1. Check a call between two states
| Caller | |
|---|---|
| Recipient |
2. Get a disclosure script for that requirement
Run "Check requirement" first — the script matches whichever result it last showed. Copy it, adapt the bracketed parts, and read it verbatim if all-party consent is required.
Prefer a CLI, or want this in a script?
Same table, zero dependencies, one file:
node cli.mjs check California Texas node cli.mjs check CA TX --json node cli.mjs states node cli.mjs script all-party --company "Acme Inc." --purpose "training purposes"
Get cli.mjs — Node 18+, nothing to install, no network call ever. check exits 1 when all-party consent is required, so it doubles as a one-line reminder in an onboarding or call-script build step.
All 51 jurisdictions
The fourteen all-party states are listed with their statute; every other state and DC follows the federal one-party baseline. Full table, sourced and with per-state notes on any known ambiguity: why this varies by state.
| State | Rule | Statute |
|---|
Common questions
Is call recording consent governed by federal law or state law?
Both. The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) sets a one-party-consent floor — a person who is a party to a call may record it without telling the other party — but a state is free to require more. Fourteen states and DC do not: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington require every party's consent. This tool applies the stricter of the two states whenever either side of a call is in one of those fourteen.
What happens if the caller and recipient are in different states?
There is no single nationwide answer, and courts have not resolved it uniformly. The commonly recommended, conservative practice — and the one this tool applies — is to require all-party consent whenever either state involved is an all-party state, because at least one court has applied the stricter state's law to protect a recipient there (Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006), applying California's law even though the recording company was based elsewhere). Treat this as the reason the conservative reading is conservative, not as a guarantee for every state pair.
Is this legal advice?
No. This is a reference lookup against a fixed table of each state's default rule, built from publicly available summaries of state wiretapping and eavesdropping statutes. It does not know the facts of your specific call, does not model exceptions (in-person conversations, 911 calls, law enforcement, a parent recording a minor's calls, industry-specific notice rules), and state statutes are amended and renumbered without notice. Verify the current statute text or ask a lawyer licensed in the relevant state before you rely on this for an actual call.
Is anything I type uploaded anywhere?
No. The two states you pick and the script you generate are looked up and rendered entirely in your browser from a fixed table shipped with the page. Nothing is sent anywhere. The CLI makes no network call either.