Georgia Recording Laws: Audio One-Party, Video All-Party 2026

Quick Answer: Is Georgia a One-Party or Two-Party Consent State?

Georgia is a one-party consent state for audio under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66(a). If you are part of the conversation, or you have one participant's consent, you can record the audio without telling the other person. Video is different. Recording someone with a camera in a private place out of public view requires the consent of all persons observed under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2).

The Georgia Supreme Court anchored that split in State v. Cohen, 302 Ga. 616, 807 S.E.2d 861 (2017): the § 16-11-66(a) one-party exception applies to interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications and does not extend to the visual-surveillance prong of § 16-11-62(2). Get the consent rule wrong and you face a felony with up to five years' imprisonment and a $10,000 fine under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-69.

Georgia Recording Law Summary

Key Point	Answer
Audio consent	One-party (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66(a))
Video in private place out of public view	All-party (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2))
Video in public place	Generally permitted (statute applies to private places only)
Criminal penalty	Felony, 1 to 5 years and/or up to $10,000 (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-69)
Civil remedy	Common-law privacy torts (intrusion, public disclosure); punitives under § 51-12-5.1
Evidence rule	Inadmissible if obtained in violation of Part 1 (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-67)
Federal floor	One-party under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)

For the full canonical list of one-party states, see one-party consent states. For the all-party states whose laws can govern interstate calls into Georgia, see two-party consent states.

Audio vs. Video: Georgia's Defining Recording-Law Quirk

Georgia is the rare state where audio and video carry different consent standards. Audio is governed by O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66(a), the one-party-consent exception that allows a participant to record. Video in a private place out of public view is governed by O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2), which requires the consent of all persons observed.

The Georgia Supreme Court resolved the question in State v. Cohen, 302 Ga. 616, 807 S.E.2d 861 (2017): the all-party-consent requirement of § 16-11-62(2) for video recording in a private place is constitutionally definite and is not displaced by the one-party-consent exception in § 16-11-66(a). The § 16-11-66(a) exception applies to interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, that is, the audio prong, and does not extend to the visual-surveillance prong of § 16-11-62(2). Defendants who arranged a covert video recording of a sexual encounter, with the consent of only one of the depicted persons, could be prosecuted under § 16-11-62(2) without violating due-process vagueness.

The textual reason for the split is straightforward. Section 16-11-66(a) is written in the language of "wire, oral, or electronic communication," which is the federal-style audio vocabulary inherited from Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. Visual surveillance is not a wire, oral, or electronic communication, and § 16-11-62(2) prohibits visual surveillance of activities in a private place out of public view without the consent of all persons observed. Cohen made clear that this textual mismatch is intentional, not a drafting accident.

The practical consequence runs through every section of this article. A Georgia parent can record a conversation with a co-parent under § 16-11-66(a). The same parent who installs a hidden camera in a co-parent's bathroom or guest bedroom commits a felony under § 16-11-62(2), regardless of whether the parent is in the next room and is therefore a "participant." Audio one-party does not bail you out of the all-party video rule.

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62: Eavesdropping, Surveillance, and Privacy

Section 16-11-62 is Georgia's master eavesdropping and surveillance statute. It runs in subparts.

Subsection (1) (audio prong) prohibits clandestine recording: "It shall be unlawful for any person in a clandestine manner intentionally to overhear, transmit, or record or attempt to overhear, transmit, or record the private conversation of another which shall originate in any private place." The § 16-11-66(a) one-party exception is the gateway out of this prohibition for participants and consented-to recordings.

Subsection (2) (video prong) prohibits the use of any device, "without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view." The video prong has its own enumerated carve-outs:

• (2)(A) lawful security devices used by the owner or occupier of real property to monitor that property;
• (2)(B) monitoring of the curtilage of a residence by the owner;
• (2)(C) certain surveillance by law-enforcement officers acting in their official capacity;
• (2)(D) monitoring of incarcerated persons by correctional officers, except for attorney-client consultations; and
• (2)(E) related lawful-purpose carve-outs as the statute defines them.

The 2022 amendment via SB 539 (signed May 2, 2022; effective July 1, 2022) refined the residence-curtilage and incarcerated-person exception language and added paragraph (7) (county health-care-facility patient protection) and the GPS-tracking provision.

Subsections (3) through (7) extend liability to trespass for purposes of eavesdropping, device-based interception of mail or telephone communications, divulging unlawfully obtained material, selling or distributing private-place imagery without consent, and conspiracy. Every subsection runs through the same penalty pipe at § 16-11-69.

The takeaway: § 16-11-62 is the prohibition. Section 16-11-66 is the exception. The split between them is what makes Georgia recording law work.

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66: One-Party Consent for Audio Communications

Section 16-11-66 is the gateway out of § 16-11-62 for audio. It does not apply to video.

Subsection (a) (the one-party rule). "Nothing in Code Section 16-11-62 shall prohibit a person from intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception." That is the codified one-party-consent rule.

Mitchell v. State, 239 Ga. 3, 235 S.E.2d 509 (1977) is the foundational Georgia Supreme Court decision establishing that participant recording is not criminal eavesdropping. Mitchell held that former Code § 26-3001 (now O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62) does not prohibit an actual party to a conversation from recording or divulging that conversation. The rule was later codified into § 16-11-66(a). Mitchell remains good law and is regularly cited in Georgia courts as the participant-recording authority.

Subsection (b) (the minor-child rule). When a child under 18 is a party to a telephonic or electronic communication, recording requires either a superior-court judge's order or a parent or guardian's consent. The single-participant-recorder fix that works for adults does not work when one of the participants is a minor.

Bishop v. State, 241 Ga. App. 517, 526 S.E.2d 917 (1999), decided by the Georgia Court of Appeals, is the leading authority on the minor-consent gap. Bishop held that under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66 a minor child alone lacks the capacity to consent to the interception of telephone calls to which the child is a party, even at age 10 or older. Implied consent cannot be inferred where the minor was actively avoiding the recording. Vicarious parental consent does not automatically cure the lack of valid one-party consent, subject to the § 16-11-66(d) parental-monitoring exception, which has its own requirements.

Subsection (d) (the parental-monitoring carve-out). A parent or guardian of a child under 18 may monitor or intercept the minor's calls or electronic communications from within the family home using an extension or other device, with or without the minor's consent, for the welfare of the child. This is the narrow exception that lets a parent listen on an extension or monitor a family-home device without falling into the § 16-11-66(b) judicial-order or parental-consent requirement, but only when the activity meets the in-home, welfare-of-the-child elements.

The structure to remember: § 16-11-66(a) handles audio between adults. Section 16-11-66(b) ratchets up the requirements when a minor is involved. Section 16-11-66(d) carves out home-based parental monitoring of the minor's own communications.

Penalties: Felony Exposure, Civil Damages, and Admissibility

Any violation of Part 1 (§§ 16-11-60 through 16-11-70) is penalized by O.C.G.A. § 16-11-69: "Any person violating any of the provisions of this part shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years or a fine not to exceed $10,000.00, or both." Whether the conduct is an audio violation under § 16-11-62(1), a video violation under § 16-11-62(2), or a distribution violation under § 16-11-62(6), the penalty schedule is the same.

Penalty schedule

Conduct	Penalty
Audio violation, § 16-11-62(1)	Felony, 1 to 5 years and/or up to $10,000 (§ 16-11-69)
Video violation in private place, § 16-11-62(2)	Felony, 1 to 5 years and/or up to $10,000 (§ 16-11-69)
Distribution violation, § 16-11-62(6)	Felony, 1 to 5 years and/or up to $10,000 (§ 16-11-69)
Recording a minor's call without consent, § 16-11-66(b)	Felony (charged via § 16-11-62, penalized via § 16-11-69)
NCII first offense, § 16-11-90	Misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature
NCII subsequent offense, § 16-11-90	Felony, 1 to 5 years
Civil damages	Common-law tort damages plus punitives under § 51-12-5.1 (no statutory floor)
Evidence rule	Inadmissible (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-67)

Statutory exclusionary rule

Georgia operates a statutory exclusionary rule in O.C.G.A. § 16-11-67: "No evidence obtained in a manner which violates any of the provisions of this part shall be admissible in any court of this state except to prove violations of this part." When the § 16-11-66(a) one-party exception applies, the recording is lawfully obtained and § 16-11-67 does not bar admissibility. When the recording violates § 16-11-62, the recording cannot be used in any Georgia court except in a prosecution of the eavesdropping offense itself. This is broader than the federal Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule and applies in civil and criminal cases alike.

Civil remedies

Civil remedies sit on the common-law side. Georgia recognizes the four Restatement (Second) of Torts invasion-of-privacy branches as common-law civil remedies: intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation of likeness, public disclosure of private facts, and false light. Pavesich v. New England Life Ins. Co., 122 Ga. 190 (1905), the foundational Georgia privacy-tort decision, established that Georgia recognizes a right to privacy at common law.

Punitive damages are available under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1 on a clear-and-convincing showing of willful misconduct, malice, or wantonness. Injunctive relief may compel destruction of the recordings and an order against further use. The personal-injury statute of limitations under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 is two years. The federal Wiretap Act civil action under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 provides an additional federal cause of action with statutory damages.

What Counts as a Private Place Under Georgia Law?

Georgia's eavesdropping statute applies only when the conversation originates in a private place or, for video, when the activities occur in a private place out of public view. Whether a setting qualifies turns on whether a reasonable person in that location would expect not to be overheard, photographed, or recorded.

Georgia courts have treated the following settings as private places for purposes of § 16-11-62:

• The inside of a residence
• A hotel or motel room
• A closed office at a workplace
• A bathroom
• A locker room or changing area
• A medical examination room

Settings that are generally not private places include:

• A public street or highway
• A restaurant table within earshot of other patrons
• The sales floor of a retail store
• A public sidewalk or park
• A government building's public lobby

The classification is fact-specific and turns on the totality of the circumstances. In a public place, the statute's audio and video prongs do not reach the recording at all. Other constraints (defamation, harassment, or HIPAA in a clinical setting, for example) may still apply. The "private place" inquiry is a jury question when contested.

Recording Phone Calls in Georgia (Including Interstate Calls)

A Georgia caller who is a party to the call may record the audio under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66(a) without informing the other person. The complication is the interstate call.

When the other party is in a state that requires all-party consent for audio, the safest rule is to comply with the stricter regime: get the other party's consent on the record before recording. The all-party (or functional all-party) jurisdictions for audio include:

• California (Cal. Penal Code § 632)
• Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d civil, with criminal one-party under § 53a-187)
• Delaware (11 Del. C. § 2402)
• Florida (Fla. Stat. § 934.03)
• Illinois (720 ILCS 5/14-2)
• Maryland (Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402)
• Massachusetts (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 secret-recording prohibition)
• Montana (Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213)
• New Hampshire (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:2)
• Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540, with the in-person carve-out)
• Pennsylvania (18 Pa. C.S. § 5704)
• Washington (Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030)

Federal one-party consent under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) sets the floor, but the more protective state law typically governs the actor in question. If your call line crosses state lines, assume two-party rules apply unless you have verified the other state's regime. For the canonical state-by-state list, see two-party consent states.

Business call recording

Georgia businesses can record calls for quality assurance, training, or compliance purposes consistent with § 16-11-66(a) when the business is a party to the call. Best practice is to provide a recorded notice at the start of the call ("This call may be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes") because customers may be calling from all-party-consent states. A recorded preamble that the caller can decline by hanging up is the cleanest implied-consent posture.

Hidden Cameras, Ring Doorbells, and Nanny Cams

Hidden-camera, doorbell-camera, and nanny-cam scenarios run through the § 16-11-62(2) all-party video rule and the security-device and residence-curtilage exceptions.

An outward-facing Ring doorbell pointing at a homeowner's own front porch, or a security camera covering the curtilage of a residence, generally falls within the security-device and residence-curtilage exceptions to § 16-11-62(2)(A) and (B). The camera is a lawful security device on the owner's own property covering the residence's curtilage; the rule is designed to permit exactly that use.

A nanny cam in a shared family room of the homeowner's own home is the closer call. A domestic worker may be recorded as part of activities in a public-facing area of the home (a kitchen or living room used in common) but not in private spaces such as a bathroom, a guest bedroom, or the nanny's own quarters. Indoor cameras placed in private spaces of guests, tenants, or domestic workers without all-party consent may run into the § 16-11-62(2) all-party video rule and the § 16-11-69 felony penalty.

Audio is the additional trap. Many smart cameras record audio. Audio recording inside private spaces of others without a participant's consent can also implicate § 16-11-62(1), even when the security-device exception covers the video. A camera owner who is not a "party" to a conversation in a guest bedroom cannot rely on the § 16-11-66(a) participant-recording rule. If the camera is in your own home and you are present, you are typically a participant; if the camera is in a tenant's unit or a domestic worker's quarters, you are not.

A dashcam is generally lawful in Georgia. Public roadways are not private places under § 16-11-62, so video of the road and other vehicles is outside the statute. Audio captured by a dashcam follows § 16-11-66(a) one-party rules; the driver-owner is typically a participant in any in-vehicle conversation.

FTC vendor-data layer

A separate compliance layer applies to surveillance vendors that store or review your video at a cloud data center. The FTC's 2023 enforcement action against Ring (Amazon Ring LLC) resulted in a $5.8 million settlement over allegations that Ring allowed employee and contractor access to customer videos and used them to train algorithms without express consent. The stipulated order requires limited human review of videos absent express informed consent. Georgia residents with smart cameras and Georgia employers deploying surveillance vendors should review vendor data-handling and human-review practices, which can implicate FTC Act Section 5 even where Georgia recording law would permit the recording itself. For a deeper look at video-without-consent issues nationally, see Is it illegal to video record someone without their consent.

Recording at Work: Employee and Employer Rules in Georgia

An employer in Georgia who is a party to a workplace conversation may record the audio without notifying the other party under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66(a). Video recording inside private workplace spaces such as restrooms or locker rooms is restricted under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2). Right-to-work status under O.C.G.A. § 34-6-21 does not affect federal labor-law jurisdiction.

NLRB Stericycle: blanket no-recording rules

Federal labor law adds a further constraint for private-sector employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB held in Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), that to defend a no-recording or no-photography rule against a Section 8(a)(1) facial challenge, the employer must show the rule advances a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a more narrowly tailored rule. Blanket no-recording handbook policies are presumptively unlawful. Georgia's at-will and right-to-work status does not immunize an overbroad recording-ban handbook policy.

NLRB GC 25-07: surreptitious bargaining-session recording

NLRB Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued GC 25-07 on June 25, 2025, treating surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se violation of the NLRA. The memo is prosecutorial guidance directing regional offices, not a Stericycle clarification or binding Board precedent. The memo's reach is targeted at the bargaining table. Routine workplace conversations, employee-on-employee recordings, and unilateral employee documentation of suspected unfair labor practices are governed by Stericycle and the broader Section 7 framework, not by GC 25-07.

Employee recordings of harassment or discrimination

Employee audio recording of a workplace conversation in which the employee is a participant is permitted under § 16-11-66(a), regardless of an employer no-recording handbook policy. The Stericycle framework analyzes the handbook rule itself; the employee's act of recording is independently lawful under Georgia state law. Whether the employer can discipline the employee for breaking the (potentially unlawful) policy is a separate NLRB question, not a Georgia criminal-law question. For a deeper national treatment, see Can an employer record conversations without consent.

Recording Police, Public Officials, and Public Meetings

The Eleventh Circuit held in Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000), that the First Amendment recognizes a right, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct in public. Smith arose in Cumming, in Forsyth County, Georgia, so the seminal Eleventh Circuit precedent for the right to record police is itself a Georgia case. The 11th Circuit covers Georgia, Florida, and Alabama; in Georgia federal courts, Smith is binding.

Georgia's recording statute reinforces the same outcome. O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62 applies only to private places, so filming officers performing public duties in public is outside the statute's reach. The combination of Smith's First Amendment holding and § 16-11-62's private-place limitation means that recording a traffic stop on a public street, an arrest on a public sidewalk, or an officer's interaction with citizens at a public-meeting venue is protected under both federal and state law. Practical limits still apply: do not interfere with police operations, do not trespass to get a better angle, and follow lawful orders to step back to a reasonable distance.

Open Meetings Act

Georgia's Open Meetings Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1, allows recording of public meetings of state and local agencies. The statute provides that visual and sound recording during open meetings shall be permitted. You can record city and county commission meetings, school board meetings, public hearings, state legislative proceedings, and any other meeting of an agency subject to the Open Meetings Act, subject to reasonable rules of decorum.

Body-worn-camera retention

Georgia law-enforcement body-worn-camera and in-vehicle video retention is governed by O.C.G.A. § 50-18-96, not § 50-18-72(a)(4). The statute requires 180-day retention, extended to 30 months when the recording is part of a criminal investigation, vehicular accident, detainment or arrest, or use of force. Public access flows through the Open Records Act at O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., and § 50-18-72 contains general open-records exemptions that may apply (such as pending investigations). Body-cam footage is not categorically exempt as a class.

Federal Overlay: ECPA, FCC, and DOJ Rules

The federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 to 2522, sets a one-party-consent floor under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). Georgia is permitted to and does follow that one-party rule for audio interception under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66, but Georgia is stricter for video in private places under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62. Federal courts in Georgia may apply ECPA in parallel to state law, and the more protective rule typically governs the actor in question. For the federal hub treatment, see United States recording laws.

FCC 24-17: AI-generated voice (in force)

The FCC adopted Declaratory Ruling FCC 24-17 on February 2, 2024 (released February 8, 2024), clarifying that AI-generated voice in calls qualifies as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and requires prior express consent. The ruling is current as of May 2026 with no vacatur or rescission. A Georgia consumer who receives an AI-cloned-voice scam call has a federal TCPA cause of action and may, as a participant, record the call under both federal one-party consent and § 16-11-66(a).

FCC 24-24: One-to-One Consent Rule (vacated)

The FCC's One-to-One Consent Rule (FCC 24-24, amending 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9)) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir.). The mandate issued April 30, 2025. The FCC then formally removed the revised rule by order DA 25-621 and reinstated the prior version of § 64.1200(f)(9). The rule is not in force as of May 2026. The 11th Circuit is Georgia's own circuit, so the vacatur applies directly to Georgia plaintiffs and lead-generation defendants. Do not confuse FCC 24-24 (vacated) with FCC 24-17 (in force, AI-voice TCPA ruling).

DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302

DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302 sets the federal default for warrantless consensual monitoring: federal agents may record with the consent of one party to the conversation, subject to internal-approval rules for sensitive cases (such as Members of Congress or attorney-client situations). In Georgia federal investigations, the federal one-party consent default mirrors Georgia's § 16-11-66(a) audio rule.

NCII, Deepfakes, and Sexual Extortion (Georgia)

Georgia's primary non-consensual intimate imagery statute is O.C.G.A. § 16-11-90. The statute provides: "It shall be unlawful for any person to electronically transmit or post, in one or more transmissions or posts, a photograph or video which depicts nudity or sexually explicit conduct of an adult, including a falsely created videographic or still image." The unlawful conduct must amount to harassment or cause financial loss to the depicted person and serve no legitimate purpose to the depicted person.

The 2020 amendment, effective August 3, 2020, added the "falsely created videographic or still image" clause that captures AI-generated and edited deepfake imagery. First offense is a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature; subsequent offense is a felony. A Georgia victim of a deepfake intimate image has a § 16-11-90 cause of action that does not depend on whether the underlying image was originally captured with consent.

Sexual extortion is a separate offense under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-92, enacted in 2021. First offense is a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature; subsequent offense is a felony. Sexual extortion typically pairs with a § 16-11-90 NCII threat: an offender threatens to release an intimate image (real or "falsely created") unless the victim performs an act or pays a sum.

Citation correction: § 16-11-66.1

One common citation error appears in older legal-information summaries: O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66.1 is not a sexual-extortion or recording-consent statute. Section 16-11-66.1 is the stored-communications statute, which sets search-warrant procedures for electronic-communications-service and remote-computing-service providers. It is part of the law-enforcement compelled-disclosure framework, not the consent or NCII framework. Older recordinglaw page versions and some third-party summaries got this wrong; this page corrects the record.

Pending Georgia AI and deepfake bills

Georgia introduced several AI and deepfake bills in the 2024 and 2025 to 2026 sessions. None has been confirmed enacted at .gov sources as of May 2026:

• SB 9 ("Ensuring Accountability for Illegal AI Activities Act"): passed both chambers in different forms; Senate disagreed with the House substitute on January 28, 2026; pending.
• SB 78 (AI-generated child sexual abuse material): pending or unverified at .gov source.
• SB 398 ("virtual peeping" AI imagery): pending.
• HB 890 (2024 deceptive AI media): pending, awaiting enactment confirmation.
• HB 478 (2025 to 2026 AI bill): pending.

Treat all five as introduced or pending. Do not cite them as enacted Georgia law. For takedowns of unauthorized intimate or copyrighted material, see the DMCA Takedown Notice Generator.

Recent and Federal Developments (2024 to 2026)

Several federal and Georgia developments touch on recording law in 2024 through 2026.

Federal

• FCC 24-17 (February 2024): AI-generated voice in calls qualifies as artificial or prerecorded voice under the TCPA; in force.
• FCC 24-24 vacatur: Eleventh Circuit vacated the One-to-One Consent Rule with mandate issued April 30, 2025; FCC removed the rule via DA 25-621. Not in force.
• NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025): Acting General Counsel memo treating surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as per se unlawful; Tier 2 prosecutorial guidance, not binding Board precedent.
• TAKE IT DOWN Act: signed into federal law on May 19, 2025. The Act establishes a federal cause of action and a notice-and-takedown obligation against non-consensual intimate imagery, including deepfake imagery. Platform compliance with the takedown procedures takes effect May 19, 2026. Georgia residents have a federal remedy in addition to § 16-11-90.
• FTC v. Ring (2023): $5.8 million settlement over employee and contractor access to customer videos and use for algorithm training without express consent. Stipulated order limits human review absent express informed consent.

Georgia state

• 2022 SB 539 (signed May 2, 2022; effective July 1, 2022): refined the residence-curtilage and incarcerated-person exceptions to § 16-11-62(2) and added paragraph (7) (county health-care-facility patient protections) and the GPS-tracking provision. In force.
• SB 9, SB 78, SB 398, HB 890, HB 478: pending or unverified at .gov sources as of May 2026. Not citable as enacted law.

Georgia Recording Laws: Topic Index

Georgia recording law touches on many specific contexts. The following pages provide deeper coverage of the major subtopics.

• United States recording laws: The federal hub, including ECPA and FCC overlays.
• One-party consent states: The full list of jurisdictions that share Georgia's audio one-party rule.
• Two-party consent states: The all-party states whose laws can govern an interstate call into Georgia.
• Can an employer record conversations without consent: The national workplace-recording standalone with the full Stericycle and GC 25-07 treatment.
• Is it illegal to video record someone without their consent: The video-without-consent doctrine for hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams beyond Georgia.
• DMCA Takedown Notice Generator: A free tool to generate takedown notices for non-consensual intimate imagery and copyrighted material.

Legal Information Disclaimer: This page is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Georgia recording law, including O.C.G.A. §§ 16-11-62, 16-11-66, 16-11-67, 16-11-69, and 16-11-90, is fact-specific. Pending Georgia bills (including SB 9, SB 78, SB 398, HB 890, and HB 478) and federal developments may change the framework after this page was last updated. If you are facing a specific legal situation involving recording in Georgia, consult a licensed Georgia attorney.