Is one-party consent enough to record a call in the United States?

Federal law (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)) allows a person who is a party to a call to record it, unless the recording is made to commit a criminal or tortious act. States can be stricter, and about a dozen require the consent of everyone on the call.

Which US states require all parties to consent to a phone call recording?

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press lists California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington as primarily all-party consent states, with Connecticut and Nevada requiring all parties' consent for phone calls and Michigan's law being less clear for a participant. Laws change, so check your state's statute.

Can I record a call with a company or shop in the UK?

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 makes it an offence to intercept a communication in the course of transmission without lawful authority, and defines interception as making the content available to someone who is not the sender or intended recipient. Taking part in a call and recording it for your own records is not what that offence describes, but sharing the recording or other laws may raise separate issues.

Will a court accept my call recording if it was legal to make?

Not automatically. Whether a recording is allowed as evidence is a separate question that the court or forum decides. Keep the original file, note the date and who was on the call, and in India an electronic record also needs a section 63 BSA certificate.

Is it legal to record a phone call for evidence?

Last reviewed 9 Oct 2026

It depends on where you and the other person are. In many places a person who takes part in a call may record it, but about a dozen US states expect everyone's consent, parts of Australia restrict it, and rules differ again in India and the UK. If you are not sure, check your local law and tell the other person at the start of the call that you are recording. This page is general information, not legal advice.

The short version

Check local law first. Recording rules come from criminal and privacy law, and they differ by country, state and even call type.
When in doubt, say so. Open the call with "I am recording this call for my records. Is that all right?" If they agree, that consent is captured on the recording itself. If they say no, stop recording and follow up in writing.
A legal recording is not a guaranteed admissible one. Whether a court, tribunal or regulator accepts it is a separate decision.
Do not publish it. Even where you may record a call, sharing or posting it can break other rules. Use it for your complaint or case.

Country by country at a glance

Place	General position for a person who takes part in the call
United States (federal)	One party's consent is enough, unless the recording is made to commit a crime or a tort. States may be stricter.
United States (states)	Most states follow the one-party rule. A group of states require all parties to consent (listed below).
United Kingdom	The offence of unlawful interception is aimed at intercepting a communication so that someone other than the sender or recipient gets the content. A participant recording their own call is not that, but check the points below.
Canada	The Criminal Code allows interception with the consent of the originator or the intended recipient, so a participant may record. Other privacy rules can apply.
Australia	Each state and territory has its own law. Some restrict a participant recording a private conversation. Check yours.
India	No single rule that we could verify covers a private person recording their own call. Privacy is a fundamental right, and courts look at each case. Admission as evidence needs a section 63 BSA certificate.

United States

Federal law, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d), says it is not unlawful for a person not acting under colour of law to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication where that person is a party to it, or where one of the parties has given prior consent, unless the interception is for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. That sets a minimum: one party's consent. States can set stricter rules.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press summarises state rules like this:

Primarily all-party consent: California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Its guide also lists Michigan in this group, at least for recordings by someone who is not part of the conversation, so the position for a participant is less clear and worth checking.
All-party consent for phone calls (one-party in person): Connecticut and Nevada.
All-party consent in person, one-party for phone calls: Missouri and Oregon.
Private places only: Hawaii and Maine require all-party consent to record conversations in particularly private places and otherwise one party.
Vermont has no state recording law, so only the federal rule applies.

All other states follow the federal one-party rule on the Reporters Committee's description, but laws change and have exceptions, so read your own state's statute. If the people on the call are in different states, be careful: it is safest to assume the stricter rule could be argued to apply. This is a practical caution, not a rule of law we can cite.

United Kingdom

Section 3 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 makes it an offence to intentionally intercept a communication in the course of its transmission by a telecommunication system without lawful authority. Section 4 says a person intercepts a communication only if they do a relevant act in relation to the system and the effect is to make the content available to a person who is not the sender or intended recipient. A person who takes part in a call and records it for their own records is the sender or recipient, which is why recording your own calls is generally not treated as unlawful interception.

That is not the end of the matter. What you do with the recording (for example publishing it) and data protection or confidentiality rules can raise separate issues. If a call involves anything private or sensitive, tell the other person you are recording. Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of the same Act, but their courts and procedures differ.

Canada

Section 184(1) of the Criminal Code makes it an indictable offence (or one punishable on summary conviction) to knowingly intercept a private communication using a device. Section 184(2)(a) says that does not apply to a person who has the consent, express or implied, of the originator of the communication or of the person intended by the originator to receive it. In practice that means a participant can record, because their own participation supplies the consent the section requires. Other privacy rules can apply, particularly to organisations that record customers.

Australia

Australia has no single national recording law of this kind. Each state and territory has its own listening or surveillance devices legislation, and they differ in important ways.

New South Wales: under section 7 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 it is an offence to knowingly use a listening device to record a private conversation to which you are a party, unless all principal parties consent, or a principal party consents and the recording is reasonably necessary to protect that party's lawful interests, or is not made to communicate or publish the conversation to people who are not parties to it.
Queensland: section 43 of the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 makes it an offence to use a listening device to record a private conversation, but the offence does not apply where the person using the device is a party to the conversation.
Other states and territories have their own Acts with their own exceptions, including on sharing a recording afterwards. Read the legislation for the place where the call happens, or ask a lawyer.

Because of this variation, in Australia it is especially sensible to tell the other person you are recording and get their agreement on the recording.

India

We could not find a statute that specifically regulates a private person recording a call they are part of. Two things are clear. First, the right to privacy is part of Article 21 of the Constitution, and courts consider it when a recording was made secretly. Second, an electronic record such as a call recording is admitted in a court only if it meets the conditions in section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, including the certificate. See Section 63 BSA certificate explained. Because the position is case by case, tell the other person you are recording, and keep a written follow-up as a second record of what was said.

Practical steps that protect you

Look up the rule where you and the other person are. Use the official sources below, not a blog summary.
Say you are recording, at the start. A short, clear sentence, then wait for a yes. The yes is on the recording.
Stop if they object, and carry on by email or message instead.
Write down the basics straight away: date, time, who was on the call, the number you dialled or received, and what was agreed.
Follow up in writing. Email a short summary ("As discussed on the call today at 3 pm, you agreed to...") and keep their reply or silence.
Keep the original recording file untouched. Work on copies. A fingerprint (SHA-256 hash value) recorded at the time lets you show later that the file has not changed.
Use it for the dispute, not for posting online.

If you cannot record

You can still keep good evidence of a call: contemporaneous notes, a follow-up email, the call log showing the time and length, and any messages sent after the call. Dated notes written soon after the call are useful in most forums. See the small claims evidence checklist and the India consumer complaint guide for how call evidence fits in a complaint.