Illinois

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

By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 202613 min read

Illinois requires all-party consent before recording a private conversation under 720 ILCS 5/14-2. The law's pivotal word is "surreptitiously": secretly recording a private conversation where participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy is a felony, but openly recording a conversation you take part in does not meet the elements of the offense. Illegal recording is both a criminal felony and grounds for a civil lawsuit.

Illinois recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule	All-party consent required for private conversations
Main statute	720 ILCS 5/14-2 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015, P.A. 098-1142)
When is recording illegal?	Surreptitious recording of a conversation where participants reasonably expect privacy, without all-party consent
Criminal penalty (first offense)	Class 4 felony: 1 to 3 years, up to $25,000 fine
Criminal penalty (subsequent offense)	Class 3 felony: 2 to 5 years, up to $25,000 fine
Civil penalty	Actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees (720 ILCS 5/14-6)
Hidden cameras / video voyeurism	Class 4 felony (720 ILCS 5/26-4); Class 3 felony if victim is under 18 or offender is a registered sex offender
Recording police in public	Permitted and First Amendment-protected (ACLU v. Alvarez; 720 ILCS 5/14-3(i))

For a deeper explanation of any row, see the in-depth guides below.

Illinois audio recorder and headphones resting on a stack of legal documents

Recording in-person conversations in Illinois

Illinois is an all-party consent state, but the statute is more targeted than that label suggests. Under 720 ILCS 5/14-2, a person commits eavesdropping when they use an eavesdropping device "in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of overhearing, transmitting, or recording all or any part of any private conversation" without the consent of all parties.

Two elements must both be present. First, the recording must be made surreptitiously: hidden, concealed, or done without the knowledge of the other participants. Second, the target must be a "private conversation," defined in 720 ILCS 5/14-1(d) as an oral communication where at least one party intended privacy and circumstances objectively justified that expectation.

If the recording is open, the surreptitious element is absent and no violation occurs. If the conversation is held in public, with no reasonable expectation of privacy, the private-conversation element is absent and no violation occurs. Both conditions must be satisfied for the statute to apply.

How Illinois arrived here: People v. Clark

Illinois's prior eavesdropping statute covered any conversation without consent, including fully public exchanges. In 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down that version as unconstitutionally overbroad in People v. Clark, 2014 IL 115776, ruling that criminalizing the recording of public conversations violated the First Amendment. Governor Quinn signed Senate Bill 1342 (P.A. 098-1142) in December 2014, effective January 1, 2015, creating the current framework: all-party consent remains the rule for private conversations, but the "surreptitiously" element and the privacy anchor were added to cure the constitutional defect.

What counts as a private conversation

Private conversations include a discussion in a closed office, a phone call between two people, a whispered exchange in a restaurant, a therapy session, or a meeting in a private home. Conversations that are not private include a speech at a public meeting, a loud argument on a sidewalk audible to passersby, officer commands during a public arrest, and statements at any proceeding open under the Illinois Open Meetings Act, 5 ILCS 120.

Public officials performing their official duties have no reasonable expectation of privacy in those duties. That is the statutory foundation for recording government officials in public, entirely separate from the First Amendment analysis addressed below.

The fear-of-crime exception

720 ILCS 5/14-3(h) allows a party to record without all-party consent when they have reasonable suspicion that another party is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime against the recording party or a household member. The exception requires both a subjective belief and an objective reasonableness standard, and is available only to private individuals, not law enforcement agents.

Recording phone calls in Illinois

Phone calls are private conversations under 720 ILCS 5/14-1(d): parties ordinarily expect calls to remain between themselves. All-party consent is therefore required before recording any telephone conversation, whether landline, cell, or VoIP.

The safest practice is to announce at the start of the call that you are recording and obtain verbal agreement before the substantive conversation begins. Courts generally treat continued participation after a clear, unambiguous announcement as implied consent. If any party objects, stop recording immediately.

When a call crosses state lines, the stricter law applies. Illinois's all-party consent requirement binds the Illinois party regardless of the other state's standard. If you cannot confirm all parties' locations, obtain consent from everyone on the call.

For detailed rules on business call recording and AI transcription tools that may trigger BIPA, see the Illinois Phone Call Recording Laws spoke page.

Illinois dome security camera in the corner of an office ceiling

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Video recording on your own property is generally lawful, subject to the placement rules discussed below. The key boundary is the expectation of privacy.

Authorized placement

Outdoor security cameras pointed at your own property, doorbell cameras covering a shared driveway or public sidewalk, and nanny cams in living areas where no privacy expectation exists are all lawful without consent from visitors. Illinois does not require advance notice for cameras on your own property in areas where people have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Prohibited placement

720 ILCS 5/26-4 makes it a Class 4 felony to knowingly make a video recording or transmit live video of another person without consent in a restroom, tanning bed facility, locker room, changing room, or hotel bedroom, or to record another person in their residence without consent. The offense escalates to a Class 3 felony if the victim is under 18 or if the offender is a registered sex offender.

The audio caveat

A camera with a microphone that captures private conversations triggers the eavesdropping statute, 720 ILCS 5/14-2, on top of the voyeurism statute. A nanny cam recording conversations in a home is recording a private conversation where all parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy: all-party consent is required for the audio portion.

For additional guidance on camera placement and BIPA liability, see Illinois Security Camera Laws and Illinois Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws.

Penalties for illegal recording in Illinois

Criminal penalties for eavesdropping are set in 720 ILCS 5/14-4 (P.A. 098-1142, eff. Jan. 1, 2015):

Offense	Class	Prison term	Max fine
Basic eavesdropping, first offense	Class 4 felony	1 to 3 years	$25,000
Basic eavesdropping, subsequent offense	Class 3 felony	2 to 5 years	$25,000
Eavesdropping on law enforcement / state's attorney / AG / judge, first offense	Class 3 felony	2 to 5 years	$25,000
Eavesdropping on law enforcement / state's attorney / AG / judge, subsequent offense	Class 2 felony	3 to 7 years	$25,000
Corporate defendant	Same classes	Same prison terms	Up to $50,000

Civil liability

In addition to criminal prosecution, the victim of illegal eavesdropping may sue under 720 ILCS 5/14-6 for injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees and costs. Third parties who aided, abetted, or knowingly permitted the eavesdropping (including landlords, building operators, and carriers) are also subject to actual and punitive damages.

Illinois glass-walled conference room with figures behind translucent doors

Recording the police in Illinois

Illinois offers two independent layers of protection for openly recording police in public, making it one of the strongest positions in the country on this issue.

Constitutional protection: ACLU v. Alvarez

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held in ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012), that the First Amendment protects the right to openly record police officers performing their duties in public places. Illinois is within the Seventh Circuit, making this ruling directly controlling precedent. Any attempt to re-criminalize open recording of police in public would face a First Amendment challenge under Alvarez.

Statutory codification

After Alvarez, Illinois added an explicit statutory exemption at 720 ILCS 5/14-3(i), confirming that recording police and other public officials performing their official duties in public is not an eavesdropping violation. The companion provision at 720 ILCS 5/26-4 tracks the same logic for video.

The recording must be open. Surreptitious recording of police communications without authorization remains subject to the enhanced penalties under 720 ILCS 5/14-4. Recording law enforcement radio or secured communications is not protected.

Practical guidance: record openly with your device visible, stay in a location where you have a lawful right to be, and do not interfere with officers' duties. See Illinois Laws on Recording Police for a full analysis.

Special topics in Illinois

Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)

Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14, requires written consent before collecting, using, or storing biometric identifiers such as voiceprints, fingerprints, and facial geometry scans. Any recording tool that generates these identifiers from Illinois participants triggers BIPA obligations independently of the eavesdropping statute. BIPA provides a private right of action with statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent violation and $5,000 per reckless or intentional violation, with no requirement to prove actual harm. Class action exposure can be substantial: the $51.75 million Clearview AI settlement in 2025 illustrated the scale of liability for large-scale collection without proper consent.

Cruz v. Fireflies.AI Corp., No. 3:25-cv-03399-SEM-DJQ (filed December 2025), is a pending class action alleging that an AI meeting assistant's speaker-recognition feature collected voiceprints without BIPA-compliant written consent from non-account-holder participants. As of June 2026 no ruling on the merits has issued. The case illustrates the growing enforcement focus on AI meeting tools operating in Illinois.

Workplace recording: NLRB standards

Employer no-recording policies in Illinois are subject to federal labor law scrutiny under the Stericycle standard. In Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), the NLRB held that a challenged rule is presumptively unlawful if it has a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their Section 7 rights, evaluated from the perspective of an economically dependent employee. Blanket no-recording policies that sweep in employees documenting unsafe conditions or discussing wages may be found presumptively unlawful.

NLRB Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued GC Memorandum 25-07 (June 25, 2025), directing regional offices to treat surreptitious recording of collective bargaining sessions as a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith under NLRA Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3). Separately, such recording also violates 720 ILCS 5/14-2 under state law. GC Memo 25-07 is prosecutorial guidance, not binding precedent. See Illinois Workplace Recording Laws for the full analysis.

HIPAA and FERPA overlays

Healthcare providers face a dual-consent obligation: the HIPAA Privacy Rule (45 CFR 164.502 and 164.508) governs the content of patient communications, while 720 ILCS 5/14-2 governs the act of recording. Both must be satisfied. Educational institutions face the same dual structure under FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99): recordings that capture identifiable student information are education records requiring separate written consent, on top of the all-party consent requirement. See Illinois Medical Recording Laws and Illinois School Recording Laws.

Federal overlay (ECPA, FCC, CFPB)

Federal law applies alongside Illinois's stricter state standard, not in place of it. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) extended TCPA prior-express-consent requirements to AI-generated voice-cloning calls: Illinois's all-party consent standard is stricter and controls for intrastate recordings. The FCC's One-to-One Consent Rule was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (Jan. 24, 2025), and the FCC accepted that ruling nationwide. 47 CFR 64.501 sets a federal beep-tone floor for carrier recordings of interstate calls; Illinois's standard supersedes it for private intrastate recordings. CFPB Regulation F (12 CFR 1006.100(b)) requires debt collectors to retain call recordings for three years: Illinois all-party consent must be obtained before any such recording is made.

Illinois wooden gavel on a sound block on a judge bench

Recent legal developments

Aug. 15, 2025: P.A. 104-0171 (HB1278) amended the Victims' Economic Security and Safety Act (VESSA), 820 ILCS 180, to prohibit employer retaliation against employees who use employer-issued devices to record crimes of violence against themselves or a family member. This is an employer-retaliation prohibition only: it does not amend 720 ILCS 5/14-2 or change consent requirements.
Nov. 21, 2025 (enrolled; effectively dead): HB1836 would have permitted the Attorney General to authorize one-party-consent eavesdropping in felony investigations. The Governor's 60-day deadline to act passed approximately January 20, 2026, with no Public Act number assigned. HB1836 does not change Illinois recording law.
Apr. 11, 2025 (stalled): SB1796 would have exempted body-camera recordings from the eavesdropping statute and adjusted destruction timelines. Re-referred to Assignments on April 11, 2025: it did not advance from committee and has not been enacted.
Dec. 2025 (pending): Cruz v. Fireflies.AI Corp. filed as a BIPA class action targeting AI meeting-assistant speaker-recognition. No merits ruling as of June 2026.

Illinois recording laws in depth

By type of recording

Illinois Audio Recording Laws - All-party consent rules, penalties, and exceptions for audio
Illinois Phone Call Recording Laws - Consent rules for landline, cell, and VoIP calls
Illinois Video Recording Laws - Consent, BIPA, and surveillance rules for video
Illinois Dashcam Laws - Audio rules, placement, and legal use

By place or relationship

Illinois Laws on Recording in Public - What you can and cannot record in public places
Illinois Laws on Recording Police - Your rights and First Amendment protections
Illinois Workplace Recording Laws - Employee rights, BIPA, and employer rules
Illinois Medical Recording Laws - Patient rights, HIPAA, and consent rules
Illinois School Recording Laws - Student, parent, and teacher recording rights
Illinois Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws - Camera rules and privacy rights
Illinois Security Camera Laws - BIPA, audio rules, and placement
Illinois Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws - Hidden camera laws and BIPA penalties

For a national comparison, see the United States Recording Laws hub and the guide to one-party vs. all-party consent states.

More Illinois 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 Illinois attorney.

More Illinois Laws

Sources and References

720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1) (eff. Jan. 1, 2015, P.A. 098-1142)(ilga.gov).gov
720 ILCS 5/14-1(d) (eff. Jan. 1, 2015, P.A. 098-1142)(ilga.gov).gov
ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012)(rcfp.org)
Illinois P.A. 104-0171 (HB1278), amending 820 ILCS 180/ (VESSA), eff. Aug. 15, 2025(hinshawlaw.com)
Illinois HB1836, 104th General Assembly (2025-2026), enrolled Nov. 21, 2025(ilga.gov).gov
Illinois SB1796, 104th General Assembly (2025-2026), re-referred Apr. 11, 2025(ilga.gov).gov
Cruz v. Fireflies.AI Corp., No. 3:25-cv-03399-SEM-DJQ (filed Dec. 2025) (pending)(commlawgroup.com)
FCC 24-17, Declaratory Ruling, CG Docket No. 23-362 (Feb. 8, 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
FCC Second Report and Order, CG Docket No. 21-402; Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025) (vacating rule), mandate issued Apr. 30, 2025(wiley.law)
47 C.F.R. § 64.501(ecfr.gov).gov
DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302; Attorney General Memorandum (May 30, 2002)(justice.gov).gov
Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023)(kutakrock.com)
NLRB GC Memo 25-07 (June 25, 2025)(nlrb.gov).gov
12 CFR § 1006.100(b) (CFPB Regulation F)(consumerfinance.gov).gov
45 CFR § 164.502; HHS OCR, HIPAA Privacy Rule Summary (hhs.gov); HHS OCR Guidance on Audio-Only Telehealth (2022)(hhs.gov).gov
FERPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR §§ 99.3, 99.30; USDOE Student Privacy Policy Office guidance (studentprivacy.ed.gov)(studentprivacy.ed.gov).gov
720 ILCS 5/14-3, Exemptions from eavesdropping prohibition(ilga.gov).gov
720 ILCS 5/14-4, Penalties for eavesdropping (P.A. 098-1142, eff. Jan. 1, 2015)(ilga.gov).gov
720 ILCS 5/14-6, Civil remedies for eavesdropping(ilga.gov).gov
720 ILCS 5/26-4, Unauthorized video recording and live video transmission(ilga.gov).gov
ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012)(courtlistener.com)
People v. Clark, 2014 IL 115776 (Ill. Sup. Ct. 2014) (striking down prior eavesdropping statute)(courtlistener.com)
Illinois P.A. 098-1142 (SB 1342), creating current 720 ILCS 5/14-2 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015)(ilga.gov).gov
Illinois P.A. 104-0171 (HB1278), amending 820 ILCS 180 (VESSA), eff. Aug. 15, 2025(ilga.gov).gov
Illinois HB1836, 104th General Assembly (2025-2026), enrolled Nov. 21, 2025 (effectively dead; no PA number assigned)(ilga.gov).gov
Cruz v. Fireflies.AI Corp., No. 3:25-cv-03399-SEM-DJQ (filed Dec. 2025, pending)(courtlistener.com)
740 ILCS 14, Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)(ilga.gov).gov
Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023)(nlrb.gov).gov
5 ILCS 120, Illinois Open Meetings Act(ilga.gov).gov