Massachusetts Audio Recording Laws

Massachusetts has one of the strictest audio recording laws in the United States. Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99, secretly recording any oral or wire communication is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine. Unlike nearly every other state, Massachusetts offers no misdemeanor option for recording violations. Every offense is prosecuted as a felony.

This guide covers what the Massachusetts audio recording law actually says, how it applies to in-person conversations and electronic communications, the penalties for violations, and the limited exceptions that exist.

Understanding the Massachusetts Audio Recording Statute

What Section 99 Prohibits

The Massachusetts wiretap statute, codified in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99, makes it a crime to:

• Secretly intercept any wire or oral communication
• Attempt to secretly intercept communications
• Possess a device with the intent to secretly intercept communications
• Disclose the contents of any illegally intercepted communication
• Use the contents of any illegally intercepted communication

The statute defines "oral communication" as speech, not including radio broadcasts or other transmissions over public airwaves. "Wire communication" covers any aural transfer made through wire, cable, or similar connection. Together, these definitions encompass virtually every form of spoken communication.

The "Secrecy" Standard

Massachusetts law does not use the phrase "two-party consent." Instead, it prohibits "secret" recording. This distinction has real legal consequences.

If all parties to a conversation are aware that recording is happening, the recording is legal. The other parties do not need to agree or give affirmative consent. They simply need to know about it. If you place a voice recorder on a table in plain view during a meeting and announce that you are recording, the statute is satisfied even if someone at the table protests.

Conversely, if you hide a recording device in your pocket, bag, or clothing and capture a conversation without anyone knowing, you have committed a felony. Your intentions do not matter. Recording someone secretly "for your own protection" or "to document harassment" is still a criminal act under Massachusetts law.

Key Definitions in the Statute

Understanding the statute requires knowing its specific terms:

• Interception (Section 99 B.4): Secretly hearing, secretly recording, or aiding another person to secretly hear or record any wire or oral communication
• Wire communication (Section 99 B.1): Any aural transfer through wire, cable, or similar connection furnished by a common carrier
• Oral communication (Section 99 B.2): Any oral communication uttered by a person who has a reasonable expectation that the communication is not being intercepted
• Intercepting device (Section 99 B.3): Any device capable of intercepting wire or oral communications, not including hearing aids or telephone instruments

Recording In-Person Conversations

When Audio Recording Is Legal

You can legally make an audio recording of an in-person conversation in Massachusetts when:

• All participants know the recording is taking place
• Recording equipment is visible and obviously in use, such as a recorder placed on a table
• You are at a public event where recording is clearly occurring, such as a press conference, rally, or public hearing
• You are recording police officers performing official duties in public (protected by the First Amendment)
• A court order authorizes the recording for law enforcement purposes

When Audio Recording Is Illegal

Audio recording crosses into felony territory when:

• The recording is secret or hidden from any party to the conversation
• You use a concealed device such as a hidden phone, body recorder, or wearable device without informing others
• You record a conversation between other people without their knowledge, even if you are physically present
• You possess recording equipment with the specific intent to use it for secret recording

Practical Scenarios

Legal: You tell your landlord during an in-person meeting, "I am going to record this conversation." You place your phone on the table with the recording app visible. Even if the landlord says "I would rather you did not record," the recording is legal because the landlord knows about it.

Illegal: You keep your phone in your jacket pocket with a voice memo app running during the same meeting. Even though the conversation is identical, the hidden nature of the recording makes it a felony.

Legal: You attend a town hall meeting where cameras and microphones are visibly present. Everyone in attendance can see the recording equipment.

Illegal: You place a small audio recorder under a conference table before a meeting to capture what colleagues say when you leave the room.

Wearable Devices and AI Audio Recorders

Smart Devices Under Massachusetts Law

Wearable recording devices present particular challenges under Massachusetts law because they can record continuously without visible indicators. The following devices all fall under Section 99 when they capture audio:

• Smartwatches running voice memo or recording applications
• AI wearable pins (such as Humane AI Pin or similar devices) that transcribe conversations
• Smart glasses with built-in microphones (such as Ray-Ban Meta glasses)
• Body cameras worn by private citizens or employees
• Fitness trackers with microphone capabilities
• Smart earbuds with recording or transcription features

Why Wearables Are Especially Risky

The fundamental problem with wearable audio recorders in Massachusetts is that other people cannot tell when the device is recording. A smartwatch on your wrist looks the same whether it is tracking your steps or recording every word spoken around you. Smart glasses look like regular eyewear. An AI pin looks like an accessory.

Under Massachusetts law, the person wearing the device must affirmatively inform every party in the conversation that audio recording is taking place. Simply wearing the device in plain sight does not satisfy the statute because the recording function is not apparent to others.

Smart Speakers and Home Assistants

Devices like Amazon Echo, Google Home, and Apple HomePod listen continuously for wake words. While passive listening for a wake word is generally not considered "interception" under the statute, several considerations apply:

• If a smart speaker records a conversation in your home where guests are present and the guests do not know about the recording capability, the statute could be implicated
• Always-on recording features (as opposed to wake-word activation) present greater legal risk
• The safest practice is to inform guests that voice-activated devices are present and capable of capturing audio

Criminal Penalties for Illegal Audio Recording

Felony Charges for Every Violation

Massachusetts imposes felony-level penalties for all audio recording violations. There is no reduced charge available:

Offense	Maximum Prison Term	Maximum Fine
Secret interception of oral communication	5 years (state prison)	$10,000
Secret interception of wire communication	5 years (state prison)	$10,000
Possession with intent to secretly intercept	5 years (state prison)	$10,000
Disclosure of illegally intercepted communication	2.5 years (house of correction)	$5,000
Use of illegally intercepted communication	2.5 years (house of correction)	$5,000

A first-time offender with no prior criminal record faces the same felony classification as a repeat offender. The statute draws no distinction based on the offender's history or the severity of the violation.

Comparison With Other States

To understand how extreme Massachusetts penalties are, consider this comparison:

State	First Offense Classification	Maximum Penalty
Massachusetts	Felony	5 years prison, $10,000 fine
California	Misdemeanor (first offense)	1 year jail, $2,500 fine
Florida	Misdemeanor (first offense)	1 year jail, $1,000 fine
Pennsylvania	Felony (third degree)	7 years prison
Maryland	Misdemeanor (first offense)	5 years prison, $10,000 fine

Massachusetts is the only state where every recording violation, regardless of circumstances, is automatically a felony with no misdemeanor alternative.

Civil Liability

In addition to criminal penalties, victims of illegal audio recording can pursue civil damages under Section 99 Q:

• Liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation, or $1,000 minimum
• Actual damages if they exceed the liquidated amount
• Reasonable attorney fees and court costs
• Punitive damages for willful violations

The per-day calculation can produce large damage awards for ongoing violations. An employer who secretly records audio in a workplace for 90 days, for example, could face $9,000 in liquidated damages per affected employee before actual damages and attorney fees are added.

Exceptions to the Audio Recording Law

Lawful Exceptions

The following situations are exceptions to the general prohibition on secret audio recording:

• Law enforcement with a court order: Police may secretly record when authorized by a warrant issued for investigation of designated offenses under Section 99 F through Section 99 R
• Recording police in public: Protected by the First Amendment under Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020)
• Non-secret recording: When all parties know about the recording, Section 99 is not triggered
• Communication service providers: Telephone companies and similar carriers in the ordinary course of business
• Intercom systems: Employers may use office intercom systems in the ordinary course of business

What Is NOT an Exception

These common beliefs are wrong under Massachusetts law:

• Being a participant does not excuse secret recording. Even if you are part of the conversation, secretly recording it is a felony.
• Public places do not create an audio recording exception. Being in a park, restaurant, or sidewalk does not allow you to secretly record conversations.
• Good intentions are not a defense. Recording someone secretly to document abuse, threats, or fraud is still a felony. Senate Bill S.1215, pending in the legislature, would create a narrow defense for domestic violence victims, but it has not yet passed.
• Journalistic purpose is not an exception. Media professionals are subject to the same rules as everyone else, though recording police in public is protected.

Audio Recording and Evidence

Admissibility in Court

Legally recorded audio is admissible in Massachusetts courts when properly authenticated. To introduce an audio recording as evidence:

• Establish that all parties knew about the recording at the time
• Provide testimony identifying the voices on the recording
• Show the recording is genuine and has not been altered
• Demonstrate the recording is relevant to the case
• Maintain chain of custody documentation

The Criminal vs. Civil Distinction

Illegally obtained audio recordings are inadmissible in criminal proceedings under the explicit terms of Section 99. Prosecutors cannot use wiretap evidence gathered without proper authorization.

However, a 2025 Massachusetts Superior Court ruling in Simpson v. Boston Public Health Commission held that illegally obtained recordings may be admissible in civil cases. The court found that the statute's exclusionary rule applies only to criminal proceedings. This means a secretly recorded conversation could potentially be used in a civil lawsuit, even though making the recording was a felony.

Recent Legal Developments

Commonwealth v. Du (2024)

In Commonwealth v. Du, 495 Mass. 103 (2024), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that cell phone video and audio recorded during an undercover drug investigation without a warrant violated Section 99. The court ordered suppression of both the video and audio components, reinforcing that even law enforcement must comply with the wiretap statute's warrant requirements.

Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital (2024)

The Supreme Judicial Court held that website tracking technologies like Google Analytics and Meta Pixel do not violate the wiretap statute. The court reasoned that Section 99 was designed to protect person-to-person communications and does not extend to automated data collection through web browsing.

Senate Bill S.1215 (2025-2026)

Senate Bill S.1215 would create a defense for individuals who secretly record threats or harassment, particularly in domestic violence situations. The bill remains pending before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary as of early 2026.

Massachusetts Recording Laws by Topic

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

Back to Massachusetts Recording Laws