# Is it legal to record a meeting? Consent law by country and state

**Is it legal to record a meeting, and whose consent do I need?** Recording a meeting you take part in is legal in many places if the local consent rule is met. US federal law, New York, Minnesota, Canada and Queensland let a participant record. Florida, Illinois, Washington and Massachusetts require every party's agreement, or forbid secret recording, for private conversations. In the UK, data protection law governs most workplace recordings.

Published 2026-09-26 by EdCitation. https://edcitation.com/newsletter/recording-a-meeting-the-law-on-consent

Recording a meeting you take part in is legal in many places, provided you meet the consent rule where the people in it are. Some laws let one participant record; others need every party's agreement, or forbid only secret recording. In the UK the question is usually data protection, not consent to record.

This guide is published by EdCitation, and it goes further than the short consent table in our guide to [AI note-takers in meetings](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/ai-note-takers-in-meetings), which covers federal law, California, Maryland, Montana and the GDPR. We read each rule below in the statute or the regulator's own words on 26 September 2026. Several state sites would not load from where we work, so for Florida, Illinois, Washington, Massachusetts and Connecticut we read archived copies of the official pages, on the dates given in the table. This is general information, not legal advice: a lawyer, your data protection officer or the body's clerk answers for your own meeting.

EdCitation does not record or transcribe meetings. Its free [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check) reads a written recording policy into a list of what it asks, and [Cite a source](https://edcitation.com/cite) builds the reference for a statute. We show both runs near the end, mistakes included.

## Is it legal to record a meeting? The rules at a glance

It depends on where each person is and whether the talk is private. In most of these laws, "private" means a conversation someone could reasonably expect not to be recorded.

| Jurisdiction | Consent rule | Source (and the date we read it) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Florida | All parties' prior consent; speech at a public meeting is excluded | Fla. Stat. §§ 934.02(2), 934.03(2)(d) (archived 21 May and 6 July 2026) |
| Illinois | All other parties' consent to record, in a surreptitious manner, a private conversation you are part of | 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(2) (archived 17 June 2025) |
| Washington | All participants' consent; a recorded announcement counts as consent | RCW 9.73.030(1), (3) (archived 30 August 2026) |
| Massachusetts | No secret recording without prior authority from all parties | G.L. c. 272, § 99(B)(4) (archived 25 September 2026) |
| Connecticut, phone calls | All parties' consent, a recorded notice, or a warning tone about every 15 seconds | C.G.S. § 52-570d (archived 16 September 2026) |
| New York | One party's consent | Penal Law § 250.00 |
| Minnesota | A party may record, or one party may consent | Minn. Stat. § 626A.02, subd. 2(d) |
| Canada | Consent of the person speaking or the intended listener | Criminal Code, s. 184(2)(a) (current to 3 September 2026) |
| Queensland, Australia | A party may record; passing the recording on is restricted | Invasion of Privacy Act 1971, ss. 43, 45 |
| United Kingdom | Interception offence aimed at third parties; data protection governs organisations | Investigatory Powers Act 2016, ss. 3, 4; ICO guidance |
| England, council meetings | Anyone attending an open meeting may film or record it | Local Government Act 1972, s. 100A(7A) |
| Your organisation's recording policy | Read it into a checklist with [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check) | The policy itself |

## Which US states need everyone's consent to record a meeting?

Federal law needs one party's consent; some states ask for more. Beyond California, Maryland and Montana, here are five, each strict in its own way.

### Florida

Florida makes it lawful to intercept a conversation "when all of the parties" have given prior consent (§ 934.03(2)(d)). A breach is generally a third-degree felony under § 934.03(4)(a). An "oral communication" is one made with a justified expectation that it will not be intercepted, and the definition excludes "public oral communication uttered at a public meeting" (§ 934.02(2)).

### Illinois

Illinois makes it eavesdropping to use a device "in a surreptitious manner" to record a private conversation you are part of without the consent of all the other parties (720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(2)). On those words, a recording made openly, with the device in view and people told, is not what the offence describes. Whether a particular recording was surreptitious is for a court.

### Washington

Washington requires the consent of all persons in a private conversation, and of all participants in a private call (RCW 9.73.030(1)). It also says how consent is obtained: one party announces to everyone, in any reasonably effective way, that recording is about to start, and if the conversation is recorded, the announcement must be recorded too (RCW 9.73.030(3)).

### Massachusetts

Massachusetts defines interception as secretly hearing or secretly recording a conversation by anyone not given "prior authority by all parties" (G.L. c. 272, § 99(B)(4)). The penalty in § 99(C)(1) is a fine of up to $10,000, up to five years in state prison, or both.

### Connecticut's rule for phone calls

Connecticut has a civil rule for telephone calls. Recording is allowed only with every party's consent, given in writing or at the start of the recording, or after a verbal notice recorded at the beginning, or with a warning tone repeated about every fifteen seconds (C.G.S. § 52-570d(a)). Anyone aggrieved may sue for damages, costs and a reasonable attorney's fee (§ 52-570d(c)). We read only this section, not Connecticut's criminal law.

## Which states and countries need only one party's consent?

Many let a participant record without asking the others, and in some of them recording and sharing are treated differently. Four examples:

- **New York:** "mechanical overhearing of a conversation" is recording without the consent of at least one party by a person not present (Penal Law § 250.00), so a participant may record.
- **Minnesota:** a person not acting for the state may intercept a conversation they are part of, or where one party has consented, unless the purpose is a criminal or tortious act (Minn. Stat. § 626A.02, subd. 2(d), 2025 Statutes).
- **Canada:** intercepting a private communication is an indictable offence carrying up to five years (Criminal Code, s. 184(1)), but it does not apply to a person with the express or implied consent of the person speaking or the person meant to hear (s. 184(2)(a)). A private communication is one made where it is reasonable to expect no interception (s. 183).
- **Queensland:** recording a private conversation with a listening device is an offence, but not for a party to it (Invasion of Privacy Act 1971, s. 43(2)(a)). A party who records must not then communicate or publish the recording except to another party, with the others' consent, in legal proceedings, or where no more is shared than is reasonably necessary, for example in the public interest (s. 45).

Queensland shows why "one-party" is not the end of the question: a lawful recording can still be unlawful to share. We did not read the other Australian states' laws.

## What if people join from different states?

A court may apply the stricter state's law. In *Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney* (2006), brokers at a firm's Atlanta branch recorded calls with California clients without their knowledge; Georgia allowed one-party recording and California did not. The Supreme Court of California held that California's law applied to such calls, while declining to impose damages for recordings made before its ruling.

We found no general federal rule that settles which state's law governs a call between states. In our view, the safe course for a meeting spread across states is to meet the strictest rule among them, and to ask a lawyer when that is unclear.

## Is it legal to record a meeting in the UK?

For a person taking part, the criminal offence is aimed elsewhere; for an organisation, data protection law applies. The criminal offence in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is intercepting a communication in the course of its transmission without lawful authority (s. 3(1)). Section 4(1) defines interception as making the content available to "a person who is not the sender or intended recipient". On that wording, a participant recording their own call is not the target, but we found no official guidance saying so in terms.

### What an organisation must do

A business that records on its own system needs one of the purposes set out in regulation 3 of the 2018 business monitoring regulations, such as establishing facts or checking standards, and under regulation 4 must make "all reasonable efforts" to tell everyone who may use the system that communications may be intercepted (SI 2018/356). The Information Commissioner's Office (n.d.) adds the data protection side: recording the content of every call is not usually proportionate, workers must be told about call recording in the privacy information, and audio recording needs much greater justification than video. The ICO mentions recording devices in meeting rooms and video conferencing apps by name, and says audio capability should be switched off by default.

### A private individual

The UK GDPR does not apply to processing "by an individual in the course of a purely personal or household activity" (UK GDPR, art. 2(2)(a)). In our view a work meeting is not obviously that, so assume data protection law applies to recording one.

## Can you record a public council meeting?

In England, yes, while it is open to the public. The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 amended the Local Government Act 1972 so that anyone attending a principal council's open meeting "is to be permitted to report on the meeting" (s. 100A(7A)), and reporting includes filming, photographing and making an audio recording (s. 100A(9)). The council need not allow spoken commentary in the room (s. 100A(7B)), and when the public is excluded it may stop reporting too (s. 100A(5A)). Parish councils are covered by the same change to the 1960 Act, as our guide to [parish and town council minutes](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/parish-and-town-council-minutes) explains. We read the rules for England only.

A private meeting is different: no such right exists, and the consent rules above apply. Florida draws the same line from the other side, leaving speech at a public meeting out of its protected "oral communication". Closed sessions and privileged advice are covered in our guide to [confidential minutes](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/confidential-minutes-privilege-and-closed-sessions).

## Can you record lectures and teaching?

Only as your university's policy allows, so read your own. The University of Edinburgh (2023) sets out a detailed example in its *Lecture recording policy*:

- By using the recording service, staff, students and visitors consent to being recorded (para. 4).
- A student whose contribution is recorded may ask the lecturer to delete it, and students who prefer not to be recorded should sit away from microphones and cameras (para. 4.4); signs and a recording light show when recording is on (para. 4.6).
- Students may use recordings only for their own study, and must destroy copies after the course's final assessment or on leaving (para. 1.3(ii)); sharing without permission is a disciplinary offence (para. 1.4(iv)).
- Sensitive personal data may not be recorded without explicit written consent (para. 1.2).
- Students' own recordings of lectures fall under a separate accessible learning policy, which the policy says allows audio and, with permission, video.
## Can I record a Zoom meeting or a Teams call?

The software lets you, but the law is set by where the people are, not by the platform. Apply the rules above to every participant's location, announce the recording, and follow your organisation's policy. For AI note-takers, transcripts and how each platform signals them, see the [AI note-takers guide](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/ai-note-takers-in-meetings).

### Our consent announcement

This wording is ours, not a legal form. Start the recorder first, so the announcement is on the recording, as Washington's rule requires.

> This meeting is now being recorded, [audio only / audio and video], so that [role] can [purpose, for example check the minutes]. The recording will be kept by [role] for [period] and seen only by [who]. If you do not agree, say so now and we will stop. We will also stop for any confidential item.

### Our checklist before you record

1. Find out where every participant is, and read the rule for each place.
2. Check your organisation's recording policy, and ask the data protection officer or clerk if there is none.
3. Read the policy into a list of its requirements with EdCitation's [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check), then read the policy itself.
4. Switch the recorder on and read the announcement.
5. Minute that the meeting was recorded and any objection.
6. Pause for confidential items.
7. Store the file where the policy says and delete it when the retention period ends.
8. Cite the statutes in your policy with [Cite a source](https://edcitation.com/cite), and check its reference list with [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references).

## Where does EdCitation help, and where does it not?

EdCitation does not record, transcribe or join meetings. It works on documents: it looks a source up and never writes one. For citing the statutes and guidance behind a recording policy it is, in our view, the best tool, since it takes each entry's details from the page itself and lays them out for checking; that is how we caught the misread author below. [Find sources](https://edcitation.com/), [Cite a source](https://edcitation.com/cite), [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references) and [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check) are free with no account; see [pricing](https://edcitation.com/pricing) for Pro ($8 a month) and Max ($24).

### Edinburgh's policy in Check your paper

We uploaded the seven-page policy PDF from the University of Edinburgh (2023). [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check) is built for assignment briefs, so it returned no rules and set aside 73 sentences for a person to check, among them "A student may only use the recording for the purposes of their own personal study." Missing from both lists: paragraph 4.6 on signs and the recording light, the 24-hour release rule in 2.6, the retention rule in 6, and the second sentence of 4.4, on asking for your contribution to be deleted. Read the policy yourself.

### Canada's section 184 in Cite a source

For the Justice Laws page on section 184, [Cite a source](https://edcitation.com/cite) returned "Legislative Services Branch. (2026, July 18). Criminal Code." with the address: the author is the branch that publishes the consolidated laws, and the date is the page's last-amended date. A statute is cited as legislation, not as a web page; our list below gives it by hand.

## Quick questions

### Which states need all parties' consent to record?

Of the states in this guide and our AI note-takers guide: Florida, Washington, Maryland and California (for confidential communications); Illinois and Massachusetts for surreptitious or secret recording; Connecticut, as a civil rule, for phone calls.

### Is it legal to record a meeting in the UK without telling anyone?

On its wording the interception offence targets people outside the conversation, though no official guidance we found says so in terms. An organisation must tell people under data protection law and the 2018 regulations; ask your data protection officer.

### Can I record a council meeting?

In England, yes, while it is open to the public; the council may stop reporting once the public is excluded.

### Can EdCitation record or transcribe my meeting?

No. EdCitation does not record or transcribe meetings. Its free [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check) reads a written recording policy into a checklist, and our run shows a person must still read the policy.

### Does announcing a recording count as consent?

In Washington, a recorded announcement to everyone counts as consent, and Connecticut accepts a recorded notice for calls. Elsewhere, a statute may say otherwise, so check the rule for each place.

## References

- 720 ILCS 5/14-2 (2016). [https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K14-2](https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K14-2)
- C.G.S. § 52-570d (2026). [https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_925.htm](https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_925.htm)
- Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 183–184 (2026). [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-184.html](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-184.html)
- Fla. Stat. § 934.02 (2025). [https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/934.02](https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/934.02)
- Fla. Stat. § 934.03 (2025). [https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/934.03](https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/934.03)
- Information Commissioner's Office. (n.d.). *Specific data protection considerations for different ways or methods of monitoring workers*. Retrieved September 26, 2026, from [https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/employment/monitoring-workers/specific-data-protection-considerations-for-different-ways-or-methods-of-monitoring-workers/](https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/employment/monitoring-workers/specific-data-protection-considerations-for-different-ways-or-methods-of-monitoring-workers/)
- Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld), ss. 43, 45. [https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1971-050](https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1971-050)
- Investigatory Powers Act 2016, c. 25, ss. 3, 4. [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/section/4](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/section/4)
- Investigatory Powers (Interception by Businesses etc. for Monitoring and Record-keeping Purposes) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/356, regs. 3, 4. [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/356/contents/made](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/356/contents/made)
- Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006). [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2633480/kearney-v-salomon-smith-barney-inc/](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2633480/kearney-v-salomon-smith-barney-inc/)
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 (2026). [https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99)
- Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 (2025). [https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/626A.02](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/626A.02)
- N.Y. Penal Law § 250.00 (2026). [https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/250.00](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/250.00)
- Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, SI 2014/2095, regs. 3, 4. [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2095/contents/made](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2095/contents/made)
- UK General Data Protection Regulation, art. 2 (2016). [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/679/article/2](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/679/article/2)
- University of Edinburgh. (2023). *Lecture recording policy*. [https://edwebcontent.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/atoms/files/lecture_recording_policy.pdf](https://edwebcontent.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/atoms/files/lecture_recording_policy.pdf)
- Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030 (2021). [https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030)