Washington
Washington Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules
Washington is an all-party consent state under RCW 9.73.030: every participant in a private conversation or phone call must consent before anyone may record it. Secretly recording a conversation you are part of is still a crime. Violations are a gross misdemeanor carrying up to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine, and any illegally obtained recording is inadmissible in Washington courts.
Washington recording law at a glance
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Consent standard | All-party (every participant must consent) |
| Main statute | RCW 9.73.030 |
| When recording is illegal | Any private conversation or call without all parties' consent |
| Criminal penalty | Gross misdemeanor: up to 364 days jail, $5,000 fine |
| Civil penalty | $100/day (max $1,000) or actual damages, plus attorney fees |
| Hidden cameras / voyeurism | RCW 9A.44.115: Class C felony (first degree) or gross misdemeanor (second degree) |
| Recording police | Lawful in public; officer-public conversations are not private under the WPA |
For a deeper dive, jump to the Washington recording laws in depth section.
Recording in-person conversations in Washington
Washington's Washington Privacy Act (WPA) has required all-party consent since 1967. Under RCW 9.73.030, no person may intercept or record any private in-person conversation without the consent of every participant. The statute's label as "two-party consent" is a shorthand that understates its reach: on a five-person call, all five must consent.
The Washington Supreme Court confirmed this in State v. Townsend, 147 Wn.2d 666, 57 P.3d 255 (2002). The Court held that a party to a communication may not unilaterally record it without all other parties' consent, and that the rule applies equally to telephone calls and to in-person conversations where participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Townsend is the controlling authority for any WPA consent analysis.
The WPA protects only "private" communications. Courts apply a multi-factor test from Townsend: the parties' subjective expectation of privacy, the subject matter, the location, the presence of potential third-party listeners, and the relationship between the parties. A quiet office meeting differs legally from a shouted argument on a busy sidewalk.
Practical example: You cannot record a face-to-face meeting with your boss without first telling everyone present that you are recording. A statement such as "I am recording this conversation," made audibly before the device captures any audio, satisfies RCW 9.73.030(3). Written notice given before a meeting begins also works.
Recording phone calls in Washington
The same all-party consent rule applies to telephone calls (landline, cell, and VoIP). Every person on the call must consent before anyone may record it.
The standard business method is an automated message that plays before the call connects: "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes." The message must play before recording begins and must itself be captured in the recording file, satisfying RCW 9.73.030(3).
Interstate calls: When a call crosses state lines, the stricter state's law governs. Washington's all-party rule is stricter than federal law (which requires only one-party consent under 18 U.S.C. 2511). Anyone calling into or out of Washington must satisfy RCW 9.73.030, regardless of the other party's state.
Video conferencing: Zoom, Teams, and Google Meet capture audio by default. The platform's built-in recording notification (which announces to all participants that recording is starting) satisfies RCW 9.73.030(3), provided the notification appears before recording begins.
See our Washington Phone Call Recording Laws guide for business call recording, TCPA, and interstate call rules.
Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams
Washington's Chapter 9.73 governs audio. Its application to video turns on whether audio is captured.
Silent video in public is generally lawful. Filming people in places where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy (streets, parks, government buildings, public demonstrations) does not trigger the WPA.
Video with audio is a different matter. The moment a recording device captures audio of a private conversation, RCW 9.73.030 applies and all-party consent is required. A smartphone video at a family dinner, a conference recording, a doorbell camera picking up a neighbor's private conversation: all require consent.
Audio-enabled security cameras aimed at private spaces (offices, break rooms, restrooms) trigger RCW 9.73.030 for the audio component. Best practice is to disable audio pickup on interior cameras in private-use areas or post clear notice that audio recording is active.
Voyeurism (RCW 9A.44.115): Separate from the WPA, Washington prohibits recording intimate areas without consent:
- Voyeurism in the first degree (Class C Felony): Knowingly viewing, photographing, or filming another person without their knowledge and consent in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, for purposes of sexual arousal or gratification.
- Voyeurism in the second degree (Gross Misdemeanor): Intentionally photographing or filming intimate areas of another person without consent and with intent to distribute, under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A recording can violate both statutes simultaneously (one for capturing private audio without consent, one for targeting intimate areas), and each violation is independent.
See our Washington Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws and Washington Security Camera Laws guides for full coverage.
Penalties for illegal recording in Washington
Criminal penalties
Under RCW 9.73.080, any violation of the WPA's consent requirements is a gross misdemeanor. RCW 9.92.020 sets the maximum at 364 days in county jail and a $5,000 fine.
| Offense | Classification | Max Jail | Max Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recording without consent | Gross misdemeanor | 364 days | $5,000 |
| Wrongful disclosure of a recording | Gross misdemeanor | 364 days | $5,000 |
This is a meaningful difference from California and Illinois, which treat the same conduct as a felony. Washington's gross misdemeanor classification avoids the collateral consequences of a felony conviction (such as firearm restrictions), but it still produces a criminal record affecting employment and professional licensing.
Civil remedies
Under RCW 9.73.060, any person whose communications were illegally recorded may sue and recover:
- Actual damages, including mental pain and suffering
- Liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation, capped at $1,000 per violation
- Reasonable attorney fees and court costs
The injured party elects whichever measure is more favorable. Because actual damages in recording cases are often hard to quantify, the $1,000 ceiling plus attorney fees provides a meaningful floor.
Inadmissibility
RCW 9.73.050 bars use of illegally obtained recordings in any Washington civil or criminal proceeding. Two narrow exceptions apply: the victim may consent to use the recording in their own damages action, or the recording may be admitted in a national-security criminal case. Outside those situations, exclusion is absolute.
Recording the police in Washington
Recording police officers performing their public duties in public is protected by the First Amendment. Officers conducting a traffic stop, making an arrest, or managing a crowd at a demonstration are engaged in public-facing government activity that citizens have a constitutional interest in documenting.
Why police-public conversations are generally not "private" under the WPA: AGO 2014 No. 8 (Nov. 24, 2014) concluded that conversations between law enforcement officers and members of the public during body camera use are not "private" communications under the WPA. The Townsend multi-factor test supplies the reasoning: police-citizen encounters in public involve no reasonable expectation of privacy because officers act in an official capacity in open view.
Practical guidelines: record openly; do not physically interfere with officers; officers cannot lawfully demand you stop recording or seize your device without a warrant or lawful arrest; step back to a safe distance if directed but you are not required to stop recording.
Body cameras operate under RCW 10.109, not RCW 9.73.030. HB 2644 (69th Leg., 2025-26 Biennium), which proposes amendments to the body-camera chapter, had not received a floor vote as of the publication date and would not alter RCW 9.73.030's all-party consent rule in any event.
See our Washington Laws on Recording Police guide for First Amendment doctrine, public meetings, and custodial interrogation recording rules.
Special topics in Washington
Consent by announcement and the Lewis notice nuance
RCW 9.73.030(3) establishes the "consent by notice" mechanism: consent is legally obtained when one party announces to all others, in any reasonably effective manner, that the communication is about to be recorded, and that announcement is itself recorded. The statute does not require the other party to affirmatively say "yes." Staying on the line after a clear notice implies consent.
Washington courts have also recognized implied consent where context makes recording obvious. Leaving a voicemail implies consent because the answering machine's sole function is to record messages. Sending a message through a system known to log communications implies consent to that logging.
Federal overlay
Federal law (18 U.S.C. 2511, ECPA) sets a one-party consent floor. Washington's all-party rule is stricter and controls for in-state conduct. The two regimes must both be satisfied; federal law does not preempt the state standard.
FCC 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) declared AI-generated voice technologies constitute "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA, requiring prior express consent for such calls. This federal obligation applies concurrently with RCW 9.73.030 to calls into or within Washington.
The FCC's 2023 One-to-One Consent Rule was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025). FCC DA 25-621 reinstated the pre-2023 standard nationwide. The operative rule for prior express written consent is the same in Washington as elsewhere.
Workplace recording and NLRB overlay
Washington's all-party consent standard applies fully in employment settings. An employee who secretly records a supervisor or coworker violates RCW 9.73.030 regardless of purpose; the recording is also inadmissible under RCW 9.73.050. The statutory threat exception (RCW 9.73.030(2)) permits one-party consent recording only for the specific threatening communication.
The NLRB's Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), held that facially neutral no-recording policies are presumptively unlawful if they chill Section 7 rights. Employer recording bans must be narrowly drawn. NLRB GC Memo 25-07 (June 25, 2025) signals that undisclosed recording during collective-bargaining sessions is also disfavored federally, and in Washington it is doubly prohibited by RCW 9.73.030.
See our Washington Workplace Recording Laws guide for full employer-monitoring and NLRB guidance.
Healthcare and schools
HIPAA (45 CFR 164.502) classifies audio and video recordings of patient communications as protected health information when maintained by a covered entity. Washington providers must satisfy both HIPAA authorization requirements and RCW 9.73.030(3) announcement consent; neither statute displaces the other.
FERPA (34 CFR Part 99) governs disclosure of student-identifiable recordings maintained by a school. Washington schools must satisfy both FERPA disclosure rules and RCW 9.73.030 recording-consent rules. See our Washington Medical Recording Laws and Washington School Recording Laws guides for full coverage.
Website tracking pixels: pending Supreme Court review
In Baker v. Seattle Children's Hospital, No. 86461-1-I (Wash. Ct. App. Div. I, Aug. 18, 2025), the Court of Appeals held that a hospital's use of Meta Pixel to track user clicks and searches on its public website does not constitute interception of a "private communication" under RCW 9.73.030(1)(a). The Washington Supreme Court accepted review on January 8, 2026 (No. 1045905). If reversed, website pixel tracking by Washington-facing entities could fall within the WPA's all-party consent requirement. This article will be updated when the Supreme Court rules.
Recent legal developments
- Jan. 8, 2026: Washington Supreme Court accepted review of Baker v. Seattle Children's Hospital, No. 1045905 (WPA applicability to website tracking pixels; decision pending).
- Aug. 18, 2025: Court of Appeals, Division I, held in Baker that public-website pixel tracking is not a "private communication" under RCW 9.73.030(1)(a).
- June 25, 2025: NLRB GC Memo 25-07 issued, signaling enforcement against undisclosed recording during collective-bargaining sessions.
- Feb. 8, 2024: FCC 24-17 declared AI-generated voice a "prerecorded voice" under the TCPA.
- 2021: RCW 9.73.030 last amended (HB 1223-S / 2021 c 329 s 21), adding subsection (5) for custodial interrogation recordings under RCW 10.122.040. All-party consent standard unchanged.
Washington recording laws in depth
By type of recording
- Washington Audio Recording Laws: phone calls, in-person consent, announcement requirements
- Washington Video Recording Laws: filming, surveillance, public vs. private spaces
- Washington Phone Call Recording Laws: interstate calls, business call recording, TCPA
- Washington Dashcam Laws: mounting rules, audio on dashcams, evidentiary use
By place or relationship
- Washington Security Camera Laws: home, business, and rental property surveillance
- Washington Workplace Recording Laws: employee rights, employer monitoring, NLRB rules
- Washington Laws on Recording Police: First Amendment rights, body cameras, public meetings
- Washington Laws on Recording in Public: photography, protest documentation, bystander video
- Washington Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: surveillance in rental properties, tenant rights
- Washington Medical Recording Laws: HIPAA, patient consent, telehealth
- Washington School Recording Laws: FERPA, classroom recording, campus rules
- Washington Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: RCW 9A.44.115, penalties, intimate-area recording
More Washington laws
- Washington Alimony Laws
- Washington At-Will Employment Laws
- Washington Child Custody Laws
- Washington Data Privacy Laws
- Washington Landlord-Tenant 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 Washington attorney.
More Washington Laws
- Washington AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Washington Alimony Laws
- Washington At-Will Employment Laws
- Washington Car Accident Laws
- Washington Car Seat Laws
- Washington Child Custody Laws
- Washington Child Support Laws
- Washington Common Law Marriage Laws
- Washington Data Privacy Laws
- Washington Deepfake Laws
- Washington Divorce Laws
- Washington Dog Bite Laws
- Washington Emancipation Laws
- Washington Expungement Laws
- Washington Hit and Run Laws
- Washington Landlord-Tenant Laws
Related news
Sources and References
- 147 Wn.2d 666, 57 P.3d 255 (2002)
- 153 Wn.2d 186 (2004)
- No. 86461-1-I (Wash. Ct. App. Div. I, Aug. 18, 2025)
- No. 84473-3 (Wash. Ct. App.) [unpublished]
- app.leg.wa.gov.gov
- app.leg.wa.gov.gov
- app.leg.wa.gov.gov
- app.leg.wa.gov.gov
- app.leg.wa.gov.gov
- app.leg.wa.gov.gov
- app.leg.wa.gov.gov
- app.leg.wa.gov.gov
- courts.wa.gov.gov
- atg.wa.gov.gov
- app.leg.wa.gov.gov
- docs.fcc.gov.gov
- docs.fcc.gov.gov
- nlrb.gov.gov
- nlrb.gov.gov
- consumerfinance.gov.gov
- hhs.gov.gov
- studentprivacy.ed.gov.gov