Montana
Montana Phone Call Recording Laws: Warning Rules, Interstate Calls, and Penalties (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Montana requires all parties to know a phone call is being recorded under Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213, but the state's warning exception makes compliance simple: announce that recording is taking place, and consent is not required. Any party who stays on the line after the warning may be recorded lawfully.
Montana's phone call recording laws are governed by MCA 45-8-213, the same statute that covers all audio recording in the state. The law requires all-party knowledge before a phone call can be recorded using a hidden device, but Montana's distinctive warning exception makes compliance straightforward: announce that the call is being recorded, and you satisfy state law.
This guide covers the rules for personal phone calls, business call recording, interstate calls, and the penalties for violations.
The Basic Rule: Warning Required
Under MCA 45-8-213(1)(c), it is illegal to record a conversation using a hidden electronic or mechanical device without the knowledge of all parties. Phone calls are generally treated as falling within this prohibition because the recording device (whether a phone app, external recorder, or call recording software) is not visible to the other party.
However, the warning exception under MCA 45-8-213(2)(a)(iii) provides a clear path to lawful recording.
How to Legally Record a Phone Call in Montana
-
Announce at the start of the call that the conversation is being recorded. Example phrases:
- "I want to let you know I am recording this call."
- "This call is being recorded."
- "I am going to record our conversation."
-
Begin recording after providing the warning. The warning should be given before or at the very start of the recording.
-
No consent is needed. The other party does not have to agree. They simply need to be informed. If they object, their option is to hang up.
-
Continue the call. If the other party stays on the line after receiving the warning, the recording is lawful under Montana state law.
What Happens if You Skip the Warning?
Recording a phone call without providing a warning or otherwise ensuring all-party knowledge violates MCA 45-8-213(1)(c). The penalties are:
- First offense: Misdemeanor, up to 6 months in jail, up to $500 fine
- Repeat offenses: Still a misdemeanor with the same maximum penalty; the statute's higher tiers for repeat convictions apply only to its harassment, extortion and intimate-image offenses
The statute does not say that a recording made in violation of it is inadmissible. Whether a private recording can be used in court is decided under Montana's rules of evidence. A recording made by police, or by an informant acting for police, without a warrant can be suppressed under the Montana Constitution (State v. Allen, 2010).
Recording Personal Phone Calls
Calls Between Montana Residents
When both parties are in Montana, the state's warning rule applies:
- Provide a clear verbal warning at the start of the call
- No consent is required from the other party
- The recording is lawful regardless of whether the other party objects, as long as they received the warning
- If the other party hangs up after the warning, the call is over and no further recording can take place
Recording Calls With Family Members
Montana law does not create an exception for calls between family members. Even when recording a call with a spouse, parent, child, or other relative, the warning requirement applies. The relationship between the parties does not change the legal requirement.
Recording Calls for Personal Documentation
Many people wish to record calls for personal records, such as conversations with doctors, lawyers, insurance companies, or contractors. Montana law permits this as long as the warning is given. The purpose of the recording does not affect the legal requirements.
Business Phone Call Recording
Automated Warning Messages
Montana businesses that record customer calls can satisfy the warning requirement through an automated pre-recorded message. Common examples:
- "Please be advised that this call is being recorded."
- "This call is being recorded for quality assurance and training purposes."
A message that says the call is being recorded fits the "warning of the transcription or recording" that MCA 45-8-213(2)(a)(iii) describes. No Montana court has decided whether a conditional message such as "this call may be recorded" is enough, so the safer wording says that the call is being recorded. The statute asks for a warning, not consent, so the caller does not need to press a button or say yes.
Employee Call Recording
Businesses should also address internal call recording:
- If calls between employees are recorded, all participants must receive warning
- Monitoring policies should be documented in employee handbooks
- Employees should acknowledge the monitoring policy in writing
- Montana's Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (MCA 39-2-901 through 39-2-915) provides additional context for employees in recording disputes
Call Center Compliance
Montana call centers should implement the following practices:
- Play an automated warning message at the beginning of every recorded call
- Train employees on proper disclosure procedures
- Maintain records of monitoring policies and employee acknowledgments
- Review recording practices periodically to ensure compliance
- Consider the laws of other states when interacting with out-of-state callers
Interstate Phone Call Recording
When a phone call crosses state lines, the laws of multiple jurisdictions may apply. This is one of the most complex areas of recording law.
Federal Law Baseline
Federal wiretap law under 18 U.S.C. 2511 uses a one-party consent standard. Under federal law, any party to a phone conversation may record it without informing the other parties. Federal law provides a floor but not a ceiling for privacy protections.
When Montana Law Applies
No Montana statute or court decision settles which state's rule governs an interstate call, so the safe practice is to give Montana's warning whenever a Montana participant is recording, even if the other party is in a state with less restrictive laws.
Calling Stricter States
When a Montana resident calls someone in a state with stricter consent requirements, the stricter state's law may also apply. Key states to be aware of:
| State | Requirement | Difference from Montana |
|---|---|---|
| California | All-party consent | Requires actual consent, not just warning |
| Florida | All-party consent | Requires consent for in-person and phone calls |
| Illinois | All-party consent | Requires consent with specific exceptions |
| Washington | All-party consent | Requires consent for private conversations |
| Pennsylvania | All-party consent | Requires consent from all parties |
Montana's "warning" may not satisfy another state's "consent" requirement. Our recording consent checker can put both states' rules in front of you together. The safest approach for interstate calls is to:
- Provide a warning (satisfies Montana law)
- Ask for explicit consent (satisfies stricter states)
- If consent is refused, stop recording or note the refusal
Calling One-Party Consent States
When calling someone in a one-party consent state, give Montana's warning anyway, since no Montana statute or court decision says Montana's rule stops applying when the other party is out of state. However, the other party's state law would be satisfied by Montana's more restrictive requirement.
Electronic Interception: MCA 45-8-213(3)
Montana's statute also separately prohibits the electronic interception of communications. Under MCA 45-8-213(3), a person who purposely intercepts an electronic communication commits a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $500 fine. The statute's felony escalation tiers apply only to harassment/extortion violations under (1)(a)/(1)(b) and intimate-image violations under (1)(d)/(1)(e), not to interception offenses under subsection (3).
This provision reaches anyone who purposely intercepts an electronic communication, such as an eavesdropper on a call, and carries the statute's flat misdemeanor penalty:
- Any offense: Misdemeanor, up to 6 months in jail, up to $500 fine
Subsection (3) is not named in any of MCA 45-8-213's escalation clauses, so repeat convictions for electronic interception do not carry an enhanced felony penalty under this statute.
Subsection (3) has only two exceptions: interception by elected or appointed public officials or public employees "when the interception is done in the performance of official duty," and interception of persons who were given warning of it. It has no public-meetings exception, and it does not permit intercepting a public official's communications.
VoIP, Video Calls, and Digital Communications
Montana's recording statute applies to all forms of electronic communications, not just traditional telephone calls.
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
Calls made through VoIP services (such as Skype, Zoom, Teams, Google Voice, and similar platforms) are covered by MCA 45-8-213. The same warning requirement applies to VoIP calls as to traditional phone calls.
Video Calls
Video calls that include audio are subject to the same rules as phone calls. The video component does not change the consent requirements. Provide a warning at the start of the video call, and the recording is lawful.
Text and Chat Messages
Montana's statute focuses on recording "conversation" using electronic devices. Text messages and chat messages are typically not considered "conversations" for purposes of this statute because they are already in a written format. However, voice messages, audio clips, and other audio content sent through messaging platforms may fall under the statute.
Recording Voicemail Messages
Voicemail messages present a unique situation under Montana law. When someone leaves a voicemail, they are aware that their message is being recorded by the voicemail system. This awareness generally satisfies the knowledge requirement of MCA 45-8-213. Saving, replaying, or sharing a voicemail that was voluntarily left does not typically violate the statute.
However, recording a live conversation through a voicemail system (such as screening calls while listening to the caller leave a message) may raise questions about whether the caller was aware of the recording. The safest approach is to answer the call and provide a warning if you intend to record the live conversation.
Call Recording Apps and Software
Numerous smartphone apps and software programs facilitate call recording. Using these tools in Montana requires compliance with MCA 45-8-213:
- The app or software itself is legal; it is the use without proper warning that creates liability
- Some apps include a built-in warning feature that plays a tone or announcement at the start of a recorded call; using this feature helps ensure compliance
- Apps that silently record without any notification to the other party should only be used after providing a separate verbal warning
Penalties Summary
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Recording a call without warning (first offense) | Misdemeanor | 6 months jail, $500 fine |
| Electronic interception (any offense) | Misdemeanor | 6 months jail, $500 fine |
| Harassment/threats via phone (second offense) | Misdemeanor | 1 year jail, $1,000 fine |
| Harassment/threats via phone (third+ offense) | Felony | 5 years prison, $10,000 fine |
TAKE IT DOWN Act (Federal, May 19 2025)
The TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed May 19, 2025 (Pub. L. 119-12), is a federal law that criminalizes publishing non-consensual intimate images (NCII), including AI-generated deepfakes, online without the subject's consent. The Act's one-year platform-compliance deadline of May 19, 2026 has now passed. Covered platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of a valid request. Knowingly publishing such images, or threatening to, is a federal crime. A platform that fails to comply with the removal process is treated as committing an unfair or deceptive practice and faces enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission. The Act does not create a right to sue; a separate federal law, 15 U.S.C. 6851, lets a person sue over the nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images.
For phone call recordings that capture intimate content or are used to threaten NCII distribution, the TAKE IT DOWN Act provides an additional federal enforcement layer on top of Montana's MCA 45-8-213(1)(d) and (1)(e) provisions. Both state and federal law apply in Montana.
More Montana 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 Montana Recording Laws
More Montana Recording Topics
More Montana Laws
- Montana AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Montana Dashcam Laws
- Montana Data Privacy Laws
- Montana Deepfake Laws
- Montana Employee Monitoring Laws
- Montana GPS Tracking Laws
- Montana Police Bodycam Laws
- Montana Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Montana?
Yes, as long as you provide a warning to all other parties at the start of the call. Under Montana's warning exception (MCA 45-8-213(2)(a)(iii)), you do not need the other party's consent. Simply announce that the call is being recorded. If the other party stays on the line, the recording is lawful.
Do I need consent or just a warning to record a phone call in Montana?
You need a warning, not consent. Once you announce that the call is being recorded, you may proceed even if the other party objects. The other party's remedy is to end the call. This makes Montana more permissive than strict two-party consent states that require affirmative agreement.
Can a business record customer phone calls in Montana?
Yes. An automated message at the start of the call saying the call is being recorded is the clearest way to give Montana's required warning. No Montana court has decided whether a 'this call may be recorded' message is enough, so say that the call is being recorded. The caller does not need to press a button or verbally consent. Businesses should document their recording and warning practices as part of standard operating procedures.
What if I call someone in California from Montana?
When calling someone in a stricter all-party consent state like California, both states' laws may apply. Montana's warning exception may not satisfy California's consent requirement. The safest approach is to provide a warning (satisfying Montana law) and then ask for explicit consent (satisfying California law). If the other party declines, you should stop recording.
Can I record a Zoom or Skype call in Montana?
Yes. VoIP and video calls are subject to the same rules as traditional phone calls under Montana law. Provide a verbal warning at the start of the call that the conversation is being recorded. Many video conferencing platforms also have built-in recording notifications that can supplement your verbal warning.
Updates
We corrected the interstate-call sections to say no Montana law settles which state's rule governs, removed an unsupported claim that Montana is unique, and described the interception offense as the statute words it.
We corrected this page to say that Montana's statute does not make illegally recorded calls inadmissible, that the electronic-interception rule has only two exceptions and none for public meetings, that the TAKE IT DOWN Act creates no right to sue, that repeat recording convictions stay misdemeanors, and that a clear "this call is being recorded" message is safer than "may be recorded".
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the TAKE IT DOWN Act's signing date from 2026 to the correct 2025.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the penalty description for electronic interception of phone calls in Montana: MCA 45-8-213(3) carries a flat misdemeanor penalty for any offense, not an escalating felony for repeat offenses, since subsection (3) is not covered by the statute's felony-escalation clauses.
Corrected the Montana warning-exception pinpoint citation from the nonexistent MCA 45-8-213(2)(c) to the correct MCA 45-8-213(2)(a)(iii) in four places.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Montana Code Annotated, Title 45
§ 45-8-213Privacy In CommunicationsIn forcecited in 51 of our articles
45-8-213. Privacy in communications. (1) Except as provided in 69-6-104, a person commits the offense of violating privacy in communications if the person knowingly or purposely: (a) with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, or injure, communicates with a person by electronic communication and threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of the person or makes repeated use of obscene, lewd, or profane language or repeated lewd or lascivious suggestions; (b) uses an electronic communication to attempt to extort money or any other thing of value from a person or to disturb by repeated communications the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of a person at the place where the communications are received; (c) records or causes to be recorded a conversation by use of a hidden electronic or mechanical device that reproduces a human conversation without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation; (d) with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, or injure or to obtain money or other valuable consideration, publishes, distributes, or discloses real or digitally fabricated printed or electronic photographs, pictures, images, or…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mca.legmt.gov
Cited in 23 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Dugan (2013) struck the statute's prima facie intent clause as overbroad. State v. Brown (1988) noted the statute still bars recording without all participants' permission and rejected an overbreadth attack on its public-official exception. State v. DuBray (2003) found no violation where the defendant knew of the recording.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Smith (Montana Supreme Court 2004, 322 Mont. 206)✓A man who phoned threats to kill his estranged wife's boyfriend argued he should have been charged under section 45-8-213(1)(a) instead of assault with a weapon. The court held the two statutes punish different conduct, so the charge was within prosecutorial discretion.
- State v. Dugan (Montana Supreme Court 2013, 369 Mont. 39)“…rbroad, the Court today strikes the prima facie language in § 45-8-213, MCA. However, a narrow application would be…”
- In re C.S. (Montana Supreme Court 1984, 210 Mont. 144)“…n of privacy in communication, a misdemeanor as provided in Section 45-8-213, MCA. The facts underlying the offense were…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can You Record ICE Agents? Know Your Rights by State (2026), Massachusetts Phone Call Recording Laws, Montana Recording Laws (2026): Announcement Exception and Penalties
Montana Code Annotated, Title 39
§ 39-2-901Short TitleIn forcecited in 15 of our articles
39-2-901. Short title. This part may be cited as the "Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act".
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mca.legmt.gov
Cited in 27 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Minnie v. City of Roundup (Montana Supreme Court 1993, 257 Mont. 429)“…s were liable for Joan Minnie's wrongful termination under 5 39-2-901, MCA, et. seq. Additionally, the complaint…”
- Boreen v. Christensen (Montana Supreme Court 1994, 267 Mont. 405)“…good faith and fair dealing and wrongful discharge under 1 5 39-2-901, MCA, et. seq. The district court…”
- Buck v. Billings Montana Chevrolet, Inc. (Montana Supreme Court 1991, 248 Mont. 276)“…under Montana’s Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act. See §§ 39-2-901, MCA, et seq. According to pertinent parts o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Montana Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Camera Rules, Privacy Rights, and Disputes (2026), Montana Video Recording Laws: Consent Rules, Surveillance, and Penalties (2026), Montana Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Peeping, and Penalties (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can I Record My Boss Harassing Me? State-by-State Legal Guide (2026), Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?
Sources and References
- Montana Code Annotated 45-8-213 - Privacy in Communications(leg.mt.gov).gov
- Montana Constitution Article II, Section 10 - Right of Privacy(leg.mt.gov).gov
- Montana Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act - MCA 39-2-901 to 39-2-915(leg.mt.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- Montana Code Annotated 45-8-213 - Privacy in Communications(mca.legmt.gov).gov
- Montana Constitution Article II, Section 10 - Right of Privacy(mca.legmt.gov).gov
- Montana Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act - MCA 39-2-901 to 39-2-915(mca.legmt.gov).gov