EnglishEspañol
Arizona flag

Arizona

Arizona Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights

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. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Arizona Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights

Updates

Replaced a balancing-test description of the NLRB Stericycle standard with its presumption-and-rebuttal test.

Corrected the NLRB Stericycle rebuttal test: an employer must prove a legitimate and substantial business interest that a more narrowly tailored rule could not serve, not that its justification outweighs the chilling effect.

We corrected the description of NLRB General Counsel memo GC 25-05 (it rescinded many substantive enforcement memos), added a note that the Board may revisit Stericycle and a warning about GC 25-07 on secretly recording bargaining sessions, corrected the description of Arizona's deepfake laws, removed an unsupported FTC Act point, and removed a reference to a phone-line-owner exception that Arizona law does not have.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Corrected our description of Arizona's surreptitious recording statute (ARS 13-3019) to reflect what it actually prohibits and its posted-notice security exemption, rather than presenting it as a flat ban on cameras in bathrooms and locker rooms.

Replaced two broken AI-deepfake bill citations: the SB 1359 link previously pointed to an unrelated, sensitive chapter of Arizona session law and now points to the live codified election-deepfake-disclosure statute (ARS 16-1024); the HB 2394 link previously 404'd and now points to the live codified digital-impersonation statute (ARS 16-1023).

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources

Corrected the description of Arizona's phone-monitoring rules: ARS 13-3005 requires the consent of at least one party to a call (or that the interceptor is a party to it), not an ownership-based 'telephone line owner exception.' No such exception appears in ARS 13-3005 or the section it points to for exceptions (13-3012). The fix was applied everywhere this fabricated exception was restated: the summary, key takeaways, intro, two full subsections, and two FAQ answers.

Removed the last remaining reference to a fabricated 'telephone line owner exception' from the guide-scope sentence, matching the corrected framing used everywhere else on the page.

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Replaced Boeing 'reasonably construe' NLRB standard with controlling Stericycle, 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023) standard ('reasonably interpreted to chill' + employer must show legitimate and substantial business justification). Clarified that GC 25-05 rescinded prior GC memoranda and did not reinstate Boeing. Added AI [deepfake](/us-laws/deepfake-laws) workplace overlay covering HB 2394 (ARS 16-1023) and [TAKE IT DOWN Act](/us-laws/take-it-down-act) (effective May 19 2026).

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Sources and References

  1. Arizona Revised Statutes 13-3005 - Interception of Communications(azleg.gov).gov
  2. Arizona Revised Statutes 13-3019 - Surreptitious Photographing and Recording(azleg.gov).gov
  3. Arizona Revised Statutes 23-1501 - At-Will Employment(azleg.gov).gov
  4. National Labor Relations Act(nlrb.gov).gov
  5. NLRB Regional Offices(nlrb.gov).gov
  6. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(eeoc.gov).gov
  7. Arizona Attorney General Civil Rights Division(azag.gov).gov
  8. Federal Wiretap Act - 18 U.S.C. 2511(law.cornell.edu)
Share: