California Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)

California requires all parties to consent before recording any confidential conversation, under Cal. Penal Code 632. Violating this rule is a wobbler offense carrying up to one year in county jail as a misdemeanor or up to three years in state prison as a felony, with fines up to $2,500 per violation.

California has some of the strictest audio recording laws in the United States. As a two-party consent state, California requires that all parties to a confidential communication consent before any recording takes place. These rules are codified primarily in Penal Code Section 632 and related statutes within the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code Sections 630 through 638.55).

Understanding these laws is essential for individuals, businesses, journalists, and anyone who records conversations in California. The consequences of violating these statutes include criminal prosecution, significant fines, and civil lawsuits with statutory damages.

What Is Penal Code 632?

Penal Code 632 is the core statute governing audio recording in California. It makes it illegal to intentionally record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication without the consent of all parties involved. The statute applies whether the communication happens in person or over a telephone, telegraph, or other device.

The law specifically targets anyone who "intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication." This covers a broad range of devices, from dedicated recording equipment to smartphones and voice recorders.

What Counts as a "Confidential Communication"?

The definition of "confidential communication" is central to how Penal Code 632 works in practice. Under Section 632(c), a confidential communication is any communication "carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto."

The California Supreme Court clarified this definition in Flanagan v. Flanagan, 27 Cal.4th 766 (2002). The Court held that a communication is confidential when the parties have an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded. The focus is on whether someone could reasonably expect privacy in the moment, not whether they expected the contents to remain secret afterward.

A communication is not considered confidential if it occurs in a public gathering, in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in circumstances where the parties may reasonably expect the conversation could be overheard or recorded. A loud conversation in a crowded restaurant, for example, would generally not qualify as confidential.

What "Consent" Means Under the Law

California law requires consent from all parties before recording a confidential communication or any call involving a cell or cordless phone. Consent does not always need to be written. No California statute says that a "this call may be recorded" message plus staying on the line counts as consent. The California Supreme Court said in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006) that a business that clearly tells every party at the start of a call that it is being recorded would not violate Penal Code 632, because the call is then not confidential. But for calls involving a cell or cordless phone, Penal Code 632.7 requires the consent of all parties, and in Smith v. LoanMe (2021) the court left open whether a beep tone or notice followed by staying on the call counts as consent. The safe practice is a clear disclosure at the start and, where possible, an express "yes"; the methods businesses use are covered below.

Penal Code 632.7: Cell Phone and Cordless Phone Recording

While Penal Code 632 focuses on "confidential" communications, Penal Code 632.7 provides broader protection specifically for wireless communications. This statute prohibits recording, without the consent of all parties, any call in which at least one phone is a cell phone or cordless phone (cell to cell, cell to landline, cordless to cordless, cordless to landline, or cordless to cell), regardless of whether the communication is confidential. A call between two landlines is covered by Penal Code 632 instead, and only if it is confidential.

This distinction became legally significant in the California Supreme Court's 2021 ruling in Smith v. LoanMe, Inc., 11 Cal.5th 183. In that case, LoanMe recorded a phone call after playing a short "beep" tone but never verbally advised the other person of the recording. The Court confirmed that Section 632.7 applies to parties to a call and not just third-party eavesdroppers. Section 632.7, unlike Section 632, also does not require the communication to be "confidential" for the recording to be illegal.

The practical takeaway: recording any cell phone or cordless phone conversation without all-party consent is illegal in California, even if the call takes place in a public setting where confidentiality would not normally be expected.

Section 632.7 defines "communication" broadly to include voice, data, and image transmissions, including facsimile. The statute was last amended in 2022 (Stats. 2022, Ch. 27, effective January 1, 2023).

Criminal Penalties for Illegal Audio Recording

Violating California's audio recording laws carries serious criminal consequences. Penal Code 632 is classified as a wobbler offense, meaning prosecutors can charge it as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances and the defendant's criminal history.

First Offense Penalties

As a misdemeanor:

• Up to one year in county jail
• A fine of up to $2,500
• Or both jail time and a fine

As a felony:

• 16 months, two years, or three years in state prison
• A fine of up to $2,500
• Or both imprisonment and a fine

Repeat Offense Penalties

If a person has a prior conviction under Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the penalties increase substantially:

• A fine of up to $10,000 per violation
• Up to one year in county jail (misdemeanor) or 16 months to three years in state prison (felony)
• Or both the enhanced fine and imprisonment

Each individual recording can constitute a separate violation, so a pattern of illegal recording can lead to multiple counts and compounding penalties. In Flanagan v. Flanagan, a jury found 24 recorded calls confidential and awarded $5,000 for each, $120,000 in all, plus $1.2 million in punitive damages. The trial court then limited the statutory damages to $5,000 and struck the punitive award, and the Court of Appeal allowed $10,000 for two confidential calls and held that the statute's provision for treble damages excluded recovery of punitive damages. The California Supreme Court reversed on the meaning of "confidential communication" and sent the case back for the Court of Appeal to reconsider.

Penalties Under Section 632.7

The penalties for violating Section 632.7 (cell phone and cordless phone recording) mirror those of Section 632: up to $2,500 in fines and/or one year in county jail or state prison for a first offense, increasing to $10,000 in fines for repeat offenders.

Civil Remedies Under Penal Code 637.2

Beyond criminal prosecution, California provides a private right of action for victims of illegal recording. Penal Code 637.2 allows any person injured by a violation of the Invasion of Privacy Act to file a civil lawsuit and recover damages.

Available Damages

Injured parties may recover the greater of:

1. $5,000 per violation, or
2. Three times the amount of actual damages

No proof of actual damages is required to bring a claim. A plaintiff can recover the statutory minimum of $5,000 per violation even without demonstrating financial harm. Plaintiffs may also seek injunctive relief to prevent ongoing violations.

These civil remedies exist independently of any criminal prosecution. A person can face both criminal charges and a civil lawsuit for the same illegal recording. The statute was amended effective January 1, 2017, through AB 1671.

The Crime-Evidence Exception: Penal Code 633.5

Penal Code 633.5 creates an important exception to California's all-party consent requirement. It permits one party to a confidential communication to record the conversation without the other party's consent when the recording is made to gather evidence of certain serious crimes.

Qualifying Crimes

The exception applies when the recording party reasonably believes they are gathering evidence of:

• Extortion
• Kidnapping
• Bribery
• Any felony involving violence against a person, including human trafficking (Penal Code 236.1)
• Harassing phone calls (violations of Penal Code 653m)
• Domestic violence (as defined in Penal Code 13700)

Admissibility of Evidence

Recordings made under this exception are admissible in court for prosecutions of the listed crimes, as well as "any crime in connection therewith." The standard is a "reasonable belief" that criminal activity is occurring. The recording party does not need to prove the crime actually took place, but the belief must be reasonable.

Domestic Violence Recording (Penal Code 633.6)

California also provides a separate, related exception under Penal Code 633.6 specifically for domestic violence victims. A domestic violence victim who is seeking a restraining order may record a confidential communication the abuser makes to them, if they reasonably believe it contains evidence relevant to the order, and only for the purpose of giving that evidence to the court (Penal Code 633.6(b)). It is not a general right to record an abuser.

Business Call Recording Rules

Businesses that record phone calls with customers, clients, or partners face specific compliance requirements under California law. Failure to obtain proper consent before recording a business call can expose a company to both criminal liability and civil class action lawsuits.

How to Obtain Valid Consent

California businesses can satisfy the consent requirement through several methods:

• Automated announcement: Playing a pre-recorded message at the start of the call, before recording begins, stating that the call is being recorded. Under Kearney, a clear disclosure at the outset means the call is not confidential under PC 632. For calls involving a cell or cordless phone, whether staying on the line after the message counts as consent under PC 632.7 is unsettled, and a vague "this call may be recorded" message is weaker than a plain statement that the call is being recorded.
• Verbal disclosure by the representative: Having the employee or agent verbally inform the caller that the conversation is being recorded and asking if they consent.
• Written consent: Obtaining advance written consent, such as through a terms of service agreement or privacy policy that discloses call recording practices.

Best Practices for Compliance

The safest approach is to provide a clear, upfront disclosure that recording is taking place and give the other party an opportunity to decline. Simply including a note in a privacy policy, without any real-time notice, may not satisfy the statute if the caller has no reason to know the call is being recorded at the time it occurs.

Businesses operating call centers should train employees on proper disclosure protocols. In Smith v. LoanMe, the trial court initially found that LoanMe's brief beep tone, played with no verbal disclosure, was itself adequate notice. The California Supreme Court never revisited that specific finding; it granted review on a narrower statutory question and held that Section 632.7 applies to parties on a call, not just outside eavesdroppers; the statute's text also does not require the conversation to be confidential. That holding leaves a beep-only practice on uncertain legal footing, since it does nothing to establish that all parties actually consented to the recording.

Interstate Call Recording: When California Law Applies

A frequently litigated question arises when one party to a phone call is in California and the other party is in a state with less restrictive (one-party consent) recording laws. You can see both states' rules side by side with our recording consent checker. The California Supreme Court addressed this directly in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal.4th 95 (2006).

The Kearney Ruling

In Kearney, employees at Salomon Smith Barney's Atlanta office recorded phone conversations with California clients without consent. Georgia, where the employees were located, is a one-party consent state. California clients sued, arguing that California's two-party consent law should apply.

The California Supreme Court ruled that California law governs a business's future routine recording of calls with its California clients, even when the business records from a one-party consent state, although it applied Georgia law to the company's past recordings, so no damages were available for them. The Court expressly left undecided an isolated recording of a personal call by an out-of-state individual. The Court reasoned that California's interests would be severely impaired if its law were not applied, while Georgia's interest would not be significantly impaired if California law were applied. In practice, anyone recording a call with someone in California, including businesses headquartered in one-party consent states, should get consent from all parties regardless of where the recording device is located.

Federal Law vs. California Law

Federal wiretap law, codified at 18 U.S.C. Section 2511, follows a one-party consent model. Under federal law, it is legal to record a conversation as long as at least one party to the conversation consents. This means a participant in a conversation can record it without informing the other parties.

California's two-party consent requirement is stricter than the federal baseline. This is permissible because federal law establishes a floor, not a ceiling, for privacy protections. States are free to impose greater restrictions than federal law requires but cannot allow less protection than the federal standard provides.

Where California law is stricter than federal law, California's rule applies to conversations recorded in California, and under Kearney it can also reach an out-of-state business that records calls with California clients; courts have not settled which state's law governs every cross-state call. A recording that might be legal under federal law can still be illegal under California's Penal Code.

Exemptions and Special Circumstances

Several specific exemptions exist within the Invasion of Privacy Act that modify the general all-party consent rule:

Law Enforcement (Penal Code 633)

Penal Code 633 is a narrow grandfather clause. It lets specified law enforcement officials, and people acting at their direction, overhear or record communications they could lawfully overhear or record before January 1, 1968. Court-ordered wiretaps are governed by separate statutes.

Public Utility Workers

Employees of public utilities performing their service-related duties are exempt when their recording activities relate to the operation of communication services.

Correctional Facilities

Communications within correctional facilities using internal telephone systems are not subject to the all-party consent requirement. Inmates are typically informed that calls are monitored and recorded.

Hearing Aid Users

Individuals using hearing aids or similar devices due to hearing impairment are exempt from the statute when using their devices for their intended purpose.

Recording Police Officers in Public

California law, amended through SB 411 (2015), says that photographing or recording an officer who is in a public place, or recording from a location where you have a right to be, does not, in and of itself, violate Penal Code Section 69 or Section 148(a) (resisting or obstructing an officer), and under Section 148(g) it is not by itself grounds to detain or arrest you. These provisions do not create a right to record or protect recording that interferes with officers. The right to record police in public comes from the First Amendment, which the Ninth Circuit has recognized in Fordyce v. City of Seattle (1995) and Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2018).

Recent and Pending Legislation (2025-2026)

California's recording laws continue to evolve as technology changes. Two notable bills in the 2025-2026 legislative session address emerging privacy concerns:

SB 690: Website Tracking Suits Limited to the Attorney General (Signed)

SB 690 (Chapter 976, Statutes of 2026) was signed on September 30, 2026 and takes effect January 1, 2027. The earlier "commercial business purpose" exemption was dropped before passage. As enacted, it amends Penal Code 637.2 so that only the Attorney General, not private plaintiffs, may sue a private business under Penal Code 638.51 (the pen register and trap-and-trace provision) over conduct on a website or app. It applies to pending claims in cases filed within two years before it takes effect. It does not change private lawsuits under Penal Code 631, 632, or 632.7, so the audio recording rules on this page are unaffected.

SB 1130: Wearable Recording Devices (Vetoed)

SB 1130, introduced by Senator Eloise Reyes in February 2026, targeted wearable recording devices such as smart glasses and body-mounted cameras. It would have added Penal Code Section 632.8 and Business and Professions Code Sections 22949.85 to 22949.88 to require explicit consent before a wearable device records someone inside a place of business and to prohibit disabling, selling, or manufacturing devices that disable recording indicator lights. Violations would have carried penalties consistent with other Invasion of Privacy Act provisions: up to $2,500 for a first offense and up to $10,000 for repeat offenders.

The Assembly passed the bill 57 to 14 on August 30, 2026 and the Senate concurred in the Assembly amendments 29 to 10 on August 31, 2026, but the Governor vetoed SB 1130 on September 30, 2026. Neither tally reached the two-thirds needed to override a veto, and consideration of the veto is pending in the Senate.

Nothing in SB 1130 became law. California has no statute specific to wearable recording devices: audio captured by smart glasses or any other wearable is governed by the all-party consent requirement of PC 632 (and PC 632.7 for cellular and cordless calls), and PC 647(j)(1) applies where the person recorded has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

More California Recording Laws

Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording

← Back to California Recording Laws

More California Recording Topics

• California Biometric Privacy Laws
• Surveillance Camera Laws

More California Laws

• California AI Meeting Recording Laws
• California Dashcam Laws
• California Data Privacy Laws
• California Deepfake Laws
• California Employee Monitoring Laws
• California GPS Tracking Laws
• California Police Bodycam Laws
• California Smart Glasses Recording Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is California a one-party or two-party consent state for audio recording?

California is a two-party (all-party) consent state. Under Penal Code 632, recording any confidential communication requires the consent of every person involved in the conversation. This applies to both in-person conversations and telephone calls. The term two-party consent is somewhat misleading because if three or more people are part of the conversation, all of them need to consent.

Can I record a phone call in California without telling the other person?

Generally no. Penal Code 632 requires every party's consent to record a confidential phone conversation, and Penal Code 632.7 separately prohibits recording any call involving a cell phone or cordless phone without everyone's consent, regardless of whether the call is confidential. Only narrow exceptions apply, such as recording to gather evidence of certain serious crimes (Penal Code 633.5) or a domestic violence victim seeking a restraining order (Penal Code 633.6).

What happens if I secretly record a conversation in California?

Secretly recording a confidential conversation in California is a wobbler offense. As a misdemeanor, it carries up to one year in county jail and a $2,500 fine. As a felony, it can result in 16 months to three years in state prison plus a $2,500 fine. The person who was recorded can also file a civil lawsuit and recover $5,000 per violation or three times their actual damages, whichever is greater.

Does California law apply if I record a call from another state?

It can. The California Supreme Court ruled in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006) that California law governs a business's routine recording of calls with its California clients, even when the business records from a one-party consent state, though it applied the other state's law to past recordings and left personal, non-business calls undecided. To be safe, anyone recording a call with someone in California should obtain consent from all parties.

Can I record someone committing a crime in California without their consent?

Under certain conditions, yes. Penal Code 633.5 allows one party to a conversation to record without the other party's consent when the recording is made to gather evidence of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, felonies involving violence (including human trafficking), harassing phone calls, or domestic violence. The recorder must reasonably believe the recording will capture evidence that the other party is committing one of these specific crimes.