Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules 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. · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Pennsylvania requires all-party consent to record any phone call under 18 Pa.C.S. 5703. Recording without consent from every participant is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 7 years in prison. An exception added in 2024 permits recording incoming telemarketing calls and robocalls without consent to enforce the TCPA, Pennsylvania's consumer protection law, or the Telemarketer Registration Act.
Pennsylvania enforces some of the strictest phone call recording laws in the United States. Under the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA), recording any phone call without the consent of every participant is a third-degree felony. This guide covers everything you need to know about recording phone calls in Pennsylvania in 2026, including the all-party consent requirement, the new telemarketer recording exception, interstate call complications, business call recording rules, and the severe criminal and civil penalties for violations.
Pennsylvania's All-Party Consent Requirement for Phone Calls
Pennsylvania is one of roughly a dozen states that require the consent of every party before a phone call can be recorded. This requirement comes from 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, which makes it a felony to "intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication."
The statute applies to all forms of telephone communication, including:
- Traditional landline phone calls
- Cell phone and smartphone calls
- Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calls through platforms like Skype, WhatsApp, or Zoom
- Video calls with audio components
- Conference calls with multiple participants
Simply being a party to the phone call does not give you the right to record it. Unlike one-party consent states where a participant can record without informing other callers, Pennsylvania demands that every person on the call agree to the recording before it begins, apart from a few narrow statutory exceptions covered below.
How to Legally Record a Phone Call in Pennsylvania
To record a phone call lawfully in Pennsylvania, you must follow these steps:
- Inform all parties at the start of the call that you intend to record the conversation.
- Get consent from every participant (ideally a clear yes) before activating any recording device or software.
- Stop recording immediately if any party withdraws their consent or declines to be recorded.
- Document the consent when possible. While verbal consent is legally sufficient, stating the consent on the recording itself creates stronger proof.
Consent can be express or implied. If you announce that the call is being recorded and the other party continues the conversation without objecting, a court may find that implied consent was given. However, relying on implied consent carries risk because the other party could later claim they did not hear or understand the disclosure.
What "All-Party" Actually Means
The term "two-party consent" is commonly used but technically misleading. Pennsylvania's law requires consent from all parties to a communication, not just two. If you are on a conference call with five participants, every single person must consent to the recording. If even one person objects or is not informed, the recording violates § 5703 and constitutes a felony.
This distinction matters in business settings where conference calls routinely involve multiple participants. The person initiating the recording bears responsibility for obtaining consent from every caller.
2024 Telemarketer and Robocall Recording Exception
One of the most significant recent changes to Pennsylvania phone call recording law took effect on February 12, 2024. Governor Josh Shapiro signed Act 53 of 2023 (HB 1278), which added a new exception to the all-party consent requirement specifically for telemarketing calls and robocalls.
What the Exception Allows
Under the new law, Pennsylvania consumers can record incoming telemarketing calls and robocalls without the caller's consent if the recording is made for the purpose of enforcing:
- The federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
- Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
- The Pennsylvania Telemarketer Registration Act
Key Details of the Exception
- Recipients of telemarketing or robocalls do not need to disclose that they are recording.
- Recipients may record these calls without the telemarketer's knowledge.
- The exception applies only to incoming telemarketing and robocalls, not to calls you initiate.
- The exception helps only the person receiving the call. A telemarketer that records needs every party's consent unless its recording fits the narrow training and quality-control exception for telemarketing and customer-service businesses in § 5704(15).
- The exception does not apply to personal calls, business calls, or any other type of phone conversation.
This change gives Pennsylvania consumers a powerful tool to preserve evidence of illegal telemarketing, phone scams, and robocall violations. Before this exception, consumers in Pennsylvania had no legal way to record scam calls without the scammer's consent, which made enforcement of telemarketing laws extremely difficult.
How to Use This Exception Effectively
If you receive an unwanted telemarketing call or robocall in Pennsylvania:
- Begin recording the call immediately. You do not need to announce the recording.
- Let the caller speak. Do not interrupt the telemarketer's pitch, as it strengthens the evidentiary value of the recording.
- Note the date, time, and the phone number that called you.
- Save the recording and any associated metadata.
- File a complaint with the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Bureau of Consumer Protection or the Federal Trade Commission.
Victims and Witnesses of Violent Crime
Pennsylvania has one more narrow exception that matters for phone calls. Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704(17), a victim, a witness, or a licensed private detective may record a call without the other person's consent when they reasonably suspect that person is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a crime of violence (such as aggravated assault, strangulation, kidnapping, rape, robbery, or intimidation of a witness) and there is reason to believe the call may capture evidence of it.
The exception is narrow. Ordinary arguments, rude calls, harassment, or workplace disputes do not qualify, and whoever relies on it may have to show the suspicion was reasonable. If you are in danger, contact police first.
Interstate Phone Call Recording Rules
Pennsylvania's strict all-party consent rule creates significant complications when phone calls cross state lines. Because different states have different consent requirements, determining which law applies to an interstate call is a frequent source of confusion.
General Interstate Rules
When a phone call involves parties in different states, the following principles generally apply:
- If you are in Pennsylvania, you must follow Pennsylvania's all-party consent rule regardless of where the other caller is located.
- There is no general rule that the stricter state wins. In Larrison v. Larrison, 750 A.2d 895 (Pa. Super. 2000), the Superior Court applied New York law to a call placed from Pennsylvania and recorded by the New York participant, and admitted the recording. That was a civil custody case about admissibility; it did not decide whether Pennsylvania could prosecute, and other states may apply their own law to recordings of their residents, so the cautious approach is to get everyone's consent.
- Federal law provides a floor, not a ceiling. The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) requires only one-party consent, but state laws like Pennsylvania's can impose stricter requirements.
Calls Between Pennsylvania and Neighboring States
| State | Consent Rule | Effect on Calls with PA |
|---|---|---|
| New York | One-Party Consent | PA's all-party rule applies if you record from PA |
| New Jersey | One-Party Consent | PA's all-party rule applies if you record from PA |
| Ohio | One-Party Consent | PA's all-party rule applies if you record from PA |
| Delaware | All-Party Consent | Both states require all-party consent |
| Maryland | All-Party Consent | Both states require all-party consent |
| West Virginia | One-Party Consent | PA's all-party rule applies if you record from PA |
If you are calling from Pennsylvania to New York, you must still obtain consent from all parties even though New York only requires one-party consent. The fact that the other caller is in a more permissive state does not relieve you of your obligations under Pennsylvania law.
Practical Advice for Interstate Calls
The safest approach for any phone call involving a Pennsylvania party is to treat the call as if Pennsylvania's all-party consent rule applies. Announce the recording at the start of the call and obtain consent from every participant. This approach eliminates any ambiguity about which state's law governs and protects you from potential felony charges. If you would rather check first, look up the other state's recording rule next to Pennsylvania's before the call.
Business Phone Call Recording in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania businesses that record customer calls, vendor calls, or internal calls must comply with the all-party consent requirement. However, WESCA includes specific provisions that address business telephone usage.
The Telemarketing and Customer Service Exception
Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704(15), personnel of a business engaged in telephone marketing or telephone customer service have a limited exception that permits certain telephone monitoring. This exception allows the business to intercept its own marketing or customer-service communications when the interception is made for the sole purpose of:
- Training employees
- Quality control monitoring
- Service observation
However, this exception requires that at least one party to the call consents to the interception. The business employee or agent initiating the monitoring typically provides that consent.
Call Recording Disclosure Requirements
Most Pennsylvania businesses handle the consent requirement through automated pre-call disclosures. You have likely heard messages like:
- "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes."
- "This call may be monitored or recorded for training and quality purposes."
Implied consent through continued participation: When a caller hears a recording disclosure and chooses to remain on the line, Pennsylvania courts have generally recognized this as implied consent. The caller had the opportunity to hang up before the recorded conversation began and chose not to.
However, the disclosure must be clear and audible. A mumbled or buried disclosure that callers cannot reasonably understand may not satisfy the consent requirement.
Requirements for Business Call Recording Programs
Pennsylvania businesses should implement these safeguards:
- Pre-call disclosure: Play a clear, audible message before any recording begins.
- Opt-out option: Give callers the ability to request a non-recorded call or speak with a supervisor.
- Employee training: Train all staff who handle recorded calls on consent requirements and proper procedures.
- Data retention policies: Establish clear policies for how long recorded calls are stored and who can access them.
- Written policies: Document the call recording program in employee handbooks and customer-facing materials.
VoIP, Video Calls, and Modern Communication Platforms
Pennsylvania's wiretapping law applies to electronic communications regardless of the technology used. This means that VoIP calls, video conference calls, and calls made through messaging apps are all subject to the same all-party consent requirement.
Zoom, Teams, and Video Conferencing
Video conferencing platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet are covered by Pennsylvania's wiretapping law. If you are in Pennsylvania when you record a video call, every participant must consent, wherever they are. If you record from a one-party state and a participant is in Pennsylvania, which state's law applies is less certain, so getting everyone's consent is the safe course.
Most video conferencing platforms provide built-in recording notifications. When a host starts recording, participants typically receive a pop-up alert and can choose to remain on the call (implying consent) or leave. While these platform notifications provide some protection, best practice in Pennsylvania is to also announce the recording verbally at the start of the call.
AI Meeting Transcription Tools
AI-powered meeting tools like Otter.ai, Fireflies.ai, and similar products that join calls to record and transcribe conversations must comply with Pennsylvania's all-party consent law. These tools typically join a call as a separate participant, and their presence may not provide adequate notice to all participants.
Using an AI transcription tool from Pennsylvania without obtaining consent from every person on the call violates § 5703. The person who activated the AI tool faces potential felony charges.
Messaging App Voice and Video Calls
Calls made through WhatsApp, Signal, FaceTime, Facebook Messenger, and similar platforms are "electronic communications" under WESCA. The all-party consent requirement applies to these calls the same way it applies to traditional phone calls.
Criminal Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording
Pennsylvania treats illegal recording as a felony. Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, illegally recording a phone call is classified as a third-degree felony.
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illegal interception of phone call | Third-Degree Felony | Up to 7 years | Up to $15,000 |
| Illegal disclosure of recorded call | Third-Degree Felony | Up to 7 years | Up to $15,000 |
| Illegal use of recorded call contents | Third-Degree Felony | Up to 7 years | Up to $15,000 |
A felony conviction carries consequences far beyond prison time and fines. It results in a permanent criminal record that can affect employment, housing, professional licensing, and the right to possess firearms.
Comparison with Other States
To put Pennsylvania's penalties in perspective:
- California: Illegal recording is a "wobbler" offense, with misdemeanor penalties of up to 1 year in jail and $2,500 fine for a first offense.
- Florida: Illegal recording is a third-degree felony with up to 5 years in prison.
- Maryland: Illegal recording is a felony with up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
- Pennsylvania: Illegal recording is a third-degree felony with up to 7 years in prison and a $15,000 fine.
Pennsylvania's felony classification, 7-year maximum, and $15,000 fine are severe, but Pennsylvania is not alone: other states also treat illegal recording as a felony, and Texas makes illegal interception a second-degree felony.
Civil Liability for Illegal Phone Call Recording
Beyond criminal prosecution, victims of illegal phone call recording in Pennsylvania can pursue civil remedies under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725.
Available Civil Damages
A victim of illegal recording can recover:
- Actual damages suffered as a result of the violation
- Liquidated damages of $100 per day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is greater
- Punitive damages at the court's discretion
- Reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs
Sovereign Immunity Waiver
Section 5725(b) waives sovereign immunity for the Commonwealth and its officers and employees. In Winig v. Office of the District Attorney of Philadelphia (2025), however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that high public officials, including district attorneys and their assistants acting within their duties, keep their immunity from WESCA damages suits.
Evidence Suppression
A recording made in violation of WESCA can be excluded from any Pennsylvania court, board, or agency proceeding on the motion of the person recorded (18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1), and disclosing it can itself be a felony. That holds even if the call contains evidence of wrongdoing by the other party. A recording made under a § 5704 exception is not subject to that exclusion ground.
Law Enforcement Exceptions for Phone Call Recording
While private citizens must follow the all-party consent rule, Pennsylvania law provides specific exceptions for law enforcement under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704.
Court-Ordered Wiretaps
A judge may authorize the interception of phone calls based on probable cause and following strict procedural requirements. Applications for wiretap orders must be reviewed and approved by the Attorney General, a deputy attorney general, or a district attorney before being submitted to the court.
One-Party Consent with Approval
Law enforcement officers may record phone calls with the consent of one party, but only after obtaining prior approval from the Attorney General, a deputy attorney general, or a district attorney. This is a significant departure from the all-party consent rule that applies to private citizens.
Emergency Exceptions
In an emergency involving organized crime or a substantial danger to life or limb, a judge may orally approve an interception before a written order issues, and prosecutors must file the application within 48 hours.
Phone Call Recording and Employment Disputes
Employees in Pennsylvania sometimes want to record phone calls with supervisors or HR representatives to document workplace issues. However, Pennsylvania's strict consent law makes this extremely risky.
General Rule
Recording a work-related phone call without the consent of all parties is a third-degree felony, even if the purpose is to document harassment, discrimination, or illegal activity. There is no general "whistleblower exception" to the wiretapping law.
The Starbucks NLRB Ruling Is Not a WESCA Exception
The February 2023 Starbucks NLRB decision (Starbucks Corp., 372 NLRB No. 50) is sometimes described as an exception to Pennsylvania's all-party consent law. It is not. The Board ordered reinstatement and backpay for two Philadelphia baristas who had secretly recorded supervisors. It reasoned that Starbucks knew of the recordings and did not fire them at the time, that the recordings were protected concerted activity under Section 7, and that Pennsylvania's wiretap law, assuming it applied, was preempted by the NLRA for that purpose. When the Third Circuit largely enforced the order in December 2024 (it vacated only a compensation remedy for "direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms" as beyond the Board's authority), it relied only on the finding that Starbucks knew about the recordings before the firings and did not address preemption.
The NLRB has no authority to decriminalize a state wiretapping statute, and nothing in the decision would stop a Pennsylvania district attorney from prosecuting a WESCA felony for the same recording. Employees who record without all-party consent during union organizing remain exposed to criminal charges under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, even if the NLRB later grants a labor-law remedy.
Safer Alternatives
If you need to document workplace issues through phone calls:
- Ask for consent to record at the start of the call.
- If consent is refused, take detailed written notes immediately after the call.
- Follow up the call with an email summarizing what was discussed to create a written record.
- Consult a Pennsylvania employment attorney before recording any work-related call.
Phone Call Recording Apps and Pennsylvania Law
Numerous smartphone apps allow users to record phone calls automatically. Apps like TapeACall, Rev Call Recorder, and Cube ACR are widely available on both iOS and Android devices. However, using these apps in Pennsylvania without obtaining all-party consent is a felony.
Automatic Recording Features
Some recording apps offer an "auto-record" feature that records every incoming and outgoing call. Using this feature in Pennsylvania is extremely risky because it records calls without giving the user an opportunity to obtain consent before the recording begins.
Recommendations
If you use a phone call recording app in Pennsylvania:
- Disable automatic recording. Only activate recording manually after obtaining consent.
- Inform the other party before the recording starts.
- Delete any recordings made without proper consent.
- Review app settings regularly to confirm that auto-record features remain disabled.
More Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania Recording Laws
More Pennsylvania Recording Topics
More Pennsylvania Laws
- Pennsylvania AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Pennsylvania Dashcam Laws
- Pennsylvania Data Privacy Laws
- Pennsylvania Deepfake Laws
- Pennsylvania Employee Monitoring Laws
- Pennsylvania GPS Tracking Laws
- Pennsylvania Police Bodycam Laws
- Pennsylvania Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Pennsylvania without telling the other person?
No, with a few narrow exceptions. Recording a call without every participant's consent is a third-degree felony under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703 (up to 7 years and $15,000). The exceptions: since February 12, 2024 a recipient may record a telemarketer or robocaller to enforce the TCPA, the UTPCPL, or the Telemarketer Registration Act (§ 5704(19)); a victim or witness may record a caller they reasonably suspect of a crime of violence when the call may capture evidence of it (§ 5704(17)); and telemarketing and customer-service businesses may record their own calls for training or quality control with one party's consent (§ 5704(15)).
Can I record a telemarketing call or robocall in Pennsylvania?
Yes. As of February 12, 2024, Pennsylvania consumers can record incoming telemarketing calls and robocalls without the caller's consent. This exception was created by Act 53 of 2023 (HB 1278) and applies when the recording is made for the purpose of enforcing the federal TCPA, Pennsylvania's Consumer Protection Law, or the Telemarketer Registration Act.
What happens if I record a phone call illegally in Pennsylvania?
Illegal phone call recording in Pennsylvania is a third-degree felony carrying up to 7 years in prison and a $15,000 fine. The victim can also file a civil lawsuit seeking $100 per day of violation (or $1,000 minimum), punitive damages, and attorney fees. An illegally recorded call can be excluded from court on the motion of the person recorded.
Does Pennsylvania's recording law apply to Zoom and video calls?
Yes. Pennsylvania's all-party consent requirement under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703 applies to all electronic communications, including VoIP calls, video conference calls on Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet, and calls made through messaging apps. If you are in Pennsylvania when you record, all parties must consent, wherever they are.
If I am in Pennsylvania and the other caller is in a one-party consent state, which law applies?
Pennsylvania's all-party consent law applies to you. When you are located in Pennsylvania, you must follow Pennsylvania's recording rules regardless of where the other caller is located. There is no general rule that the stricter state wins (a Pennsylvania court applied New York's one-party law to a call recorded in New York in Larrison v. Larrison, 2000), but that does not help a person recording from Pennsylvania, so obtain consent from all parties on the call.
Updates
We added the enforcement-purpose condition to the telemarketer-recording exception in the summary and takeaways, noted that the Third Circuit enforced the Starbucks order only in part, and clarified that consent need not be explicit.
We added Pennsylvania's exception for victims and witnesses of violent crime (18 Pa.C.S. 5704(17)), corrected the page's interstate-call rule in light of Larrison v. Larrison (2000), removed inaccurate claims that Pennsylvania has the harshest recording penalties in the nation, fixed the Maryland penalty, and corrected the descriptions of telemarketer recording, the Starbucks NLRB decision and its Third Circuit enforcement, sovereign immunity after Winig (2025), emergency interceptions, and evidence exclusion.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the interstate-call table (New Jersey is one-party consent, not all-party), rewrote the Starbucks NLRB section to describe the decision's actual narrow remedial-waiver holding instead of a nonexistent WESCA exception, and replaced dead pacodeandbulletin.gov and palegis.us statute citation links with working legis.state.pa.us mirrors.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the mislabeled § 5704(4) business-call-monitoring exception; the actual provision permitting one-party-consent monitoring for telemarketing/customer-service training and quality control is § 5704(15).
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.
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses)
§ 5703Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communicationsIn forcecited in 59 of our articles
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he: (1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication; (2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or (3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 121 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Brachbill (1989) held Section 5703(1) is not limited to interceptions made with an intercepting device, so an officer who listened on a telephone extension without the prior approval Section 5704(2)(ii) requires violated the section, and the testimony had to be suppressed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1987, 370 Pa. Super. 179)“…and other electronic interceptions of communications, see 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, carved out limited exceptions to these…”
- Commonwealth v. Bennett (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 1976, 245 Pa. Super. 457)“…ode, Act of Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1 et seq. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, as amended Dec. 27, 1974, P.L. 1007, N…”
- Commonwealth v. Brachbill (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1989, 520 Pa. 533)✓A state trooper listened on an extension phone to a call between a former inmate and a guard charged with abusing him; the court held section 5703 bars any willful interception, not only one using an intercepting device, so the trooper's testimony should have been suppressed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026), Massachusetts Phone Call Recording Laws, Oregon Phone Call Recording Laws: Split Consent Rules and Penalties
§ 5704Exceptions to prohibition of interception and disclosure of communicationsIn forcecited in 26 of our articles
It shall not be unlawful and no prior court approval shall be required under this chapter for: (1) An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent or employee of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of wire or electronic communication service. However, no provider of wire or electronic communication service shall utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks. (2) Any investigative or law enforcement officer or any person acting at the direction or request of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication involving suspected criminal activities, including, but not limited to, the crimes enumerated in section 5708 (relating to order authorizing interception of wire, electronic or oral communications), where: (i) (Deleted by amendment).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 126 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (1987) concluded Article I, Section 8 requires a warrant for one party consensual electronic eavesdropping, reading 5704(2) as only exempting that practice, not authorizing it. Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (2008) held 5704(14)(i)(C) permits disclosing a recorded inmate call in any criminal prosecution.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2008, 599 Pa. 1)✓The Commonwealth used a recorded jail phone call between an inmate and his parents at his murder trial; the court held section 5704(14) was not violated because all three knew the call was being recorded, and the contents were properly divulged for a criminal prosecution.
- Commonwealth v. Arrington (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2014, 624 Pa. 506)✓A murder defendant sought to suppress a call the victim recorded, on which he asked repeatedly whether he was being taped and said he did not care; the court addressed whether that amounted to prior consent under section 5704(4) but did not resolve it, finding any error harmless.
- Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1987, 370 Pa. Super. 179)✓Police sent a wired informant into Schaeffer's home to record a marijuana buy without a warrant; the en banc court read section 5704(2) as only exempting participant monitoring from the Wiretap Act, not authorizing it, and held the state constitution still required a warrant.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Pennsylvania Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Felony Penalties (2026), Pennsylvania Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)
§ 5721.1Evidentiary disclosure of contents of intercepted communication or derivative evidenceIn forcecited in 20 of our articles
(a) Disclosure in evidence generally.-- (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall disclose the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, in any proceeding in any court, board or agency of this Commonwealth. (2) Any person who has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, which is properly subject to disclosure under section 5717 (relating to investigative disclosure or use of contents of wire, electronic or oral communications or derivative evidence) may also disclose such contents or evidence in any matter relating to any criminal, quasi-criminal, forfeiture, administrative enforcement or professional disciplinary proceedings in any court, board or agency of this Commonwealth or of another state or of the United States or before any state or Federal grand jury or investigating grand jury. Once such disclosure has been made, then any person may disclose the contents or evidence in any such proceeding.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 29 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Arrington (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2014, 624 Pa. 506)“…e contents of any wire communication in a court proceeding. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1(a). An “aggrieved person,” party to a c…”
- Commonwealth v. Ruder (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 2013, 62 A.3d 1038)“…sionary rule that extends to non-constitutional violations. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1(b); Commonwealth v. Spangler, 570 P…”
- Commonwealth v. Spangler (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2002, 570 Pa. 226)“…procurement of a court order, or without probable cause. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. [7] Presently, the Commonwealth and…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026), Pennsylvania Laws on Recording Doctors and Medical Appointments (2026), Pennsylvania Security Camera and Surveillance Laws: Home and Business Rules (2026)
§ 5725Civil action for unlawful interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communicationIn forcecited in 16 of our articles
(a) Cause of action.--Any person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use, such communication; and shall be entitled to recover from any such person: (1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher. (2) Punitive damages. (3) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (b) Waiver of sovereign immunity.--To the extent that the Commonwealth and any of its officers, officials or employees would be shielded from liability under this section by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, such immunity is hereby waived for the purposes of this section. (c) Defense.--It is a defense to an action brought pursuant to subsection (a) that the actor acted in good faith reliance on a court order or the provisions of this chapter.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 54 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Agnew v. Dupler (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1998, 553 Pa. 33)“…and shall be entitled to recover from any such person ... 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725(a). The Wiretap Act defines an “oral co…”
- McCulligan v. Pennsylvania State Police (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2015, 123 A.3d 1136)“…ust and proper pursuant to Section 5725 of the Wiretap Act, 18 Pa. C.S. § 5725. In April 2015, Responde…”
- Keppley v. School District of Twin Valley (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2005, 866 A.2d 1165)“…lectronic or oral communication. Section 5725 of the Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725, authorizes a civil action by any perso…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Pennsylvania AI Meeting Recording Laws: All-Party Consent and Felony Penalties (2026), Pennsylvania Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): Workplace Surveillance Rights, Pennsylvania Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 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
- 18 Pa.C.S. \u00A7 5703 - Interception, Disclosure or Use Prohibited(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- 18 Pa.C.S. \u00A7 5704 - Exceptions to Prohibition of Interception(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- 18 Pa.C.S. \u00A7 5725 - Civil Action for Unlawful Interception(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1 - Evidentiary disclosure of contents of intercepted communication(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- House Bill 1278 - Telemarketer Recording Exception(palegis.us).gov
- Title 18 Chapter 57 - Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- Pennsylvania Attorney General - Bureau of Consumer Protection(attorneygeneral.gov).gov
- NLRB - Starbucks Philadelphia Decision (February 2023)(nlrb.gov).gov
- Federal Wiretap Act - 18 U.S.C. \u00A7 2511(law.cornell.edu)