California Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules

California is an all-party consent state. Under California Penal Code § 632, every participant in a private conversation must consent before anyone records it. Recording without that consent is both a crime, carrying fines and possible jail time, and a civil wrong that can cost the recorder $5,000 per violation with no proof of financial harm required.

California recording law at a glance

For deeper analysis, see the California recording laws in depth index below.

Recording in-person conversations in California

California's all-party consent rule means every person in a private conversation must agree to a recording before it starts. It is not enough that you, the recorder, have consented; the rule covers every other participant.

The governing statute, Penal Code § 632, applies to any "confidential communication," defined as one carried on in circumstances that reasonably indicate any party wants it confined to those present. A quiet conversation in a private office, a closed conference room, or a parked car with the windows up qualifies. A loud argument in a parking lot or a speech at a public rally does not, because no reasonable expectation of privacy exists.

Four elements must all be present for a violation: (1) intentional recording, (2) an electronic device, (3) a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, and (4) at least one non-consenting party. If any is absent, there is no PC 632 violation; the same conversation can be confidential in one setting and public in another.

PC 632 is part of California's Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) (Penal Code §§ 630-638.55), which also covers wiretapping (PC 631), cellular calls (PC 632.7), civil remedies (PC 637.2), and voyeurism (PC 647(j)).

Recording phone calls in California

California's all-party consent requirement applies to every type of telephone call: landline, cell, VoIP, and cordless. Unlike one-party consent states, you cannot record a call you are on unless everyone else agrees first.

Penal Code § 632.7 (last amended Stats. 2022, Ch. 27, SB 1272, effective January 1, 2023) covers communications between cell phones, cordless phones, and landlines in any combination. The California Supreme Court confirmed in Smith v. LoanMe, Inc., 11 Cal. 5th 183 (2021), that PC 632.7 applies to a party recording the call, not just outside eavesdroppers.

For cross-state calls, Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006), held that California's all-party rule applies whenever a California party is on the call, even if the other caller is in a one-party state. Get everyone's consent regardless of where you call from.

Businesses recording customer service calls must play a clear notice first; the standard "This call may be recorded for quality assurance" message satisfies the requirement when the caller continues, but starting the recording before the notice does not.

For phone-specific rules, see the California Phone Call Recording Laws page.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Security cameras on your own property are generally lawful when pointed at areas with no reasonable privacy expectation, such as a front porch, driveway, or street-facing backyard. The line is crossed when a camera captures a space where someone has a genuine expectation of privacy.

Penal Code § 647(j) makes it a misdemeanor to use a concealed camera to record someone in a restroom, locker room, changing room, or other private area, and also covers recording under or through clothing without consent and drone capture in private spaces. A first offense carries up to six months in county jail with no statutory fine; repeat offenses and cases involving a minor victim carry up to one year in county jail and a fine of up to $2,000.

California also has the paparazzi-specific Civil Code § 1708.8, which bars trespassing to capture images of people in personal or familial activity, including telephoto lenses from a distance. Civil penalties run from $5,000 to $50,000 per incident.

One audio caveat: a nanny cam or doorbell camera with audio that records conversations inside your home is subject to PC 632. If it captures confidential oral communications among non-consenting people, you may face liability under the all-party consent rule, not just the voyeurism statute.

Penalties for illegal recording in California

California combines criminal punishment with a strong civil damages scheme, and a single illegal recording can expose the recorder to both at once.

On the civil side, Penal Code § 637.2 lets victims recover $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, whichever is greater, with no proof of harm required for the $5,000 minimum, plus injunctive relief. The limitations period is three years from the violation under California Code of Civil Procedure § 338(a).

Recordings made in violation of California's wiretapping and eavesdropping laws are generally inadmissible in any judicial, administrative, or legislative proceeding, stronger than the many states that admit illegal recordings as evidence even while penalizing the recorder.

Recording the police in California

California has a clear statutory right to record law enforcement. Penal Code § 148(g), added by SB 411 in 2015, states that photographing or making an audio or video recording of a police officer in a public place, or from any place you have a right to be, does not by itself constitute obstruction or interference and does not create reasonable suspicion to detain you or probable cause to arrest you.

This complements the First Amendment protection recognized by federal courts. The practical limits: you must not physically interfere, enter a restricted area, or disobey lawful orders that do not themselves prohibit recording. Officers cannot demand you delete recordings or seize your device without a warrant.

Because California is an all-party consent state, PC 632 also applies to officer audio in many situations, so recording a private conversation an officer reasonably expected to be confidential could raise consent questions. Recording officers in clearly public settings, such as a traffic stop or an arrest visible to bystanders, involves no confidential communication and falls cleanly within PC 148(g).

For the complete analysis, see the California Laws on Recording Police page.

Special topics in California

Workplace recording: Stericycle and NLRB GC Memo 25-07

In the workplace, PC 632 and federal labor law operate in parallel. In Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), the NLRB held that facially neutral no-recording policies are presumptively unlawful under the NLRA if they tend to chill Section 7 rights, unless the employer shows a legitimate and substantial business justification; blanket bans are vulnerable, while policies narrowly tailored to trade secrets fare better. NLRB GC Memorandum 25-07 (June 25, 2025), Tier 2 prosecutorial guidance rather than a binding Board decision, directed regional offices to treat surreptitious recording during collective-bargaining sessions as a per se bad-faith bargaining violation under NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3).

For the full employee-rights and employer-policy analysis, see the California Workplace Recording Laws page.

Federal overlay: ECPA, FCC AI voice rule

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2523, sets a one-party consent floor, but California's stricter all-party standard governs activity in or connected to California. FCC Order 24-17 (adopted February 8, 2024) declared AI-generated voice technologies "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA, requiring prior express consent, so California callers using such tools must satisfy both the TCPA and PC 632/632.7. FCC Order 24-24's one-to-one consent rule was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025) (Jan. 24, 2025); the FCC reinstated the prior version of 47 CFR § 64.1200(f)(9) via DA 25-621.

HIPAA and FERPA

In healthcare settings, HIPAA (45 CFR § 164.502) requirements for recordings that constitute protected health information layer on top of, and do not replace, PC 632's all-party mandate. FERPA (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) governs school recordings that qualify as education records, so a school recording a student under California's consent rules still cannot disclose it without FERPA-compliant authorization. Compliance with one framework does not satisfy the other.

For healthcare recording analysis, see the California Laws on Recording Doctors and Medical Appointments page. For school recording analysis, see the California School Recording Laws page.

Exceptions overview

Key exceptions to PC 632: (1) no reasonable expectation of privacy (public spaces, open government meetings under the Brown Act, Gov. Code § 54953.5); (2) law enforcement under the PC 633 grandfather clause; (3) victims recording evidence of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, human trafficking, domestic violence, harassing calls, or violent felonies under PC 633.5; and (4) domestic violence victims self-recording an abuser under PC 633.6(b).

Recent legal developments

• January 1, 2023: PC 632.7 amended (Stats. 2022, Ch. 27, SB 1272) to cover more cellular/cordless device combinations.
• August 2, 2023: NLRB issues Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113, making blanket workplace no-recording policies presumptively unlawful.
• February 8, 2024: FCC Order 24-17 declares AI-generated voice calls subject to TCPA prior express consent.
• January 24, 2025: Eleventh Circuit vacates FCC 24-24 One-to-One Consent Rule; FCC reinstates prior rule via DA 25-621 (mandate April 30, 2025).
• June 25, 2025: NLRB GC Memorandum 25-07 directs regional offices to treat surreptitious collective-bargaining recordings as per se bad-faith bargaining.
• Pending, 2026: SB 1130 (proposed PC § 632.8, wearable devices) and SB 690 (CCPA carve-out for CIPA) remain unresolved. Neither is law as of June 2026.

California recording laws in depth

The pages below each cover a distinct California recording scenario. Jump to the topic that applies to you.

By type of recording

• California Audio Recording Laws
• California Phone Call Recording Laws
• California Video Recording Laws
• California Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws
• California Dashcam Laws

By place or relationship

• California Laws on Recording in Public
• California Laws on Recording Police
• California Workplace Recording Laws
• California Landlord-Tenant Recording and Surveillance Laws
• California Security Camera and Surveillance Laws
• California Laws on Recording Doctors and Medical Appointments
• California School Recording Laws

More California laws

• California AI Meeting Recording Laws
• California At-Will Employment Laws
• California Data Privacy Laws
• California Landlord-Tenant Laws
• California Workplace Recording Laws

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Recording laws change and apply differently to each situation. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed California attorney.