Call recording consent laws

See also

Sources

1. 1
   A contact centre that streams live calls with California parties to a third-party AI vendor for transcription or agent assist faces CIPA exposure unless all parties are told and consent, particularly where the vendor can use the data for its own model improvement.inferred

   Ambriz v. Google LLC, order denying motion to dismiss (N.D. Cal.) · Order (Dkt. 56, filed 02/10/25), pp.4-7: capability test and Section 631(a) all-party consent clause · Checked 2026-09-30
2. 2
   On February 10, 2025, the US District Court for the Northern District of California denied Google's motion to dismiss in Ambriz v. Google, applying the 'capability' test: plaintiffs adequately alleged that Google Cloud Contact Center AI acted as a third-party eavesdropper under California Penal Code § 631(a) because it was capable of using call data for its own purposes, whether or not it actually did.

   Ambriz v. Google LLC, order denying motion to dismiss (N.D. Cal.) · Order (Dkt. 56, filed 02/10/25), p.1 disposition; pp.4-6 section on Google as a third party and the capability test · Checked 2026-09-30
3. 3
   The Ambriz court applied the capability test, under which a software provider can be a third-party eavesdropper under CIPA 631(a) if its technology is capable of using the call data for its own benefit, whether or not it actually did so.

   Ambriz v. Google LLC, order denying motion to dismiss (N.D. Cal.) · Order (Dkt. 56) pp.5-6 section III.A.1 Google Is a Third Party · Checked 2026-09-30
4. 4
   On 2025-02-10 the Northern District of California denied Google's motion to dismiss CIPA claims alleging that Google Cloud Contact Center AI unlawfully intercepted customer-service calls it transcribed and analysed.

   Ambriz v. Google LLC, order denying motion to dismiss (N.D. Cal.) · Order (Dkt. 56; filed 02/10/25) p.1 introduction and p.2 background on Google Cloud Contact Center AI · Checked 2026-09-30
5. 5
   Federal district courts in California have applied two competing tests for vendor liability under CIPA 631: an extension test (Graham v. Noom), where a vendor acting only as the business's tool is not a third party, and a capability test (Javier v. Assurance IQ).

   Ambriz v. Google LLC, order denying motion to dismiss (N.D. Cal.) · Order (Dkt. 56) pp.5-6 discussion of the extension test and the capability test · Checked 2026-09-30
6. 6
   California Penal Code 632.7 makes it a crime to intercept or receive and intentionally record, without the consent of all parties, a communication transmitted between cellular, cordless or landline telephones in the combinations the section lists.

   California Penal Code § 632.7 · § 632.7(a) · Checked 2026-09-30
7. 7
   Because Penal Code 632.7(a) as read contains no confidential-communication qualifier, a call involving a cellular or cordless phone can fall under California's all-party rule even where Penal Code 632's confidentiality element would not be met.inferred

   California Penal Code § 632.7 · § 632.7(a) compared with § 632(a) and (c) · Checked 2026-09-30
8. 8
   A first violation of Penal Code 632.7 carries a fine of up to $2,500 and or up to one year of imprisonment, and a repeat offence after a prior conviction under specified CIPA sections carries a fine of up to $10,000.

   California Penal Code § 632.7 · § 632.7(a) penalty clause · Checked 2026-09-30
9. 9
   California Penal Code 632 makes it a crime to intentionally use a recording or amplifying device to eavesdrop on or record a confidential communication without the consent of all parties.

   California Penal Code § 632 · § 632(a) · Checked 2026-09-30
10. 10
    Under Penal Code 632(c), a confidential communication is one carried on in circumstances that reasonably indicate a party wants it confined to the parties, excluding public gatherings and similar settings where the party may reasonably expect to be overheard or recorded.

    California Penal Code § 632 · § 632(c) · Checked 2026-09-30
11. 11
    A first violation of Penal Code 632 carries a fine of up to $2,500 per violation, rising to up to $10,000 per violation for a person with a prior conviction, with possible jail or prison.

    California Penal Code § 632 · § 632(a) · Checked 2026-09-30
12. 12
    Under Penal Code 637.2(c), a CIPA plaintiff need not have suffered or be threatened with actual damages to bring the civil action.

    California Penal Code § 637.2 · § 637.2(c) · Checked 2026-09-30
13. 13
    Penal Code 637.2 lets a person injured by a CIPA violation sue for the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages.

    California Penal Code § 637.2 · § 637.2(a) · Checked 2026-09-30
14. 14
    SB 690 as enrolled amends Penal Code 637.2, the CIPA civil-action section, under the title Crimes: invasion of privacy.

    SB-690 Crimes: invasion of privacy - bill status · Bill status page, title and 'An act to amend' line · Checked 2026-09-30
15. 15
    California SB 690 (2025-26 session) passed both houses on 2026-08-28 and was enrolled and presented to the Governor on 2026-09-04; the legislature's status page showed no Governor action at access on 2026-09-30.

    SB-690 Crimes: invasion of privacy - bill status · Bill history, actions dated 08/28/26 and 09/04/26 · Checked 2026-09-30
16. 16
    Article 5(1) of the ePrivacy Directive requires Member States to ensure the confidentiality of communications and to prohibit listening, tapping, storage or other interception or surveillance without the users' consent, except where legally authorised.

    Directive 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy Directive) Article 5 Confidentiality of the communications · Article 5(1) · Checked 2026-09-30
17. 17
    Article 5(2) of the ePrivacy Directive preserves legally authorised recording of communications in the course of lawful business practice to provide evidence of a commercial transaction or other business communication.

    Directive 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy Directive) Article 5 Confidentiality of the communications · Article 5(2) · Checked 2026-09-30
18. 18
    The former 47 CFR 64.501 allowed carrier recording only with prior verbal or written consent of all parties, a recorded verbal notification at the start of the call, or an automatic tone warning repeated at regular intervals.

    47 CFR 64.501 Recording of telephone conversations with telephone companies (2011 edition) · § 64.501(a), (b), (c) · Checked 2026-09-30
19. 19
    The FCC removed and reserved 47 CFR Part 64 Subpart E, consisting of section 64.501, in the Modernizing Common Carrier Rules order FCC 17-112, effective 2017-11-20.

    Modernizing Common Carrier Rules (Final rule, FCC 17-112), 82 FR, October 20 2017 · Amendatory instruction removing and reserving subpart E; DATES section · Checked 2026-09-30
20. 20
    The former FCC rule 47 CFR 64.501 applied only to telephone common carriers recording interstate or foreign conversations between members of the public and the carrier's own personnel, not to businesses generally.

    47 CFR 64.501 Recording of telephone conversations with telephone companies (2011 edition) · § 64.501 introductory paragraph · Checked 2026-09-30
21. 21
    Since the 2017 removal of 64.501, there appears to be no FCC rule requiring a periodic beep tone on recorded calls; notice obligations now come from state statutes and other regimes.inferred

    Modernizing Common Carrier Rules (Final rule, FCC 17-112), 82 FR, October 20 2017 · Amendatory instruction removing subpart E · Checked 2026-09-30
22. 22
    The 2023 edition of 47 CFR shows Part 64 Subpart E as Reserved, with no recording-device rule text.

    47 CFR Part 64 Subpart E (2023 edition) · Subpart E heading · Checked 2026-09-30
23. 23
    A federal Wiretap Act civil action must be commenced within two years after the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.

    18 U.S. Code § 2520 - Recovery of civil damages authorized · § 2520(e) · Checked 2026-09-30
24. 24
    A person whose communication is unlawfully intercepted may sue under 18 U.S.C. 2520 and recover the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, or statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000.

    18 U.S. Code § 2520 - Recovery of civil damages authorized · § 2520(a) and (c)(2) · Checked 2026-09-30
25. 25
    A person acting under color of law may lawfully intercept a communication where that person is a party or one party has given prior consent, with no criminal-or-tortious-purpose carve-out in that paragraph.

    18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited · § 2511(2)(c) · Checked 2026-09-30
26. 26
    A violation of 18 U.S.C. 2511(1) is punishable by a fine, imprisonment of not more than five years, or both, subject to the exceptions in subsections (4)(b) and (5).

    18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited · § 2511(4)(a) · Checked 2026-09-30
27. 27
    The federal one-party consent exception for private persons does not apply when the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act under federal or state law.

    18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited · § 2511(2)(d), final clause beginning 'unless such communication is intercepted' · Checked 2026-09-30
28. 28
    The federal Wiretap Act defines intercept as the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical or other device.

    18 U.S. Code § 2510 - Definitions · § 2510(4) · Checked 2026-09-30
29. 29
    Under the federal Wiretap Act, a private person not acting under color of law may lawfully intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication if that person is a party to it or one party has given prior consent.

    18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited · § 2511(2)(d) · Checked 2026-09-30
30. 30
    Telephone equipment furnished by a communications provider in the ordinary course of its business and used by the subscriber in the ordinary course of the subscriber's business is excluded from the Wiretap Act's definition of an intercepting device.

    18 U.S. Code § 2510 - Definitions · § 2510(5)(a)(i) · Checked 2026-09-30
31. 31
    Florida Statutes 934.03(2)(d) makes interception lawful when all parties to the communication have given prior consent.

    Florida Statutes 934.03 Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited · § 934.03(2)(d) · Checked 2026-09-30
32. 32
    The Massachusetts statute's preamble declares that the secret use of modern electronic surveillance devices by private individuals must be prohibited.

    Massachusetts General Laws Part IV Title I Chapter 272 Section 99 Interception of wire and oral communications · Section 99, paragraph A (preamble) · Checked 2026-09-30
33. 33
    Because the Massachusetts definition turns on secret hearing or recording, a recording that participants are clearly told about is likely outside the definition, but this packet has no Massachusetts case law confirming what notice suffices.inferred

    Massachusetts General Laws Part IV Title I Chapter 272 Section 99 Interception of wire and oral communications · Section 99, paragraph B.4 · Checked 2026-09-30
34. 34
    Massachusetts defines interception as secretly hearing or secretly recording the contents of a wire or oral communication by an intercepting device by anyone not given prior authority by all parties.

    Massachusetts General Laws Part IV Title I Chapter 272 Section 99 Interception of wire and oral communications · Section 99, paragraph B.4 · Checked 2026-09-30
35. 35
    The UK 2018 business interception regulations authorise interception only where it is carried out by or with the express consent of the system controller and the conduct falls within listed purposes and meets regulation 4.

    The Investigatory Powers (Interception by Businesses etc. for Monitoring and Record-keeping Purposes) Regulations 2018, regulation 3 (as made) · Regulation 3(1)(a)-(c) · Checked 2026-09-30
36. 36
    The UK 2018 regulations require that the system controller has made all reasonable efforts to inform every person who may use the telecommunication system that communications may be intercepted.

    The Investigatory Powers (Interception by Businesses etc. for Monitoring and Record-keeping Purposes) Regulations 2018, regulation 4 (as made) · Regulation 4(1)(c) · Checked 2026-09-30
37. 37
    Listed purposes for business interception under the UK 2018 regulations include establishing facts, ascertaining regulatory compliance, ascertaining standards achieved by system users, national security, preventing or detecting crime, investigating unauthorised use and securing effective system operation.

    The Investigatory Powers (Interception by Businesses etc. for Monitoring and Record-keeping Purposes) Regulations 2018, regulation 3 (as made) · Regulation 3(2) · Checked 2026-09-30
38. 38
    Under regulation 4(1) of the UK 2018 regulations, interception must be solely for monitoring or recording communications relevant to the system controller's activities on a system provided for use in connection with those activities.

    The Investigatory Powers (Interception by Businesses etc. for Monitoring and Record-keeping Purposes) Regulations 2018, regulation 4 (as made) · Regulation 4(1)(a)-(b) · Checked 2026-09-30
39. 39
    ICO guidance says covert monitoring of workers is unlikely to be justifiable in most usual circumstances and is reserved for exceptional cases such as suspected criminal activity, with senior management authorisation and time limits.

    Employment practices and data protection: monitoring workers - data protection and monitoring workers · Section on covert monitoring · Checked 2026-09-30
40. 40
    ICO guidance says employers must carry out a data protection impact assessment before any monitoring likely to result in high risk to workers and others.

    Employment practices and data protection: monitoring workers - data protection and monitoring workers · Section on DPIAs · Checked 2026-09-30
41. 41
    ICO guidance says employers must identify a lawful basis for monitoring workers and that consent is generally unsuitable because of the power imbalance in employment.

    Employment practices and data protection: monitoring workers - data protection and monitoring workers · Section on lawful basis · Checked 2026-09-30
42. 42
    ICO guidance says employers must inform workers about any monitoring except in very exceptional circumstances where covert monitoring is justified.

    Employment practices and data protection: monitoring workers - data protection and monitoring workers · Section on transparency / telling workers about monitoring · Checked 2026-09-30
43. 43
    As of 2026-09-30 the ICO marks its monitoring-workers guidance as under review and subject to change because of the Data (Use and Access) Act.

    Employment practices and data protection: monitoring workers · Page banner / status notice · Checked 2026-09-30
44. 44
    Washington RCW 9.73.030(1) makes it unlawful for individuals, businesses and the state to intercept or record a private communication without first obtaining the consent of all participants.

    RCW 9.73.030 Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication - Consent required - Exceptions · RCW 9.73.030(1) · Checked 2026-09-30
45. 45
    In Washington, consent is considered obtained when one party announces to all others that the conversation is about to be recorded, provided that if it is recorded the announcement itself is also recorded.

    RCW 9.73.030 Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication - Consent required - Exceptions · RCW 9.73.030(3) · Checked 2026-09-30

Documents

Cite this page

WarmTransfer. (2026, September 30). Call recording consent laws. WarmTransfer. https://warmtransfer.net/knowledge/call-recording-consent-laws

@misc{warmtransfer-call-recording-consent-laws,
  title  = {Call recording consent laws},
  author = {{WarmTransfer}},
  year   = {2026},
  url    = {https://warmtransfer.net/knowledge/call-recording-consent-laws},
  note   = {Verified 2026-09-30}
}