Two-party consent states: every statute, and the nuances that change the answer
On this page
Two-party consent states, more accurately called all-party consent states, require everyone in a conversation to agree before it is recorded. The states most commonly listed are California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington, with Connecticut, Nevada and Oregon added because their all-party rules apply only to some kinds of conversation. That is why published counts differ: the count depends on how the edge cases are treated.
The table below cites the statute for each state, quotes the consent wording, and explains the nuance that matters for interviews. For what to do when you and the candidate are in different states, see recording calls across state lines.
This is not legal advice. Statute wording was checked on official state legislature websites as of September 2026, but courts interpret these laws, exceptions apply, and the law changes. A one-line summary cannot capture every exception. Confirm the rule for your situation with a lawyer licensed in the relevant state.
The state table
| State | Statute | What the text requires | Nuance for interviews |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | Penal Code § 632; § 632.7 | § 632: "consent of all parties to a confidential communication." § 632.7: consent of all parties to calls involving a cellular or cordless phone | § 632.7 applies to mobile calls whether or not confidential, and to participants as well as outsiders. Civil remedy of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, whichever is greater (§ 637.2) |
| Connecticut | Gen. Stat. § 52-570d (civil); §§ 53a-187, 53a-189 (criminal) | Civil: recording a private phone call needs all parties' consent (in writing or at the start of the recording), a recorded verbal notice at the beginning, or a tone about every 15 seconds | All-party only for civil liability on phone calls; the criminal statute is effectively one-party |
| Delaware | 11 Del. C. § 2402(c)(4); § 1335(a)(4) | § 2402 allows recording by a party or with one party's consent. § 1335 prohibits intercepting a private telephone message or conversation "without the consent of all parties" | The two statutes conflict and we found no official source resolving it; plan for all-party |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(d) | Lawful "when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent" | Covers phone, electronic and in-person oral communications with an expectation of privacy. Courts have looked at where the words are spoken |
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 | Recording a private conversation "in a surreptitious manner" without "the consent of all other parties" | Rewritten in 2014 (P.A. 98-1142). Turns on secrecy and on a reasonable expectation of privacy |
| Maryland | Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402(c)(3) | Lawful where the person is a party "and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent" | Covers phone and electronic communications and private in-person conversations |
| Massachusetts | G.L. c. 272, § 99 | Prohibits interception, defined as to "secretly hear, secretly record" without prior authority from all parties | The test is secrecy. Recording openly, with everyone aware, is the practical line |
| Michigan | MCL § 750.539c; § 750.539a | Eavesdropping "without the consent of all parties," where eavesdrop means recording "the private discourse of others" | Disputed: Sullivan v. Gray (1982) held a participant may record their own conversation; not every court has followed it |
| Montana | MCA § 45-8-213(1)(c) | Recording with a "hidden" device "without the knowledge of all parties" | Knowledge, not formal consent. Exception for persons given warning: "If one person provides the warning, either party may record" |
| Nevada | NRS 200.620 (wire); NRS 200.650 (in person) | Phone calls: read by the Nevada Supreme Court in Lane v. Allstate (1998) as requiring all parties' consent. In person: one party | All-party for phone screens; one-party for in-person conversations |
| New Hampshire | RSA 570-A:2 | Intercepting "without the consent of all parties to the communication" | A class B felony. Covers phone and in-person oral communications with a reasonable expectation of privacy |
| Oregon | ORS 165.540; ORS 165.535 | Phone: one participant's consent. Conversations: unlawful "if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed" | "Conversation" includes "a communication occurring through a video conferencing program," so video interviews follow the all-informed rule |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704(4); § 5703 | Lawful "where all parties to the communication have given prior consent" | Unlawful interception is a third-degree felony under § 5703 |
| Washington | RCW 9.73.030 | "Without first obtaining the consent of all the participants," for private phone communications "between points within or without the state" and private conversations | An announcement to all parties counts as consent; if recording, the announcement must also be recorded |
Often mentioned, usually not counted: Hawaii allows recording by a party or with one party's consent (HRS § 803-42) but separately prohibits recording devices in private places without consent (HRS § 711-1111). Vermont is often described as having no general recording statute; we could not confirm that on an official source.
Why published lists disagree on the number
Published counts differ because the states above are not all the same kind of rule. Two widely cited guides show the problem:
- The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Reporter's Recording Guide says about 11 states primarily require all-party consent (California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington) and lists further states whose rules depend on whether the conversation is in person or by phone, including Connecticut, Nevada and Oregon.
- The Digital Media Law Project's guide also says eleven, but its list includes Connecticut and leaves out Delaware, Michigan and Nevada, and it describes the Illinois law as it stood before the 2014 rewrite.
Grouping the 14 states by type of rule explains most of the disagreement:
| Type of rule | States |
|---|---|
| All-party on the face of the statute | California, Florida, Maryland, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington |
| All-party, where the test is secret or surreptitious recording | Illinois, Massachusetts |
| All parties must know, with a warning exception and a hidden-device element | Montana |
| All-party only for some communications | Connecticut (civil, phone calls), Nevada (phone calls), Oregon (in-person and video conversations) |
| Disputed or conflicting | Delaware (two statutes), Michigan (participant recording) |
A source that counts only the first three rows gets 9. Adding the disputed states gets 11. Adding the split states gets 14. None of those numbers is wrong, but any single number hides the detail that decides your case.
States where the type of call changes the answer
Oregon: video interviews are "conversations"
Oregon's statute lets a participant record a phone call, but prohibits obtaining a "conversation" by device unless all participants are "specifically informed." ORS 165.535 defines conversation to include "a communication occurring through a video conferencing program." For recruiters, that means a Zoom, Teams or Meet interview with a candidate in Oregon needs everyone told, even though a phone screen with the same candidate would fall under the one-party telephone rule. Oregon requires being informed, not agreement, but telling and asking in the same sentence covers both.
Nevada: phone calls, not meetings
Nevada's in-person statute (NRS 200.650) is one-party. For phone calls, the Nevada Supreme Court in Lane v. Allstate Insurance Co., 114 Nev. 1176 (1998) upheld reading NRS 200.620 as requiring the consent of all parties, contrasting its wording with the in-person statute.
Connecticut: a civil rule with notice options
Connecticut's criminal eavesdropping statute is effectively one-party. Its civil statute, § 52-570d, gives a right to sue over recording a private phone call unless all parties consented in writing or at the start of the recording, a verbal notice was recorded at the beginning, or an automatic tone sounded about every 15 seconds.
States where authorities disagree
Delaware
Delaware's wiretap chapter (11 Del. C. § 2402(c)(4)) follows the federal one-party model. Its privacy offense (11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(4)) prohibits intercepting a private telephone message or conversation "without the consent of all parties." Both are current law. We found no official source reconciling them, which is why some lists include Delaware and others do not. The safe reading for a recruiter is all-party.
Michigan
Michigan's statute prohibits eavesdropping "without the consent of all parties," but defines eavesdropping as recording "the private discourse of others." In Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982), the Court of Appeals held that the statute excludes a participant recording their own conversation. Later decisions, including in federal court, have not uniformly followed it, and the Reporters Committee describes Michigan's status as disputed. Treat it as all-party for interviews.
What consent looks like in practice
"All-party consent" does not always mean a signed form. The statutes and cases point to four different tests, and a good interview practice satisfies all of them at once.
| Test | Where it appears | What satisfies it |
|---|---|---|
| Express consent | Most all-party statutes; Connecticut allows it in writing or at the start of the recording | A clear yes before or at the start of capture |
| Announcement or notice | Washington (announcement, recorded if recording); Connecticut (recorded verbal notice); Oregon (specifically informed); Montana (warning) | Telling everyone, captured at the start |
| No secrecy | Massachusetts ("secretly"); Illinois ("surreptitious") | Recording openly, with everyone aware |
| No expectation of privacy | California § 632 "confidential communication"; oral communication definitions elsewhere | Telling people they are being recorded changes what they can reasonably expect |
Two California cases show why notice alone can be thin. In Flanagan v. Flanagan (2002) the California Supreme Court held a conversation is confidential under § 632 if a party "has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded." But § 632.7, which covers calls involving mobile phones, applies whether or not the call is confidential, and in Smith v. LoanMe (2021) the court held it applies to parties to the call, and sent back unresolved the argument that a beep tone plus staying on the line was consent. The practical conclusion: say it, and ask.
One pending change, for completeness: California's SB 690 was sent to the Governor on September 4, 2026, according to its bill status page. Its enrolled text amends the civil remedy section, not the consent rules in §§ 632 and 632.7.
How recruiters should use this table
- Don't sort candidates by state. A process that asks for consent only in "the states that need it" fails the first time a candidate takes your call from somewhere else. Ask every time.
- Use the strict wording when a listed state could be involved. Capture the notice and the candidate's yes at the start. The wording is in the interview recording consent script.
- Count your own location. A recruiter working from home in Washington or California is in an all-party state for every call they make.
- Treat video calls with Oregon candidates as all-informed, and phone screens with Nevada candidates as all-party.
- Remember transcription counts. These statutes are about capturing conversations with a device, not only saving audio files.
- Re-check yearly. Statutes are amended and courts reinterpret them. Put a date on your policy.
For the federal rule and the other laws that apply to recorded interviews, including AI hiring rules, see is it legal to record a job interview. Our consent guide has a short read-aloud line and a calendar notice.
Questions people ask
How many two-party consent states are there?
It depends on how you count states with split or disputed rules. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says about 11 states primarily require all-party consent, and lists more with rules that depend on the type of conversation. The table on this page lists 14 states whose statutes contain an all-party rule for at least some conversations, two of them disputed.
Is Oregon a two-party consent state for video interviews?
For video calls, effectively yes. Oregon's statute requires all participants in a conversation to be specifically informed, and since 2021 its definition of conversation includes communication through a video conferencing program. Phone calls follow a one-party rule.
Is "this call may be recorded" enough in a two-party consent state?
Don't rely on it. Some statutes accept a recorded notice, such as Washington's announcement rule and Connecticut's civil statute, but California's Supreme Court left open whether a beep tone and staying on the line amount to consent under section 632.7. Say that you are recording and ask.
Is Michigan a two-party consent state?
Its statute says all parties, but a 1982 Michigan Court of Appeals decision, Sullivan v. Gray, held that a participant may record their own conversation. Later courts have not all agreed, so treat Michigan as disputed and ask for consent.