Is it legal to record phone calls in Massachusetts?
Only with everyone’s consent. Massachusetts is an all-party consent state: every participant in a phone call must consent to being recorded. The standard mechanism is a clear announcement — a party who stays on the line after hearing “this call may be recorded” is generally treated as having consented.
What Massachusetts law says
Massachusetts is one of roughly a dozen US states that require all parties’ consent to record a phone call. Recording without consent can carry criminal penalties and civil liability, so the practice to adopt is simple: announce the recording at the start of every call, or use a tool that announces it for you. Massachusetts bars “secret” recording outright — the key requirement is that the recording not be hidden.
Massachusetts makes it a felony to secretly hear or secretly record a wire or oral communication — including any phone call — using a device, without the consent of all parties. The key word is 'secretly': the statute defines an illegal 'interception' as secret listening or recording, so the crime turns on whether everyone on the call actually knows it is being recorded. Unlike most states, the law has no expectation-of-privacy limit for oral communications, so even conversations in public places are covered if the recording is hidden.
"Whoever willfully commits an interception, attempts to commit an interception, or procures any other person to commit an interception or to attempt to commit an interception of any wire or oral communication shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisoned in the state prison for not more than five years, or imprisoned in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years, or both." — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(C)(1) (interception is defined as secret hearing or recording)
Federal one-party consent under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) does not preempt Massachusetts's rule against secret interception. Massachusetts turns on whether the recording is secret, not whether formal permission was obtained — an openly announced recording is lawful even without explicit verbal consent.
Massachusetts is usually labeled an all-party consent state, but courts have made clear the real test is secrecy, not formal permission. A recording is lawful if every party has actual knowledge that it is happening — nobody has to say the word 'yes.' The Supreme Judicial Court held in Commonwealth v. Jackson (1976) that actual knowledge can be inferred from clear and unequivocal conduct showing the person knew they were being taped, and in Curtatone v. Barstool Sports (2021) it held that an openly announced recording is not 'secret' even when the recorder lied about who he was — consent attaches to the recording, not the identity of the person making it. The flip side is severe: because there is no expectation-of-privacy carve-out, Commonwealth v. Hyde (2001) upheld a criminal conviction for secretly taping police officers during a public traffic stop. Practically: announce the recording or make it obvious, and continued conversation makes it lawful; hide it, and it is a felony.
| Consent rule for phone calls | All-party consent |
| Recording calls you're part of | Only with every participant’s consent — announce the recording. |
| Calls with people in other states | The stricter state's rule may apply — when in doubt, disclose. |
What breaking the law costs in Massachusetts
Secret interception is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in state prison (or up to 2.5 years in a jail or house of correction) and a fine of up to $10,000. Disclosing or using an illegally intercepted communication, and possessing an interception device, are separate offenses each punishable by up to 2 years and a $5,000 fine.
Section 99 Q gives anyone whose communications were illegally intercepted, disclosed, or used a private right of action for actual damages — with a liquidated-damages floor of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher — plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs.
Exceptions worth knowing
- Recordings made with the actual knowledge of all parties are not 'secret' and therefore not interceptions — this is the core exception (no formal consent script required).
- Law enforcement officers acting under a properly issued warrant.
- Telephone company employees and equipment operating in the ordinary course of business.
- Financial institutions recording calls with corresponding institutions or trading partners in the ordinary course of business, with semi-annual notice to their employees.
- First Amendment carve-out: the First Circuit held Section 99 unconstitutional as applied to secret recording of police officers performing official duties in public (Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 2020).
How Massachusetts courts have ruled
Statutes set the rule; cases show how it plays out when a recording ends up in front of a judge. These are real, decided cases under Massachusetts law.
What happened: A motorist secretly tape-recorded police officers during a routine traffic stop on a public road and was prosecuted under Section 99 after the tape came to light.
The ruling: The SJC upheld his conviction, holding the Legislature intended to strictly prohibit all secret recordings by members of the public — even of police or public officials interacting with the public.
What happened: A Barstool Sports personality posed as a Boston Globe reporter to get a phone interview with Somerville's mayor, asked on the call for permission to record, got it, and published the recording; the mayor sued under the wiretap act.
The ruling: The SJC affirmed dismissal: because the recording was announced and made with the mayor's actual knowledge, it was not 'secret' and therefore not an unlawful interception — despite the false identity.
What happened: The family of a kidnapping victim taped ransom calls; the kidnapper made statements to the victim's brother showing he clearly recognized the calls were being recorded, yet kept talking.
The ruling: The court held the recordings were not made 'secretly' because the caller's actual knowledge was proved by clear and unequivocal objective manifestations, so there was no unlawful interception.
What happened: Civil-rights activists and a media organization challenged Section 99 on First Amendment grounds, arguing they should be allowed to secretly record police and other officials in public.
The ruling: The First Circuit held Section 99 violates the First Amendment insofar as it bans secret, nonconsensual audio recording of police officers discharging official duties in public spaces, but declined to strike the statute more broadly.
Personal calls vs. business calls in Massachusetts
Recording personal calls
Recording your own calls in Massachusetts is only safe if the other person actually knows it is happening — say it out loud at the start, and if they keep talking, that awareness makes the recording lawful under Jackson and Curtatone. Secretly taping a spouse, ex, landlord, or contractor is a felony plus civil exposure, and that is true even for calls you are a party to. In custody and divorce disputes this trips people up constantly: a hidden recording of a hostile ex is itself a crime and hands the other side a damages claim with attorney's fees. If you need to document harassment, announce the recording — a harasser who continues on a disclosed line has no wiretap claim.
Recording business calls
Businesses can record sales and support calls with Massachusetts participants only with awareness on all sides, which is why the standard 'this call may be recorded' announcement matters here more than almost anywhere: a caller who stays on the line after the disclosure has actual knowledge, taking the recording outside the statute. There is no general business or service-observing exemption — the statute's only ordinary-course carve-outs are for telephone companies and financial institutions recording with trading partners after employee notice. Employers who monitor or record employee calls without disclosure face the same felony and civil exposure as anyone else. Companies calling into Massachusetts from one-party states should run their strictest-state playbook and disclose on every call.
Calls that cross state lines
Massachusetts has not produced a leading choice-of-law recording decision like California's Kearney, but because Section 99 is among the strictest statutes in the country, the practical rule is to treat any call with a participant in Massachusetts as governed by Massachusetts law. A recording that is legal one-party conduct where the recorder sits can still create Massachusetts criminal and civil exposure if the other end of the line is in the Commonwealth.
The safe way to record in Massachusetts
Whatever the local rule, one habit covers every situation: say the call is being recorded at the start. Consent is then on the recording itself, and cross-border calls stop being a legal puzzle. Callmark can play "This call may be recorded" automatically on your calls, so the disclosure never depends on your memory.
For the full national picture — every all-party state, cross-border rules, and consent mechanics — see our state-by-state consent guide.
Sources and further reading
Statutes, court opinions, and reference guides cited on this page. Laws change — verify current text before relying on it for anything consequential.
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 (official text)
- Commonwealth v. Hyde, 434 Mass. 594 (2001) (Justia)
- Curtatone v. Barstool Sports, Inc., 487 Mass. 655 (2021) (Justia)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 370 Mass. 502 (1976) (Justia)
- Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020)
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — Massachusetts
- Digital Media Law Project — Massachusetts Recording Law
Common questions
Only if everyone on the call consents. An announcement at the start of the call, followed by the other party staying on the line, is the standard way consent is established in Massachusetts.
Courts have applied different states' laws to interstate calls, and you often can't verify where a mobile number is. The practical rule: assume the strictest state applies and disclose the recording.
In most states, continuing a call after a clear "this call may be recorded" announcement is treated as implied consent — the same mechanism customer-service lines rely on.
No. The statute bans secret recording, and courts hold a recording is not secret when all parties have actual knowledge of it. Announcing the recording — or circumstances that clearly show the other person knows — is enough; express verbal consent is not required. If the recording is hidden, it is a felony regardless of how the conversation goes.
No. Secretly recording calls — even calls you are on — is a felony punishable by up to 5 years, and your ex could sue for statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. Courts applied the ban even to recording police in public (Hyde), so a private family call is squarely covered. Disclosed recordings, where the other parent knows, are a different matter.
Openly, yes — an open recording is not 'secret' under the statute. Secret recording is different: the SJC upheld a conviction for secretly taping a traffic stop in Commonwealth v. Hyde, though the First Circuit later held the statute unconstitutional as applied to secretly recording on-duty police in public spaces (Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins). The safest course is to record openly.
If no one disclosed the recording and you had no actual knowledge of it, that is an unlawful interception. Section 99 Q lets you sue for actual damages (with a floor of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher), punitive damages, and attorney's fees. Most legitimate businesses avoid this by playing a recording announcement at the start of the call.
It is conventionally called two-party (all-party) consent, but the more accurate description is a 'no secret recording' state. As Curtatone v. Barstool Sports shows, a recording made with everyone's actual knowledge is legal even without formal consent — and as Hyde shows, a hidden recording is criminal even where nobody had any expectation of privacy.
Record responsibly in Massachusetts, automatically.
Built-in disclosure · automatic transcripts and summaries · 200 minutes included
Get Callmark