Dental call recording laws by state
Recording a patient phone call is generally lawful with one party's consent in most US states, but 13 of the 51 jurisdictions covered here require every party to consent. For dental practices whose phone system records calls, the safe default everywhere is to announce the recording at the start of each call.
Key takeaways
- One-party consent means one person on the call may consent; all-party consent means everyone must.
- 13 jurisdictions in this guide are treated as all-party consent for phone calls.
- When caller and practice are in different states, following the stricter rule is the common practical approach.
- Announcing the recording at the start of every call works in every state.
What is the difference between one-party and all-party consent?
Under one-party consent, a phone call may generally be recorded as long as one person on the call agrees to it. Under all-party consent (often called two-party consent), everyone on the call must agree before it is recorded.
Federal law follows the one-party rule, and most states do too. A minority of states require all parties to consent, and a few have rules that differ between in-person conversations and phone calls, or between their criminal and civil statutes.
Which states require all-party consent to record a phone call?
In this guide, 13 jurisdictions are treated as all-party consent for phone calls: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Several of these have nuances, such as exceptions for calls where everyone is warned the call is recorded, which are noted in the table below.
Why does call recording law matter for a dental practice?
Dental practices increasingly record calls for training and quality, and AI receptionists record and transcribe calls as part of how they work. Solara records and transcribes every call so you can review quality and coach the AI.
That makes the consent rule in your state part of setting up any phone system that records. The simplest safeguard works everywhere: say at the start of the call that it is recorded.
What happens when the caller is in a different state?
Patients do not always call from the state the practice is in. When the two states have different rules, the common practical approach is to follow the stricter one, which in practice means announcing the recording to everyone on the call.
How do practices using Solara announce call recording?
In Solara's settings you choose the receptionist's name, voice and greeting. Adding a short recording notice to that greeting means every caller hears it before the conversation starts, whatever state they are calling from.
This guide is general information, not legal advice. Laws change, and court decisions can narrow or widen how a statute applies, so confirm your obligations with counsel familiar with the law in your state.
Call recording consent rules in all 50 states and DC
Rules apply to recording phone calls. Follow the source link for each state's statute or legal reference.
| State | Consent rule | Statute | What to know |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | One-party | Ala. Code § 13A-11-31 | A party to the call, or someone with one party's consent, may record. Knowingly divulging information from an unlawful recording is a separate offense (§ 13A-11-35). |
| Alaska | One-party | Alaska Stat. § 42.20.310 | Recording a call is allowed with the consent of at least one party to the conversation. Divulging an unlawfully intercepted private conversation is separately barred (§ 42.20.300). |
| Arizona | One-party | Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3005 | A party to the call, or someone with one party's consent, may record. Wireless calls, texts and email are covered, and people whose calls are unlawfully intercepted can sue (§ 12-731). |
| Arkansas | One-party | Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120 | Covers landline, cellular and cordless calls. Recording is lawful if the recorder is a party or one party consents; possessing a recording made in violation of the statute is also prohibited. |
| California | All-party | Cal. Penal Code § 632 | Applies to confidential communications. Separately, § 632.7 requires all-party consent for calls involving a cellular or cordless phone, regardless of confidentiality. Civil damages are available (§ 637.2). |
| Colorado | One-party | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303 | The consent of at least one party is required to record a telephone conversation. Using or disclosing a call known to be unlawfully recorded is a separate crime. |
| Connecticut | All-party | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d | Civil law requires all parties' consent: in writing, verbally on the recording, or via a recorded warning at the start of the call. The criminal eavesdropping law (§§ 53a-187, -189) needs only one party's consent. |
| Delaware | All-party | Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335(a)(4) | Delaware law conflicts: the privacy statute requires all parties' consent to intercept a phone call, while the wiretap statute (§ 2402(c)(4)) allows one-party consent. The stricter all-party rule is the cautious reading. |
| District of Columbia | One-party | D.C. Code § 23-542 | Lawful if the recorder is a party to the call or has prior consent from one party. Courts have applied the law to cellphone calls; civil damages are available (§ 23-554). |
| Florida | All-party | Fla. Stat. § 934.03 | Intercepting or recording a call is lawful only when all parties give prior consent (§ 934.03(2)(d)). Violations can be felonies, and civil damages are available (§ 934.10). |
| Georgia | One-party | O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66 | A party to the call, or someone with prior consent from one party, may record. Violations of the state eavesdropping law are felonies (§ 16-11-69). |
| Hawaii | One-party | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42 | One party's consent is enough to record a call. Separately, § 711-1111 requires consent of all persons entitled to privacy when a recording device is installed in a private place. |
| Idaho | One-party | Idaho Code § 18-6702 | One party's consent is enough, and the same rule covers electronic messages. Disclosing contents known to be illegally intercepted is prohibited, and victims can sue (§ 18-6709). |
| Illinois | All-party | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 | Applies to private conversations made with a reasonable expectation of privacy; the statute targets surreptitious recording without all parties' consent. Civil remedies are available (720 ILCS 5/14-6). |
| Indiana | One-party | Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-5 | Intercepting a call is a felony unless at least one party consents. Civil damages are available (§ 35-33.5-5-4). |
| Iowa | One-party | Iowa Code § 808B.2 | Interception is lawful with the consent of at least one party; § 727.8 also lets a party to a communication record it. Civil suits are available (§ 808B.8). |
| Kansas | One-party | Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6101 | Intercepting a phone call without the consent of at least one party is a misdemeanor. Civil damages are available (K.S.A. 22-2518). |
| Kentucky | One-party | Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 526.010, 526.020 | Kentucky lets a participant record a call; one party's consent is enough. Using or disclosing information from an unlawfully recorded conversation is a separate misdemeanor. |
| Louisiana | One-party | La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1303 | One participant's consent is enough to record a call. Passing along a recording you know was illegally intercepted brings criminal and civil liability; even unknowing distribution can bring civil liability. |
| Maine | One-party | Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 709, 710 | A participant may record a call without the other party's consent. Using or disclosing a recording known to be illegally obtained is also prohibited, and victims can sue for damages. |
| Maryland | All-party | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402 | Maryland requires every party's consent to record a phone call, whether or not anyone expected privacy. Unlawful recording is a felony and can also lead to civil damages. |
| Massachusetts | All-party | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 | All parties must consent. The law targets secret recording: the state's high court held that when all parties know a call is being recorded, affirmative consent is not required (Curtatone v. Barstool Sports, 2021). |
| Michigan | All-party | Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c | RCFP treats Michigan as all-party, but Sullivan v. Gray (Mich. Ct. App. 1982) held a participant may record its own conversation. The Michigan Supreme Court has not ruled, so the question remains open. |
| Minnesota | One-party | Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 | A participant may record a call, as may anyone with one party's consent, unless the recording is made for a criminal or tortious purpose. Disclosing communications known to be unlawfully intercepted is prohibited. |
| Mississippi | One-party | Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-531(e) | Being a participant, or having one party's consent, is enough to record a call, provided there is no criminal or tortious intent. Disclosing an unlawfully intercepted call is a felony. |
| Missouri | One-party | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 | A participant, or someone with one party's consent, may record a phone call unless done to commit a criminal or tortious act. RCFP advises all-party consent for in-person conversations, where the law is rarely interpreted. |
| Montana | All-party | Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213 | Recording a call without the knowledge of all parties is unlawful. The statute exempts recordings where the people on the call were warned it would be recorded. |
| Nebraska | One-party | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290 | A party to the call, or someone with one party's consent, may record it unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. Disclosing a communication known to be unlawfully recorded is a felony. |
| Nevada | All-party | Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620 | Phone calls require every party's consent (Lane v. Allstate, 1998), even though in-person conversations need only one party's consent. The phone rule also covers cellphone calls and texts (Sharpe v. Nevada, 2015). |
| New Hampshire | All-party | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 570-A:1, 570-A:2 | Every participant must consent to recording a call. Consent can be implied when a party knows the call is being recorded. A participant who records without consent faces a misdemeanor rather than a felony. |
| New Jersey | One-party | N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2A:156A-3, 2A:156A-4 | A party to a call, or someone with one party's consent, may record it unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. Knowingly disclosing an illegally obtained communication is a third-degree crime. |
| New Mexico | One-party | N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1 | One party's consent is enough to record a landline call. The statute's wording arguably leaves cellphone calls uncovered, but no New Mexico court has clearly resolved this. |
| New York | One-party | N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05 | A participant may record a call, as may anyone with one participant's consent. Recording without any participant's consent is a felony. The law covers cellphone and cordless calls. |
| North Carolina | One-party | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287 | One party's consent is enough to record a call. A state appeals court held that a party warned about monitoring who keeps talking has impliedly consented (State v. Price, 2005). |
| North Dakota | One-party | N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02 | One participant's consent is enough to record a landline or in-person conversation. The statute's wording targets wired connections, so how it applies to cell-to-cell calls is untested. Recordings made for a criminal or tortious purpose are excluded. |
| Ohio | One-party | Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52 | Ohio requires only one party's consent to record a phone call, and that party can be the office itself. Recordings made to commit a criminal or tortious act are excluded, and unlawful recording can bring civil damages. |
| Oklahoma | One-party | Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.4 | Oklahoma lets a party to a call record it, or consent to someone else recording it. Recordings made for a criminal or tortious purpose are excluded, and unlawful interception is a felony. |
| Oregon | One-party | Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(1)(a) | Phone calls need only one participant's consent. A separate rule requiring everyone be informed before recording in-person conversations, ORS 165.540(1)(c), was held unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit in 2023 (Project Veritas v. Schmidt). |
| Pennsylvania | All-party | 18 Pa. C.S. §§ 5703, 5704(4) | Pennsylvania requires every party's consent to record a phone call. Courts have treated consent as given when callers knew, or reasonably should have known, the call was being recorded (Commonwealth v. Byrd). |
| Rhode Island | One-party | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 | One party's consent is enough to record a call in Rhode Island, unless the recording is made to commit a criminal or tortious act. Unlawful recording can bring civil damages and up to five years in prison. |
| South Carolina | One-party | S.C. Code § 17-30-30 | South Carolina lets a party to a call record it, or another person record it with one party's consent. Unlawful interception is a felony, and civil damages can be the greater of actual damages, $500 per day, or $25,000. |
| South Dakota | One-party | S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20 | A participant in a call, or someone with one participant's consent, may record it in South Dakota (State v. Braddock, 1990). Unlawful interception is a felony; the statute does not create a private civil lawsuit. |
| Tennessee | One-party | Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601 | Tennessee requires only one party's consent to record a call, including cellphone calls. Recordings made for a criminal or tortious purpose are excluded, and unlawful recording can bring civil damages of $10,000 or more. |
| Texas | One-party | Tex. Penal Code § 16.02 | Texas lets a party to a call record it, or consent to someone else recording it. Recordings made for a criminal or tortious purpose are excluded; civil liability can reach $10,000 per violation plus actual damages. |
| Utah | One-party | Utah Code § 77-23a-4 | Utah requires only one party's consent to record a call. Recordings made for a criminal or tortious purpose are excluded, and people unlawfully recorded may seek civil damages. |
| Vermont | One-party | 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) | Vermont has no state statute on recording phone calls, so the federal one-party consent rule applies. A participant may record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. |
| Virginia | One-party | Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-62 | Virginia lets a party to a call record it, or consent to someone else recording it. Unlawful interception is a felony, and civil damages can be the greater of actual damages, $400 per day, or $4,000. |
| Washington | All-party | RCW 9.73.030 | Washington requires all parties' consent to record a private call. Consent counts as obtained when one party announces the recording to everyone in a reasonably effective way, and the announcement itself is recorded. |
| West Virginia | One-party | W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3 | West Virginia allows a party to a call, or someone with one party's consent, to record it. Recordings made to commit a criminal or tortious act are excluded, and unlawful interception is a felony. |
| Wisconsin | One-party | Wis. Stat. § 968.31 | Wisconsin requires only one party's consent to record a call. Recordings made for a criminal or tortious purpose are excluded, and unlawful recording can bring civil damages. |
| Wyoming | One-party | Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-702 | Wyoming lets a party to a call record it, or consent to someone else recording it. Recordings made for a criminal or tortious purpose are excluded, and civil damages can reach $1,000 per day of violation. |
General information, not legal advice. Sources: each state's statute or the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Reporter's Recording Guide, linked per row.
Call recording questions
How many states require all-party consent to record a phone call?
This guide treats 13 jurisdictions as all-party consent for phone calls: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. The rest generally allow a call to be recorded with one party's consent.
Is federal law one-party or all-party consent?
Federal law follows the one-party consent rule, so a call may generally be recorded when one person on it consents. State law can be stricter, which is why the state rule matters.
Should a dental practice announce that calls are recorded?
Announcing that calls are recorded at the start of each call satisfies consent rules in one-party and all-party states alike. Practices using Solara add the notice to the AI receptionist's greeting in settings.
Answer every call, with the greeting you choose
Solara answers 24/7, records and transcribes every call, and lets you write the greeting patients hear first.
First 2 months free on Essentials for founding clinics · No setup fee · Cancel anytime