One-Party vs. Two-Party Consent: Which States Need Everyone's Yes

This article is general information, not legal advice. Laws change and vary by jurisdiction — talk to qualified counsel about your specific situation.

The short answer

In a one-party consent state, you can record a conversation you’re part of without telling anyone else, because your own agreement is enough. In an all-party consent state, sometimes called “two-party,” every participant has to agree first. A handful of states don’t sit cleanly in either category.

Every US state, one-party or all-party

Federal law (the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511) sets a one-party consent floor: if you’re part of the conversation, your own consent is enough nationally, unless your state says otherwise. Most states don’t say otherwise. The table below covers all 50 states plus DC, with the statute that controls and a short note wherever the rule isn’t a clean yes or no.

The last column is what Tagup does, not what the law requires. Tagup asks in every all-party state and in every contested one, including contested states where courts have leaned toward one-party, such as Delaware and Michigan. Where a state’s position is unsettled, asking is a safer default than guessing. That column is a product setting, not a legal opinion, and it is not a substitute for the statute beside it.

The states that are not cleanly either

Seven states do not fit either label, and each one misses it for a different reason.

Connecticut runs two rules at once. Its criminal eavesdropping law asks for only one party’s consent, but a separate civil statute imposes liability for recording a phone call without everyone’s agreement. Which one governs your situation depends on whether you’re worried about a prosecutor or a lawsuit.

Delaware’s own code disagrees with itself. One section reads as an all-party requirement, another explicitly authorizes one-party recording, and courts have generally resolved the conflict in favor of the one-party provision.

Michigan’s eavesdropping statute reads as an all-party rule on its face. In 1982, though, the Court of Appeals held that the law covers listening in on someone else’s conversation, not recording your own. That “participant exception” has held up since.

Montana doesn’t require consent the way the other states do. Its law bars using a hidden device without the knowledge of everyone in the conversation, and a single warning from any party is enough to satisfy it. That is a much lower bar than an affirmative “yes” from everyone.

Nevada splits by medium. In-person conversations need only one party’s consent under the plain text of the statute. Phone calls are different. The state’s wiretap law doesn’t say “all parties” outright, but the Nevada Supreme Court read that requirement in, by contrast with the in-person statute’s explicit one-party language.

New Hampshire’s statute requires all-party consent, but its courts have held that a party’s own knowledge that a call is being recorded can itself count as that party’s consent. A stated notice or a recorded tone can be enough, which softens “all-party” considerably in practice.

Oregon splits by setting. Phone calls need one party’s consent. In-person conversations require that everyone present be told a recording is happening. A single “one-party” or “all-party” label gets half of that rule wrong.

When your call spans two states

Remote meetings raise a question that a state list cannot answer on its own. You are in a one-party state, a colleague is in an all-party state, and the call happens in both at once. Which law applies?

Courts do not agree, and the disagreement matters. The leading case is Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal.4th 95 (2006). A Georgia-based brokerage recorded calls with California clients under Georgia’s one-party rule, which was legal where the recording happened. The California Supreme Court held that California’s all-party law still governed those calls. California’s interest in protecting its residents’ privacy outweighed Georgia’s interest in permitting the recording, and without that ruling a company could route around a stricter state’s law by recording from a more permissive one. The ruling applied only going forward: recordings made before it were still measured against Georgia law.

That case turned on a “governmental interest” balancing test, one of at least three approaches courts use when a recording crosses state lines. Some courts weigh each state’s interest in the outcome, as Kearney did. Some ask where the recording device was. Some ask where each participant was, and apply the strictest rule covering any of them. These theories do not agree with each other, and no federal rule picks one. A call between someone in Texas (one-party) and someone in Massachusetts (all-party) could come out differently depending on which court hears the dispute and which theory it applies.

That is the everyday situation for a recurring remote meeting: a manager in a one-party state and a report in an all-party state. The rule that holds under every theory is to default to all-party consent. If every participant has agreed, it does not matter whether a court applies the law of the recorder’s state, the law of the strictest participant’s state, or a balancing test. You have already met the highest bar any of them could set. Asking everyone is also simpler than tracking fifty states’ rules for each call.

What “consent” actually has to be

Whichever state’s rule applies, good consent comes down to four things. You ask before the recording starts. You tell people what is being recorded and why. You get agreement from each person rather than assuming it. And you let anyone withdraw if they change their mind. For the full checklist, including recording at work and under GDPR, see the guide to recording conversations legally →.

If you record meetings regularly

If recording is part of how you run your work, the safest habit is to get everyone’s permission before you record, and that habit is easier to keep when the tool keeps track of it for you. Tagup lets you send each contact a consent request and, by default, blocks recording them until they allow it or you state that you already have their permission.

Sources

Every state’s rule above cites its controlling statute. General background and further reading:

• Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — Reporter’s Recording Guide
• Digital Media Law Project — Recording Phone Calls and Conversations
• 18 U.S.C. § 2511 — the federal Wiretap Act