party. The civil statute accepts any of three routes: consent of all parties in writing or obtained at the start of the recording; a verbal notification recorded at the beginning and made part of the communication; or an automatic warning tone repeated about every 15 seconds. |
| Delaware | Mixed | 11 Del. Code Section 1335(a)(4); 11 Del. Code Section 2402(c)(4) | The statutes conflict: Section 1335(a)(4) reads all-party, while Section 2402(c)(4) allows a party, or someone with one party's prior consent, to intercept. In U.S. v. Vespe (D. Del. 1975), a federal district court read the law as one-party for a person recording their own call; that is a federal district court interpretation, not a Delaware Supreme Court ruling. Ambiguous. Treat as all-party. |
| District of Columbia | One-party | D.C. Code 23-542 | |
| Florida | All-party | Florida Statutes Section 934.03 | |
| Georgia | One-party | Georgia Code Section 16-11-62 | Main law is one-party; a separate law applies to private places. |
| Hawaii | One-party | Haw. Rev. Stat. 803-42 | Main law is one-party; a separate law applies to private places. |
| Idaho | One-party | Idaho Code Section 18-6702 | |
| Illinois | All-party | 720 Illinois Compiled Statutes Section 5/14-2 | Generally all-party. |
| Indiana | One-party | Indiana Code Section 35-33.5-5-5 | One-party for phone calls; in-person rules differ. |
| Iowa | One-party | Iowa Code Section 808B.2 | |
| Kansas | One-party | Kansas Statutes Section 21-6101 | |
| Kentucky | One-party | Kentucky Revised Statutes Section 526.020 | |
| Louisiana | One-party | Louisiana Revised Statutes Section 15:1303 | Main law is one-party; a separate law applies to private places. |
| Maine | One-party | 15 Me. Rev. Stat. 710 | Main law is one-party; a separate law applies to private places. |
| Maryland | All-party | Maryland Courts & Judicial Proceedings Code Section 10-402 | |
| Massachusetts | All-party | Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 99 | |
| Michigan | Disputed | Michigan Compiled Laws Section 750.539c | Statute text covers eavesdropping without all parties' consent, but a participant exception has been recognized by the Michigan Court of Appeals in Sullivan v. Gray (1982) and by the Sixth Circuit in Fisher v. Perron (2022), and a federal district court applied it in AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas (2026). The Michigan Supreme Court has not resolved the question. Disputed. Treat as all-party. |
| Minnesota | One-party | Minnesota Statutes Section 626A.02 | |
| Mississippi | One-party | Mississippi Code Section 41-29-531 | |
| Missouri | One-party | Missouri Revised Statutes Section 542.402 | One-party for phone calls; in-person rules differ. Whether the statute reaches cellphone-to-cellphone calls is not fully settled. |
| Montana | All-party | Montana Code Section 45-8-213 | Montana's rule turns on the parties' knowledge of the recording, and a warning to all parties satisfies the relevant exception under Section 45-8-213(2)(a)(iii); affirmative consent is not the statutory test. Section 45-8-213(2)(a)(iii) expressly refers to warning the parties about the transcription or recording. |
| Nebraska | One-party | Nebraska Revised Statutes Section 86-290 | |
| Nevada | All-party (phone) | Nevada Revised Statutes Section 200.620 | Phone calls need all-party consent (Lane v. Allstate; Sharpe v. Nevada); in-person conversations are one-party. The statutory one-party exception is narrow and mainly covers emergency and law-enforcement situations. |
| New Hampshire | All-party | New Hampshire Revised Statutes Section 570-A:2 | |
| New Jersey | One-party | New Jersey Revised Statutes Section 2A:156A-3 | |
| New Mexico | One-party | New Mexico Statutes Section 30-12-1 | One-party for phone calls; in-person rules differ. Whether the statute reaches cellphone-to-cellphone calls is not fully settled. |
| New York | One-party | New York Penal Law Section 250.05 | |
| North Carolina | One-party | North Carolina General Statutes Section 15A-287 | |
| North Dakota | One-party | North Dakota Century Code Section 12.1-15-02 | Whether the statute reaches cellphone-to-cellphone calls is not fully settled. |
| Ohio | One-party | Ohio Revised Code Section 2933.52 | |
| Oklahoma | One-party | Oklahoma Statutes Section 13-176.3 | |
| Oregon | One-party (phone) | Oregon Revised Statutes Section 165.540 | One-party for phone calls and texts; for in-person conversations all participants must be informed. The 2023 Ninth Circuit panel opinion was vacated, and the January 2025 en banc decision upheld the in-person notice provision, so do not rely on the vacated panel ruling. |
| Pennsylvania | All-party | 18 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Section 5703 | |
| Rhode Island | One-party | Rhode Island General Laws Section 11-35-21 | |
| South Carolina | One-party | South Carolina Code of Laws Section 17-30-20 | |
| South Dakota | One-party | South Dakota Codified Laws Section 23A-35A-20 | |
| Tennessee | One-party | Tennessee Code Section 39-13-601 | |
| Texas | One-party | Texas Penal Code Section 16.02 | |
| Utah | One-party | Utah Code Section 77-23a-4 | |
| Vermont | Unclear | No statute cited by the source | No clear statutory rule; not addressed by statute. |
| Virginia | One-party | Code of Virginia Section 19.2-62 | |
| Washington | All-party | Revised Code of Washington Section 9.73.030 | Generally all-party; some narrow exceptions. |
| West Virginia | One-party | West Virginia Code Section 62-1D-3 | |
| Wisconsin | One-party | Wis. Stat. 968.31 | |
| Wyoming | One-party | Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702 |
Sources
Justia, Recording Phone Calls and Conversations: 50-State Survey (last reviewed September 2024), and the statute links in the table, including Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-570d and 11 Del. Code Section 2402. Federal: 18 U.S.C. 2511 and 18 U.S.C. 2510(4). See also how DialBreeze handles compliance. This page is general information and not legal advice.