Iowa
Iowa Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent for Calls (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. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Iowa follows one-party consent for phone call recording under Iowa Code 808B.2, meaning you can legally record any call you participate in without notifying the other party. The recording must not be made for a criminal, tortious, or injurious purpose to retain that protection.
Iowa's one-party consent law makes it legal to record phone calls as long as you are a participant in the conversation. Under Iowa Code 808B.2, one party to a wire communication can consent to its interception. Your own knowledge that you are recording satisfies this requirement.
This guide provides a detailed analysis of Iowa's phone call recording laws, including the statutes that apply, how cross-state calls are handled, business recording practices, VoIP and digital communication rules, and the penalties for illegal phone call interception.
Iowa's Phone Call Recording Statute
Iowa Code 808B.2 and Wire Communications
Iowa Code Chapter 808B defines "wire communication" as any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by wire, cable, or other similar connection between the point of origin and the point of reception. This definition encompasses:
- Traditional landline telephone calls
- Cell phone calls (which use wire facilities at some point in transmission)
- VoIP calls conducted through internet service providers
- Conference calls and multi-party calls
Section 808B.2 makes it a crime to willfully intercept any wire communication. However, the one-party consent exception in 808B.2(2)(c) permits interception when the person intercepting is a party to the communication or has consent from one party.
How One-Party Consent Applies to Phone Calls
When you make or receive a phone call in Iowa, you are a party to that wire communication. Your decision to record the call constitutes your consent. This means:
- You can record any incoming call without telling the caller
- You can record any outgoing call without telling the recipient
- You can record conference calls where you are a participant
- A third party may be covered by the wiretap statute (808B.2(2)(c)) if a participant gave prior consent, but Iowa's separate eavesdropping statute (727.8) protects only a sender or recipient or someone openly present and listening, and no Iowa appellate court has said whether a participant's consent protects a hidden third party. The safer course is for the participant to make the recording personally
You do not need to:
- Play a beep tone or other notification
- State "this call is being recorded" at the beginning
- Get verbal or written consent from the other party
- Send any follow-up notification that the call was recorded
The Purpose Limitation
Iowa's one-party consent exception includes the "no criminal, tortious, or injurious purpose" limitation. For phone call recording, this means:
Legal purposes include:
- Documenting verbal agreements and business deals
- Preserving evidence for potential legal disputes
- Recording customer service calls for personal reference
- Capturing threatening or harassing calls for law enforcement
- Journalism and news reporting
Potentially illegal purposes include:
- Recording with the intent to blackmail or extort the other party
- Recording to gather information for use in a defamatory campaign
- Recording for the purpose of harassment or intimidation
Recording Different Types of Phone Calls
Personal Calls
All personal phone calls you make or receive in Iowa can be recorded under one-party consent. Common scenarios include:
- Recording calls with family members during custody or divorce disputes
- Capturing threatening calls from debt collectors or scammers
- Preserving conversations about property transactions or contracts
- Recording calls with service providers about warranties or agreements
Business Calls
Iowa businesses have broad authority to record phone calls. Because the business representative on the call is a party to the conversation, one-party consent is satisfied. Businesses commonly record calls for:
- Quality assurance and training purposes
- Compliance documentation in regulated industries
- Customer dispute resolution
- Verification of telephone orders and agreements
While Iowa law does not require businesses to notify callers about recording, many businesses still provide disclosure through:
- A prerecorded message: "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes"
- A verbal statement from the representative at the beginning of the call
- A periodic beep tone during the call
Providing notice is considered a best practice because it offers additional legal protection, particularly for calls with people in other states.
Customer Service Calls
When you call a business and hear "this call may be recorded," that is the business exercising its one-party consent right. You have the same right. You can record any customer service call you participate in. This is useful for:
- Documenting promises made by customer service representatives
- Preserving evidence of misleading sales practices
- Recording insurance claim discussions
- Capturing warranty or return policy representations
Conference Calls and Multi-Party Calls
Iowa's one-party consent law applies to conference calls where multiple people are on the line. As a participant, you can record the entire conference call without informing other participants. However, if participants are located in different states, the laws of those states may also apply.
VoIP and Digital Communication Recording
Zoom, Teams, and Video Conference Calls
Iowa's wiretapping statute covers "electronic communications" in addition to wire communications. Video conference platforms that include audio are subject to Iowa's one-party consent rule. You can record:
- Zoom meetings you participate in
- Microsoft Teams calls and meetings
- Google Meet sessions
- Skype calls
- Any other VoIP or video conferencing platform
Many of these platforms have built-in recording features that notify participants when recording begins. Even if you use the platform's built-in recorder, Iowa law does not require you to get consent from other participants (as long as all participants are in one-party consent jurisdictions).
Messaging Apps With Voice Features
Voice messages sent through messaging apps (WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, iMessage) are electronic communications under Iowa law. Recording voice calls made through these apps follows the same one-party consent rules.
Recorded Voicemail
Voicemail messages left for you are communications where you are the intended recipient. You have the right to save, copy, and use voicemail messages left on your phone or voicemail system. However, accessing someone else's voicemail without authorization may violate the federal Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. 2701).
Cross-State Phone Call Recording
The Challenge of Interstate Calls
When one party to a phone call is in Iowa and the other is in a different state, the question of which state's law applies becomes more complex. There is no universal rule, and courts have reached different conclusions in different cases. Our recording consent checker walks through both states so you know which standard applies before you dial.
General Approach
Courts decide these conflicts case by case, and several have applied the law of the place where the recording was made, so the most conservative approach is to get everyone's consent. If you are in Iowa (one-party consent) and calling someone in California (two-party consent), California's law may apply. Recording without the California caller's consent could expose you to liability under California law.
States Bordering Iowa
| State | Consent Requirement | Risk Level for Iowa Callers |
|---|---|---|
| Illinois | Two-party consent (with exceptions) | Higher risk |
| Minnesota | One-party consent | Low risk |
| Missouri | One-party consent | Low risk |
| Nebraska | One-party consent | Low risk |
| South Dakota | One-party consent | Low risk |
| Wisconsin | One-party consent | Low risk |
Illinois is the primary concern for Iowa residents making interstate calls. Most of Iowa's other neighboring states follow one-party consent.
Other Two-Party Consent States
Beyond Illinois, states that require every party's consent to record a phone call, and that Iowa residents commonly call, include:
- California
- Connecticut (phone calls; enforced through a civil claim)
- Delaware (its statutes conflict)
- Florida
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Montana
- Nevada (phone calls)
- New Hampshire
- Pennsylvania
- Washington
Oregon is not on this list because its all-party rule covers in-person conversations, not phone calls.
Best Practice for Interstate Calls
When calling someone in a two-party consent state, the safest approach is to:
- Inform the other party at the beginning of the call that you are recording
- Get verbal acknowledgment that they consent
- The consent statement itself becomes part of the recording
Federal Law and Phone Call Recording
The Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2511)
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2511) follows a one-party consent standard, which aligns with Iowa's approach. Under federal law, recording a phone call is legal as long as at least one party consents, unless the recording is made to commit a crime or tort.
Federal law applies everywhere in addition to state law, so a recording must satisfy both. A state law that allows a recording does not make it legal under federal law, and Iowa's rule is slightly narrower than the federal one because it also excludes recordings made for any other injurious purpose.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act regulates telemarketing calls, robocalls, and automated dialing systems. While the TCPA does not directly address recording of phone calls, it intersects with recording law in several ways:
- Recordings of illegal robocalls can serve as evidence in TCPA complaints filed with the FCC
- Businesses that record outbound telemarketing calls must comply with both TCPA and state recording laws
- Consumers who record telemarketing calls can use those recordings in private lawsuits under the TCPA
The Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. 2701)
The federal Stored Communications Act prohibits unauthorized access to stored communications, including voicemail, recorded calls stored on servers, and cloud-stored audio files. Accessing someone else's stored phone recordings without authorization is a federal offense.
Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording
Criminal Penalties
Illegally intercepting a phone call in Iowa violates Iowa Code 808B.2 and is a Class D felony:
| Penalty | Amount |
|---|---|
| Prison time | Up to 5 years |
| Base fine (Iowa Code 902.9(1)(e)) | $1,025 to $10,245 |
| Surcharges (Iowa Code chapter 911) | Added on top of the base fine, not capped by it |
Additionally, eavesdropping on phone calls by tapping into communication lines violates Iowa Code 727.8, which is a serious misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail and fines up to $2,560.
Civil Penalties
Under Iowa Code 808B.8, victims of illegal phone call recording can bring a civil lawsuit and recover:
- Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater
- Punitive damages, if the defendant knew the recording violated chapter 808B (Papillon v. Jones, Iowa 2017)
- Attorney's fees and litigation costs
Disclosure Penalties
Sharing or using the contents of an illegally intercepted phone call carries the same Class D felony penalties as making the illegal recording. If you receive a recording that you know was illegally obtained and share it with others, you could face felony charges.
Phone Call Recordings as Evidence
Admissibility in Iowa Courts
Phone call recordings made legally under Iowa's one-party consent law are generally admissible as evidence. The recording must be:
- Authenticated: The proponent must show the recording is genuine and unaltered
- Relevant: The recording must relate to a fact at issue in the case
- Clear enough to understand: If a recording is too garbled or unclear, the court may exclude it
- Complete: Courts may require the full recording, not just selected excerpts
Common Uses as Evidence
Phone call recordings are commonly used in Iowa courts for:
- Divorce and custody cases: Documenting threats, harassment, or broken agreements
- Contract disputes: Proving the terms of verbal agreements
- Employment cases: Recording discriminatory statements or policy violations
- Consumer protection: Capturing misleading sales representations
- Debt collection: Documenting violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Criminal cases: Recording threatening calls or admissions
Phone Call Recording Technology
Call Recording Apps
Numerous smartphone apps allow you to record phone calls. Popular options include:
- Built-in recording features on Android devices
- Third-party recording apps for iOS and Android
- Google Voice recording (for incoming calls)
- Carrier-provided recording services
In Iowa, using any of these tools to record calls you participate in is legal under one-party consent.
Landline Recording Devices
For landline phones, external recording devices that connect between the phone and the wall jack are available. These devices record both sides of the conversation. Using such a device to record your own calls is legal in Iowa.
Business Phone System Recording
Modern business phone systems (such as RingCentral, Vonage, and similar VoIP services) often include built-in call recording features. Iowa businesses can enable these features under one-party consent.
More Iowa Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism and Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant Recording | Dashcam Laws | School Recording | Medical Recording
More Iowa Recording Topics
More Iowa Laws
- Iowa AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Iowa Dashcam Laws
- Iowa Data Privacy Laws
- Iowa Deepfake Laws
- Iowa Employee Monitoring Laws
- Iowa GPS Tracking Laws
- Iowa Police Bodycam Laws
- Iowa Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Iowa without telling the other person?
Yes. Iowa is a one-party consent state under Iowa Code 808B.2(2)(c). As a participant in the phone call, your own knowledge of the recording satisfies the consent requirement. You do not need to tell the other person, play a beep tone, or get any form of permission. The recording must not be made for a criminal, tortious, or injurious purpose.
Can I record a phone call with someone in Illinois from Iowa?
This is a gray area. Illinois generally requires two-party consent for recording private conversations. When one party is in Iowa and the other is in Illinois, courts decide case by case which state's law governs, and Illinois law may apply. The safest approach is to inform the Illinois caller that you are recording and get verbal consent.
Is it legal for businesses to record phone calls in Iowa?
Yes. Iowa businesses can record calls under the one-party consent law because the business representative on the call is a party to the conversation. While not legally required, many businesses still provide notice through a prerecorded message or verbal disclosure as a best practice.
Can I record a Zoom or video call in Iowa?
Yes. Iowa's wiretapping statute covers electronic communications, including VoIP and video conference calls. As a participant in the call, you can record without informing other participants. If participants are in two-party consent states, their state laws may apply to them.
What is the penalty for illegally recording a phone call in Iowa?
Illegal interception of a phone call under Iowa Code 808B.2 is a Class D felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of $1,025 to $10,245 under Iowa Code 902.9(1)(e), with chapter 911 surcharges added on top of that fine. Victims can also sue for their actual damages, but not less than $100 per day of violation or $1,000 (whichever is greater), plus attorney fees. Punitive damages require proof that the defendant knew the recording violated chapter 808B (Papillon v. Jones, Iowa 2017).
Updates
Corrected the civil-damages description: Iowa awards actual damages with a $100-per-day or $1,000 minimum, not both amounts added together.
We clarified that recording a call by a hidden third party with one participant's consent is unsettled under Iowa's eavesdropping statute, completed the list of states that require all-party consent for calls (adding Nevada and Delaware, and explaining why Oregon is excluded), replaced a statement that the stricter state's law applies with how courts actually decide interstate calls, added the knowledge requirement for punitive damages, and corrected how federal and state recording laws interact.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the Class D felony fine for illegal phone call recording: Iowa Code 902.9(1)(e) sets the base fine at $1,025 to $10,245, with additional court surcharges added on top rather than included in that range. The page previously stated a lower, unsupported $750-$7,500 base fine and described the correct figure as a post-surcharge total.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the maximum fine for an Iowa serious misdemeanor (Iowa Code 727.8 eavesdropping) from $2,565 to $2,560, matching the sentencing cap set in Iowa Code 903.1(1)(b).
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.
Iowa Code, Chapter 808B: INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS
§ 808B.2Unlawful acts — penalty.In forcecited in 19 of our articles
1. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, a person who does any of the following commits a class “D” felony: a. Willfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, a wire, oral, or electronic communication. b. Willfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use an electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when either of the following applies: (1) The device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication. (2) The device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of radio communications. c. Willfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection. d.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2017
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Iowa courts have applied 808B.2 to covert recordings by private parties. State v. Spencer (2007) read its one-party consent exception to include vicarious consent, but only where a parent has a good faith, objectively reasonable basis for consenting for a minor child. Papillon v. Jones (2017) applied it to a hidden home recorder.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Supreme Court of Iowa 2017)✓A man left a hidden voice-activated recorder in his ex-girlfriend's home and captured her private phone calls, then used them in their custody case; the court affirmed liability under Section 808B.2 but held punitive damages require proof he knew he was violating the chapter.
- Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, University of Iowa (Supreme Court of Iowa 2009, 763 N.W.2d 250)✓A nonmember hid a recorder in a fraternity's private meeting room and gave the tape to university officials who used it to discipline the chapter; the court held the tape was a protected oral communication and read "willfully" in Section 808B.2 to mean purposeful conduct.
- State v. Spencer (Supreme Court of Iowa 2007, 737 N.W.2d 124)✓A father secretly taped his 13-year-old daughter's calls with her teacher after suspecting sexual abuse; the court read Section 808B.2(2)(c)'s consent exception to include vicarious consent, letting a parent consent for a minor on a good-faith, objectively reasonable basis.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Iowa Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Iowa Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
§ 808B.8Civil damages authorized — civil and criminal immunity — injunctive relief.In forcecited in 12 of our articles
1. A person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall: a. 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 communications. b. Be entitled to recover from any such person all of the following: (1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation, or one thousand dollars, whichever is higher. (2) Punitive damages upon a finding of a willful, malicious, or reckless violation of this chapter. (3) A reasonable attorney fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. 2. A good faith reliance on a court order shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter. 3. A person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter may seek an injunction, either temporary or permanent, against any person who violates this chapter.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, University of Iowa (Supreme Court of Iowa 2009, 763 N.W.2d 250)“…of an intercepted electronic communication in violation of Iowa Code section 808B.8 (2001). Because the fraternity is the r…”
- Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Supreme Court of Iowa 2017)“…ict court awarded Papillon attorney fees of $16,008. See Iowa Code § 808B.8(1)(b)(3) (allowing award of attorney f…”
- Marcus Darrell Eugene Luthi v. Client Neis, in his official and individual capacities, and Wapello County, Iowa (Court of Appeals of Iowa 2021)“…apillon v. Jones, 892 N.W.2d 763, 770 (Iowa 2017) (quoting Iowa Code § 808B.8). Iowa Code chapter 808B is “intended…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa School Recording Laws: Student Privacy, FERPA, and Classroom Rules (2026), Iowa Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Iowa Code 709.21 Penalties (2026), Iowa AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
Iowa Code, Chapter 727: HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE
§ 727.8Electronic and mechanical eavesdropping.In forcecited in 16 of our articles
1. “Monitoring device” means a digital video or audio streaming or recording device that records, listens to, or otherwise intercepts video or audio communications in order to provide proof of or prevent criminal activity that is placed outside of a person’s dwelling or other structure that is not in a shared hallway and is on real property owned or leased by the person. 2. Any person, having no right or authority to do so, who taps into or connects a listening or recording device to any telephone or other communication wire, or who by any electronic or mechanical means listens to, records, or otherwise intercepts a conversation or communication of any kind, commits a serious misdemeanor. 3. This section does not apply to any of the following: a. The recording by a sender or recipient of a message or one who is openly present and participating in or listening to a communication from recording such message or communication. b. The use of any radio or television receiver to receive any communication transmitted by radio or wireless signal. c. The use of a monitoring device.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Reid (1986) read the section's exception to let a sender, recipient, or person openly present and participating record a conversation without all-party consent or a court order. State v. Philpott (2005) affirmed a conviction for leaving a voice-activated recorder running in an office during the defendant's absence.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Philpott (Supreme Court of Iowa 2005, 702 N.W.2d 500)✓A court clerk left a voice-activated recorder running on her desk while at lunch, capturing coworkers; the court affirmed her section 727.8 conviction, holding a jury could find she intended to record conversations that took place during her absence.
- State v. Reid (Supreme Court of Iowa 1986, 394 N.W.2d 399)✓Police had a ten-year-old girl call the defendant and taped the call, then videotaped his station interview without telling him; the court held both recordings fell within section 727.8's exception for a participant, so no court order or all-party consent was needed.
- State v. Fox (Supreme Court of Iowa 1992, 493 N.W.2d 829)✓A deputy monitored a county jail inmate's outgoing phone call, and what she said led to a cell search that turned up marijuana; the court held the right or authority to monitor under section 727.8 comes from chapter 808B, whose law-enforcement exception covered him.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa Dashcam Laws: Recording Rules, Windshield Mounting, and Legal Limits (2026), Iowa Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance and Privacy Rights (2026), Iowa Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and One-Party Consent (2026)
Iowa Code, Chapter 902: FELONIES
§ 902.9Maximum sentence for felons.In forcecited in 16 of our articles
1. The maximum sentence for any person convicted of a felony shall be that prescribed by statute or, if not prescribed by statute, if other than a class “A” felony shall be determined as follows: a. Reserved. b. A class “B” felon shall be confined for no more than twenty-five years. c. An habitual offender shall be confined for no more than fifteen years. d. A class “C” felon, not an habitual offender, shall be confined for no more than ten years, and in addition shall be sentenced to a fine of at least one thousand three hundred seventy dollars but not more than thirteen thousand six hundred sixty dollars. e. A class “D” felon, not an habitual offender, shall be confined for no more than five years, and in addition shall be sentenced to a fine of at least one thousand twenty-five dollars but not more than ten thousand two hundred forty-five dollars. 2. The surcharges required by sections 911.1, 911.2A, and 911.5 shall be added to a fine imposed on a class “C” or class “D” felon, as provided by those sections, and are not a part of or subject to the maximums set in this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 166 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State of Iowa v. Andre Letroy Antwan Harrington (Supreme Court of Iowa 2017)“…a sentence of incarceration greater than one year. See Iowa Code § 902.9(1)(a)–(e). Thus, any immigrati…”
- State v. Ayers (Supreme Court of Iowa 1999, 590 N.W.2d 25)“…imposed a $500 fine for each conviction. See Iowa Code §§ 902.9 (3), 903.1(2). Ayers appeals onl…”
- State v. Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County (Supreme Court of Iowa 2000, 616 N.W.2d 575)“…of incarceration not to exceed ten years. See Iowa Code § 902.9 (setting forth a maximum sentence of t…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do, Iowa Video Recording Laws: Where You Can and Cannot Film (2026), Iowa Age of Consent Laws: Statutes, Penalties and Reporting
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?
§ 2701Unlawful access to stored communicationsIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoever— intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section. The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is— if the offense is committed for purposes of commercial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial gain, or in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State— a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of a first offense under this subparagraph; and a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense under this subparagraph; and in any other case— a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 1 year or both, in the case of a first offense under this paragraph;…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-16 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 724 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Warshak (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2010, 631 F.3d 266)“…ied in good faith on the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., a statute that allows the gove…”
- Guest v. Leis (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2001, 255 F.3d 325)“…7 *340 In their brief, plaintiffs mention in passing 18 U.S.C. § 2701 , which prohibits intentional unlawful…”
- City of Ontario v. Quon (Supreme Court of the United States 2010, 560 U.S. 746)“…Raising claims under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983; 18 U. S. C. §2701 et seq., popularly known as the Stored…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026), Hawaii Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Idaho Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Iowa Code, Chapter 808B: INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS § 808B.1 (Definitions.)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Sources and References
- Iowa Code Chapter 808B - Interception of Communications(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Iowa Code 808B.2 - Unlawful Acts and Penalty(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Iowa Code 727.8 - Electronic and Mechanical Eavesdropping(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. 2701 - Stored Communications Act(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC - Telemarketing and Robocalls (TCPA)(fcc.gov).gov
- Iowa Criminal Sentencing Guidelines 2024(iowacourts.gov).gov