Is it legal to record phone calls in Washington?
Only with everyone’s consent. Washington 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 Washington law says
Washington 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.
Washington requires the consent of all parties before recording any private conversation, including phone calls. The statute defines consent as actual approval or permission communicated by speech or action — a clear recording announcement followed by continued participation is the standard compliance mechanism. Recording without all-party consent is a crime and can support civil lawsuits.
"Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, record, or divulge any private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within this state without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication." — Rev. Code Wash. § 9.73.030(1)(b)
Federal one-party consent under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) does not preempt Washington's all-party rule under RCW 9.73.030. A recording that complies with federal law can still be a crime in Washington if any participant has not consented to the recording of a private communication.
Washington is an all-party consent state. Section 9.73.030 requires consent from every participant before recording a private communication, and consent must be actual — not merely assumed. Courts have held that a recording announcement at the start of a call, with the other person's decision to continue, constitutes consent. Secret recording by a participant violates the statute just like third-party wiretapping. Washington distinguishes private communications from those with no reasonable expectation of privacy, but virtually every phone call qualifies as private. The statute applies to businesses, government agencies, and individuals alike.
| 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 Washington
Violating § 9.73.030 is a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to 364 days in jail and a fine of up to $5,000. Repeat violations or aggravating circumstances can increase exposure.
Yes — Rev. Code Wash. § 9.73.060 authorizes civil actions for actual and punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs against anyone who intercepts, records, or divulges a private communication in violation of the Act.
Exceptions worth knowing
- All-party consent, express or implied from a clear announcement and continued participation
- Law enforcement interception under judicial warrant pursuant to Washington's wiretap procedures
- Employees of communication common carriers acting in the normal course of business
- Emergency personnel recording communications in the course of responding to an emergency
- Certain corrections and law-enforcement recordings within designated facilities
How Washington 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 Washington law.
What happened: A jail inmate placed calls to a grandmother and argued the Privacy Act required all-party consent because the calls were recorded. The record included notice that calls were recorded/monitored.
The ruling: The Supreme Court held the expectation that the calls were private was not reasonable under the circumstances (including notice and reduced privacy for incarcerated persons), so the Privacy Act did not apply in the way Modica argued.
What happened: In a criminal case involving computer communications, the defendant challenged recording/monitoring under Washington’s Privacy Act and argued it violated RCW 9.73.030.
The ruling: The court held the defendant impliedly consented to recording/monitoring because he knew the communications would be captured on the recipient’s computer system (a message-recording device).
What happened: In the course of a parenting plan dispute, the court applied RCW 9.73.030’s consent concept to a recorded telephone message left on an answering machine.
The ruling: The court held the speaker consented by leaving a message on a device whose sole function is to record messages.
What happened: Audio was recorded in connection with public street drug deliveries between strangers and an undercover informant. Defendants argued the recorded exchanges were “private communications” under RCW 9.73.030.
The ruling: The Supreme Court held the conversations were generally not private because they occurred in public, in the presence of strangers (so RCW 9.73.030 did not bar admission).
What happened: A person recorded communications related to his arrest and argued the recording violated or avoided liability under RCW 9.73.030. The dispute turned on whether the exchange was “private.”
The ruling: The court reversed, holding the exchange was not private, so the Privacy Act did not apply to the recording in that setting.
Personal calls vs. business calls in Washington
Recording personal calls
Secretly recording your own phone calls in Washington can violate RCW 9.73.030 when the call is a “private communication” (and that’s the common case). Modica is a reminder that some monitored/custodial settings can change whether the conversation is treated as “private,” but the safest practice for normal calls is still to announce and get everyone’s consent. Secretly obtained recordings can lead to both criminal and civil exposure.
Recording business calls
Every Washington business call should open with a recording disclosure. Seattle's tech companies, call centers, and remote teams all face all-party consent requirements. Out-of-state companies calling Washington residents must comply with Washington law regardless of their home state's rules.
Calls that cross state lines
Washington applies its all-party rule to protect Washington residents on the line. Out-of-state recorders calling into Washington without consent face Washington criminal and civil exposure. Washington residents calling one-party states should still follow Washington law when they are the recorder.
The safe way to record in Washington
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.
- Rev. Code Wash. § 9.73.030 (Washington State Legislature)
- Rev. Code Wash. § 9.73.050 — Evidence suppression
- Rev. Code Wash. § 9.73.060 — Civil remedies
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — Washington recording guide
- Digital Media Law Project — Washington recording law
- State v. Modica (2008) — FindLaw
- State v. Townsend (2002) — Justia
- State v. Clark (1996) — CourtListener
- In re Marriage of Farr (1997) — vLex
- State v. Flora (1992) — Syfert
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 Washington.
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.
Generally no for private calls. Washington requires all-party consent for private communications under RCW 9.73.030. Modica shows the “private communication” threshold can turn on notice/custodial context, but for normal phone calls the safe move is to announce recording and get everyone’s agreement.
Yes. Under RCW 9.73.030, consent can be obtained when a party makes a reasonably effective recorded announcement to all participants that the conversation will be recorded, and the other participants continue the conversation.
The recording is generally inadmissible in Washington courts in civil and criminal cases under RCW 9.73.050. That’s why Washington courts focus so heavily on the “private communication” threshold and the consent mechanism.
Yes. In re Marriage of Farr treats leaving a message on a telephone answering machine (a device whose sole function is to record) as consent to recording.
Record responsibly in Washington, automatically.
Built-in disclosure · automatic transcripts and summaries · 200 minutes included
Get Callmark