Recording Laws United States Laws Two-Party Consent Michigan

Michigan

Michigan Recording Laws (2026): Consent Rules and Participant Exception

By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 202613 min read

Michigan's eavesdropping statute, MCL 750.539c, is written as an all-party consent law, but Michigan courts have recognized a participant exception since 1982: if you are a party to the conversation, you can record it without notifying anyone else. Recording a private conversation you are not part of is a felony, and so is covert visual recording in a private place under MCL 750.539d.

Michigan recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule	Participant exception: one-party consent for participants; all-party consent for non-participants
Main statute	MCL 750.539c (audio); MCL 750.539d (visual/private place)
When it is illegal	Recording a private conversation you are not part of; covert visual recording in a private place
Criminal penalty (audio)	Felony: up to 2 years, $2,000 fine
Criminal penalty (visual/distribution)	Felony: up to 5 years, $5,000 fine for distribution or repeat installation offense
Civil remedy	MCL 750.539h: injunction, actual damages, punitive damages
Hidden cameras	Prohibited in private places (MCL 750.539d); homeowner security exception exists
Recording police	Protected by the First Amendment in public spaces; public spaces are not "private places" under MCL 750.539a

For deeper analysis of any of these topics, see the in-depth guides below.

Recording in-person conversations in Michigan

Michigan's eavesdropping statute, MCL 750.539c, prohibits any person from willfully using a device to eavesdrop on a private conversation without the consent of all parties. The prohibition extends equally to people who are physically present and those who are absent (recording remotely). On its face, the statute looks like a strict all-party consent rule.

The participant exception changes the practical picture. The definitions section, MCL 750.539a, defines "eavesdrop" as recording "the private discourse of others." In Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476, 324 N.W.2d 58 (1982), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a party to a conversation cannot be recording "the discourse of others," because the party is in the conversation, not listening in on someone else's. The result: a participant needs only their own consent to record.

The statute's reference to "any person who is present or who is not present" describes where the recorder is relative to the recording device, not whether the recorder is a participant in the conversation. That reading closes the loophole of arguing that an absent participant is somehow an eavesdropper on their own conversation.

One important limit: Sullivan also held that a participant's consent to record does not extend authorization to a non-participant third party. If someone who is not part of a conversation wants to record it, all-party consent is still required even if one of the actual participants is also recording.

The statute applies only to "private places," defined in MCL 750.539a as locations where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion, specifically excluding places open to the public or a substantial group of the public. A conversation in a busy restaurant or a public park does not carry the same protection as one in a private office or a home.

reporter in three-quarter view holding a small handheld microphone toward a person speaking at a podium, both visible fr

Recording phone calls in Michigan

The participant exception applies to phone calls in exactly the same way it applies to in-person conversations. A caller or a called party is a participant in the communication, not an eavesdropper on someone else's. The Sixth Circuit's decision in Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022), arose directly from recorded phone calls, and the court dismissed all MCL 750.539c claims on participant-exception grounds.

Federal law aligns: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) permits a party to a communication to record it without the other parties' consent, provided the recording is not made to commit a crime or tort.

For calls crossing state lines, the caller must check the recording law of the other party's state. Several states require all-party consent for telephone calls, and a Michigan caller can face liability under those states' laws even if Michigan's participant exception would protect the same recording if both parties were in Michigan.

The FCC beep-tone rule at 47 CFR § 64.501 is a carrier obligation, not a rule on individual callers. It does not require a Michigan caller to notify the other party before recording.

For business call recording, VoIP lines, and multi-state call scenarios, see Michigan Phone Call Recording Laws.

side profile of a woman in a business blouse holding a smartphone to her ear mid-call, walking through a sunlit office h

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

MCL 750.539d prohibits installing or using any device in a private place to observe, record, transmit, or photograph sounds or events there, without the consent of the person entitled to privacy. This applies to cameras, recording devices, and any technology capable of observing what happens in a private space.

Residences, bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and bedrooms are all private places under MCL 750.539a. In Lewis v. LeGrow, 258 Mich. App. 175, 670 N.W.2d 675 (2003), the Michigan Court of Appeals confirmed that a bedroom qualifies and that covert videotaping of intimate acts there violates MCL 750.539d.

MCL 750.539d contains an exception for security monitoring in a dwelling by the owner or occupant, provided the monitoring is not conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose. A homeowner may install security cameras on their property without notifying guests, but that exception does not extend to cameras pointed at bathrooms or changing areas.

Michigan also has a separate voyeurism and intimate-parts statute at MCL 750.539j (added by 2004 Public Act 155), which specifically prohibits surveilling, photographing, or recording a person's intimate body parts or undergarments when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Surveillance (observing without recording) on a first offense carries up to 2 years; a subsequent surveillance offense carries up to 5 years. Photographing or recording intimate images, and distribution, each carry up to 5 years on a first offense.

A camera that also captures audio in a private place adds an MCL 750.539c eavesdropping dimension if the audio records a private conversation without participant consent.

For landlord camera rules, rental-property common areas, and Ring doorbell placement, see Michigan Security Camera Laws. For voyeurism and intimate-recording criminal analysis, see Michigan Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws.

a journalist seated across a small wooden table from an interview subject in a quiet office, a small digital voice recor

Penalties for illegal recording in Michigan

Michigan treats all eavesdropping and private-place recording violations as felonies. There is no misdemeanor tier.

Offense	Statute	Max Prison	Max Fine
Eavesdropping on a private conversation (non-participant)	MCL 750.539c	2 years	$2,000
Installing or using a device in a private place without consent (first offense)	MCL 750.539d	2 years	$2,000
Same, with a prior conviction	MCL 750.539d	5 years	$5,000
Distributing a recording obtained in violation of MCL 750.539d	MCL 750.539d	5 years	$5,000
Using or divulging information from an unlawful recording	MCL 750.539e	2 years	$2,000
Manufacturing, possessing, or selling eavesdropping devices	MCL 750.539f	2 years	$2,000

The distribution penalty is particularly significant: sharing or publishing a covert recording of a private place carries up to 5 years even on a first offense, a higher maximum than the underlying recording itself.

Civil remedies. MCL 750.539h creates a civil cause of action for victims of illegal eavesdropping. A court may grant an injunction prohibiting further eavesdropping, award all actual damages against the person who eavesdropped, and award punitive damages. The statute does not provide for a statutory minimum damages amount or for attorney fees. The civil and criminal tracks are independent: a decision not to prosecute does not preclude a civil suit.

hands typing on a mechanical keyboard from above

Recording the police in Michigan

Recording police officers performing official duties in a public space is protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment right to record law enforcement in public is well-established in federal circuit case law and is not restricted by Michigan's eavesdropping statute, because public spaces where officers are carrying out their duties do not qualify as "private places" under MCL 750.539a: they are places to which the public has access.

Michigan has no state statute specifically authorizing or restricting the recording of police officers, so the analysis rests on the First Amendment framework alongside the eavesdropping statute's private-place definition. Recording a traffic stop, an arrest, or police activity on a public street is generally lawful. Recording that requires entering a restricted area, interfering with police operations, or capturing private communications outside a public-duty context may raise different issues.

For First Amendment analysis of recording inside police stations, what happens when an officer demands you stop recording, and device-seizure cases, see Michigan Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Michigan

The participant exception in detail: Sullivan, Fisher, and AFT Michigan

The exception has a 44-year interpretive record that has only grown more settled. Sullivan v. Gray established the textual basis in 1982. The Michigan Court of Appeals reaffirmed it in Lewis v. LeGrow (2003). The Michigan Supreme Court accepted a certified question about MCL 750.539c's scope in In re Certified Question, 959 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. 2021), but declined to answer, leaving Sullivan as controlling precedent. The Sixth Circuit applied parallel logic under both MCL 750.539c and 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) in Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022), dismissing all claims where the recorder was a party to the phone calls. Most recently, U.S. District Judge Linda Parker (E.D. Mich.) granted summary judgment for Project Veritas on the Michigan eavesdropping claims in AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas Action Fund, No. 4:17-cv-13292 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2026), dismissing all MCL 750.539c counts on participant-exception grounds after nine years of litigation on those claims. Other claims in the case (including fraud, trespass, and federal wiretap issues) were not fully resolved; a trial remains scheduled. As of June 2026, no appeal of the eavesdropping dismissal has been filed; this is a district court ruling subject to potential Sixth Circuit review, and no public docket URL has been confirmed (verify at PACER, Case No. 4:17-cv-13292).

Workplace recording and the NLRA overlay

Michigan's participant exception applies in the workplace: an employee who is a party to a work conversation may record it without coworkers' or supervisors' advance knowledge. Employers may impose no-recording policies, but an overbroad policy that chills employees' Section 7 rights (organizing, documenting workplace safety) is presumptively unlawful under the NLRA standard set in Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023). NLRB General Counsel Memorandum 25-07 (June 25, 2025) adds that surreptitious recording of collective bargaining sessions may constitute an unfair labor practice; that is prosecutorial guidance, not a Board decision. For a full scenario analysis, see Michigan Workplace Recording Laws.

HIPAA and healthcare recording

Recording in a healthcare setting may implicate HIPAA's Privacy Rule at 45 CFR § 164.502, which restricts access to protected health information independently of state eavesdropping law. A recording capturing a patient's health information in a clinical area can create HIPAA exposure even where Michigan's participant exception would otherwise permit the recording. For full analysis, see Michigan Medical Recording Laws.

Schools and FERPA

Recording in a school setting that captures student education records may trigger the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act independently of MCL 750.539c. The U.S. Department of Education's Student Privacy Office has published FERPA guidance on audio and video recording. For detail, see Michigan School Recording Laws.

Federal ECPA overlay

The federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a), independently prohibits intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications. The federal one-party consent exception at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) mirrors Michigan's participant exception: a party to a communication may record it unless the recording is made to commit a crime or tort. Fisher v. Perron confirmed that the two provisions operate in alignment. Federal law and Michigan law coexist; compliance with one does not guarantee compliance with the other, particularly for multi-state communications.

Recent legal developments

March 30, 2026: U.S. District Judge Linda Parker (E.D. Mich.) grants summary judgment for Project Veritas on the MCL 750.539c eavesdropping claims in AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas Action Fund, No. 4:17-cv-13292; other claims (fraud, trespass, federal wiretap) remain; trial still scheduled.
June 25, 2025: NLRB General Counsel Memorandum 25-07 addresses surreptitious recording of collective bargaining sessions as a potential unfair labor practice.
February 8, 2024: FCC Declaratory Ruling DA 24-17 clarifies that AI-generated voice calls constitute "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA.
April 14, 2022: Sixth Circuit decides Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289, affirming Michigan's participant exception for both MCL 750.539c and the federal Wiretap Act.
February 3, 2021: Michigan Supreme Court accepts certified question about MCL 750.539c scope in In re Certified Question, 959 N.W.2d 172, then declines to answer, leaving Sullivan v. Gray as controlling precedent.

Michigan recording laws in depth

Want to know more? The pages below each cover a specific Michigan recording scenario in depth.

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Michigan 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 Michigan attorney.

More Michigan Laws

Sources and References

MCL 750.539a(legislature.mi.gov).gov
MCL 750.539c(legislature.mi.gov).gov
MCL 750.539d(legislature.mi.gov).gov
MCL 750.539e(legislature.mi.gov).gov
MCL 750.539f(legislature.mi.gov).gov
Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476, 324 N.W.2d 58 (1982)(courtlistener.com)
Lewis v. LeGrow, 258 Mich. App. 175, 670 N.W.2d 675 (2003)(courtlistener.com)
Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022)(govinfo.gov).gov
In re Certified Question, 959 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. 2021)
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)(uscode.house.gov).gov
18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)(uscode.house.gov).gov
18 U.S.C. § 2510(2)(uscode.house.gov).gov
18 U.S.C. § 2510(4)(uscode.house.gov).gov
MCL 750.539 et seq., Act 319 of 1966; MCL 750.539d as amended by 2004 Act 156(legislature.mi.gov).gov
AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas Action Fund, No. 4:17-cv-13292 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2026)
FCC Declaratory Ruling, DA 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
47 CFR § 64.501(ecfr.gov).gov
DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302(justice.gov).gov
Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023)(nlrb.gov).gov
NLRB GC Memo 25-07 (June 25, 2025)(nlrb.gov).gov
HHS OCR HIPAA FAQ (Recording in Treatment Areas)(hhs.gov).gov
USDOE Student Privacy Office, FERPA and School Recording Guidance(studentprivacy.ed.gov).gov
47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(1), (a)(3)(ecfr.gov).gov
legislature.mi.gov.gov
legislature.mi.gov.gov