Recording Laws by Country: A Complete Global Guide (2026 Updated)

Whether you need to record a difficult conversation with a landlord, preserve evidence of harassment, or simply understand your rights before hitting the record button, the law is not the same everywhere. In some countries, recording a conversation you are part of is perfectly legal. In others, it can land you in prison.

This guide covers the recording consent laws of every major jurisdiction in the world -- from the United States and European Union to South Korea, Japan, Australia, and Canada. We break down the critical distinction between one-party and two-party consent, cite the actual statutes, and give you a quick-reference table so you know your rights before you record.

1. One-Party vs Two-Party (All-Party) Consent

The single most important concept in recording law worldwide is the distinction between one-party consent and two-party consent (also called all-party consent).

One-Party Consent

Under one-party consent laws, only one participant in a conversation needs to agree to the recording. In practice, this means that if you are part of the conversation, you can record it without telling anyone else. The "one party" is you.

This is the more permissive standard. Jurisdictions that follow one-party consent include:

• The majority of US states (38 states + DC)
• Canada (federal level under the Criminal Code)
• South Korea (under the Protection of Communications Secrets Act)
• The United Kingdom (for personal use)
• Many countries in Asia and South America

Two-Party (All-Party) Consent

Under all-party consent laws, every person participating in the conversation must agree to the recording. If even one person does not consent, the recording is illegal -- regardless of whether you are a participant yourself.

Jurisdictions that follow all-party consent include:

• 12 US states (California, Florida, Illinois, and others)
• Germany (under Section 201 of the Criminal Code)
• Most Australian states
• Several European nations under GDPR-influenced privacy frameworks

Key Distinction: Recording vs Eavesdropping

There is a critical difference between recording a conversation you are a party to and recording a conversation between other people that you are not part of (eavesdropping or wiretapping). Eavesdropping is illegal in virtually every jurisdiction in the world. Even in one-party consent jurisdictions, you must be a participant in the conversation to legally record it.

Placing a hidden recorder in a room to capture other people's conversations when you are not present is illegal in the United States, European Union, South Korea, Japan, Canada, Australia, and every other major jurisdiction covered in this guide.

2. United States: Federal and State Laws

Federal Law: The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)

At the federal level, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 2510-2522), which updated the original Wiretap Act of 1968, establishes the baseline for recording law in the United States. Under the ECPA:

• One-party consent is the federal standard. A person who is party to a communication may record it without the consent of other parties.
• Intercepting communications you are not a party to (wiretapping) is a federal crime carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and $250,000 in fines.
• The "business extension" exception allows employers to monitor business calls on company phones, but personal calls must not be monitored once identified as personal.

However, federal law is a floor, not a ceiling. States are free to impose stricter requirements, and 12 states do exactly that by requiring all-party consent.

One-Party Consent States (38 + DC)

In these states, you may legally record any conversation you are a part of without telling the other participants:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia.

All-Party (Two-Party) Consent States (12)

In these states, recording a conversation without the consent of all parties is a crime:

California (Cal. Penal Code 631-632 -- felony, up to 3 years), Connecticut (CGS 52-570d), Delaware (11 Del. C. 2402), Florida (Fla. Stat. 934.03 -- felony), Illinois (720 ILCS 5/14-1 et seq.), Maryland (Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402), Massachusetts (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99 -- one of the strictest in the nation), Michigan (MCL 750.539c), Montana (MCA 45-8-213), New Hampshire (RSA 570-A:2), Pennsylvania (18 Pa.C.S. 5703 -- felony), and Washington (RCW 9.73.030).

3. Europe: UK, Germany, France, Spain, and GDPR

The GDPR Overlay

Before examining individual European countries, it is essential to understand the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which applies across the entire European Economic Area (EEA) since May 25, 2018.

Under GDPR, audio recordings that can identify a natural person constitute personal data (Article 4(1)). Processing personal data requires a lawful basis under Article 6(1). The relevant bases for recording are:

• Consent (Article 6(1)(a)) -- the person explicitly agrees to be recorded
• Legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f)) -- you have a valid reason that is not overridden by the data subject's rights
• Legal obligation (Article 6(1)(c)) -- recording is required by law (e.g., certain financial transactions)

The household exemption (Article 2(2)(c)) excludes "purely personal or household" activities from GDPR. Recording a conversation for your own personal reference may fall under this exemption. However, sharing the recording with third parties, posting it online, or using it in a commercial context removes the household exemption and triggers full GDPR compliance requirements.

United Kingdom (Post-Brexit)

Since Brexit, the UK operates under the UK GDPR (retained EU law) and the Data Protection Act 2018, which mirrors EU GDPR in most respects. For recording specifically:

• The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) governs the interception of communications.
• Under RIPA Section 1(2), it is lawful for a party to a communication to record it without the consent of the other party, provided the recording is for the recorder's own use.
• Recording for the purpose of sharing with third parties may require authorization under RIPA.
• The Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice)(Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 permits businesses to record employee phone calls for quality assurance, training, regulatory compliance, and prevention of crime.

In practice: The UK follows a de facto one-party consent regime for personal recordings. You can record conversations you are a party to for your own use, including as evidence in employment tribunals and civil courts. Courts have regularly admitted such recordings.

Germany

Germany has some of the strictest recording laws in the Western world:

• Section 201 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB) criminalizes the unauthorized recording of the "spoken word not intended for the speaker's knowledge" -- effectively making it illegal to record someone without their consent.
• Penalties: up to 3 years imprisonment or a fine for unauthorized recording; up to 5 years for disseminating an unauthorized recording.
• Even in civil proceedings, German courts have historically excluded illegally obtained recordings, though the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) has recognized narrow exceptions when the recording is the only available evidence in cases of serious wrongdoing.

De facto standard: All-party consent.

France

French law protects the privacy of communications under:

• Article 226-1 of the French Penal Code: Recording private conversations without the consent of the parties is punishable by up to 1 year imprisonment and a 45,000 euro fine.
• However, the Cour de cassation (France's highest civil court) has evolved its position. In a landmark 2020 ruling, it held that an employee's recording of a conversation with their employer, made to preserve evidence of discrimination, could be admitted in court if it was the only means of proving the claim.

De facto standard: All-party consent, with emerging exceptions for evidence preservation.

Spain

Spain is notably more permissive than Germany or France:

• The Spanish Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) has consistently held that recording a conversation you are a party to is not a violation of Article 18.3 of the Constitution (which protects communications privacy).
• The landmark ruling STS 114/1984 established that a participant in a conversation is not a "third party" intercepting it. Only eavesdropping by non-participants is constitutionally prohibited.
• Recordings are regularly admitted as evidence in Spanish courts.

De facto standard: One-party consent.

4. Asia: South Korea, Japan, India

South Korea

South Korea follows a one-party consent model under the Protection of Communications Secrets Act (PCSA) (통신비밀보호법, Act No. 4650):

• Article 3: Intercepting or recording a communication between other parties without authorization is prohibited and punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.
• Article 3, Exception: A party to the conversation may record it without the consent of the other participants. This has been consistently upheld by the Korean Supreme Court.
• Recording a conversation between two other people (eavesdropping) is strictly illegal, even if conducted in a public place.

In practice, South Korea is one of the most recording-friendly jurisdictions in Asia. The widespread use of voice recording apps (including for workplace disputes and real estate transactions) is culturally accepted and legally protected.

Japan

Japan does not have a single comprehensive statute equivalent to the US ECPA. Instead, recording law is governed by a combination of:

• The Wiretapping Act (Tsushin Boshu Ho) (通信傍受法, 1999): Primarily governs law enforcement wiretapping. It does not directly address private recording between parties.
• Civil Code privacy rights (Article 709): Unauthorized recording may constitute a tort (invasion of privacy) if it causes damage.
• Case law: Japanese courts have generally held that recording a conversation you are a party to is not illegal per se. The Tokyo District Court and Tokyo High Court have admitted party recordings as evidence in civil and employment cases.

De facto standard: One-party consent (no explicit statute, but supported by case law). However, the recording's admissibility depends on how it was obtained and the specific context. Recording in locations where there is a strong expectation of privacy may be treated differently.

India

India's recording laws are governed by:

• The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (Section 5): Authorizes government interception of communications under specific circumstances. Does not directly address private recording.
• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 69): Authorizes government interception of digital communications for national security. Again, focused on government power, not private recording.
• Right to Privacy: The Supreme Court of India in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the court has not established clear rules for private recording.

India does not have an explicit one-party or all-party consent law for private recordings. In practice, recordings by a participant to a conversation are widely accepted as evidence in Indian courts (both civil and criminal), especially in cases of corruption, harassment, and breach of contract. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 65B for electronic records) provides the procedural framework for admitting recordings.

De facto standard: Effectively one-party consent through absence of prohibition and court acceptance.

5. Oceania: Australia and New Zealand

Australia

Australia has one of the most complex recording law landscapes in the world because laws vary significantly by state and territory:

• Federal: The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 governs the interception of communications over telecommunications networks. Generally permits a party to a communication to record it.
• New South Wales: Surveillance Devices Act 2007 -- one-party consent. A party to a private conversation may record it (Section 7(2)(b)).
• Victoria: Surveillance Devices Act 1999 -- all-party consent required (Section 6). Recording a private conversation without the consent of all parties is an offense carrying up to 2 years imprisonment.
• Queensland: Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 -- one-party consent. A party to a conversation may record it (Section 43(2)(a)).
• Western Australia: Surveillance Devices Act 1998 -- all-party consent required (Section 5).
• South Australia: Surveillance Devices Act 2016 -- all-party consent required.
• Tasmania: Listening Devices Act 1991 -- all-party consent required.
• ACT: Listening Devices Act 1992 -- one-party consent.
• Northern Territory: Surveillance Devices Act 2007 -- all-party consent required (Section 11).

New Zealand

New Zealand's recording law is governed by:

• The Crimes Act 1961 (Section 216B): Criminalizes the use of a device to intercept a private communication, but provides an exception for parties to the communication.
• The Privacy Act 2020: Personal information (including recordings) must be collected directly from the individual concerned, unless an exception applies (such as the individual having authorized another person to disclose the information).

De facto standard: One-party consent. A party to a conversation may record it. However, sharing the recording beyond its intended purpose may violate the Privacy Act.

6. Canada: Federal and Provincial Laws

Federal Law: Criminal Code Section 184

Canada follows a one-party consent model at the federal level. Section 184(1) of the Criminal Code makes it an offense to willfully intercept a private communication. However, Section 184(2)(a) provides an exception: interception is lawful when one of the parties to the communication consents.

Penalties for unlawful interception: up to 5 years imprisonment (indictable offense).

Provincial Privacy Legislation

While federal criminal law allows one-party consent, provincial privacy legislation may impose additional restrictions on how recordings can be used:

• British Columbia: The Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) restricts how organizations collect and use personal information, including recordings. Applies primarily to private-sector organizations, not personal recordings.
• Alberta: Similar to BC, PIPA restricts organizational use of recordings.
• Quebec: The Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector and the Civil Code of Quebec (Article 36) provide robust privacy protections. Recording may constitute invasion of privacy under Quebec civil law, even if it is not a criminal offense under federal law.

In practice: You can record conversations you are a party to throughout Canada without criminal liability. However, how you use the recording (particularly in employment or business contexts) may be regulated by provincial privacy laws. Quebec is the strictest province for privacy.

Canadian Courts and Recording Admissibility

Canadian courts generally admit recordings made by a party to the conversation. The Ontario Superior Court in Seddon v. Seddon (2019) noted that secretly recorded conversations are admissible in family law proceedings, though the court may weigh the circumstances in which the recording was made. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Duarte (1990) upheld the constitutionality of the one-party consent exception.

7. Quick Reference Table

* = De facto standard through case law or absence of explicit statutory prohibition. Not explicitly codified as one-party consent.

8. Practical Tips for Legal Recording

Regardless of your jurisdiction, these principles will help you stay on the right side of the law:

9. Frequently Asked Questions