Rhode Island
Rhode Island Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Guide (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. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Rhode Island follows one-party consent for phone call recording under R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21, meaning any participant in a call may record it without notifying the other parties. The law prohibits recording for criminal, tortious, or injurious purposes.
Rhode Island is a one-party consent state for phone call recording under R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21. You can record calls you participate in without informing others. Special attention is needed for calls to neighboring Massachusetts and Connecticut, both two-party consent states.
This guide covers one-party consent rules, interstate call recording with neighboring states, business recording, VoIP calls, penalties, and evidence use.
One-Party Consent for Phone Calls
You can record landline, cell, VoIP (Zoom, Teams, Meet), and video calls you participate in without announcing the recording. The "criminal, tortious, or injurious purpose" limitation applies.
Interstate Calls: Massachusetts and Connecticut
Rhode Island borders two all-party consent states. Massachusetts requires all-party consent under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99, and Connecticut requires all-party consent for telephone communications under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d. Nearby New Hampshire, which does not border Rhode Island, also requires all-party consent under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:2.
Courts have not settled which state's law applies when a call connects Rhode Island with one of these states. The cautious course is to tell everyone on the call that you are recording and get their agreement. Our recording consent checker compares the rules state by state.
Other all-party consent states: California, Delaware (its two statutes conflict), Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Montana, Nevada (phone calls only), Oregon (in-person conversations only), Pennsylvania, and Washington.
Business Call Recording
Businesses can record calls they are a party to for quality assurance and compliance under the one-party rule. The FCC has no rules on recording calls by individuals; state laws, including the all-party laws of Massachusetts and Connecticut, are what matter for calls with people there.
Penalties
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Illegal interception | Felony | 5 years prison |
| Civil damages (may be available) | § 12-5.1-13; coverage of private recordings unsettled | Actual damages, at least $100/day or $1,000, plus punitive damages and attorney fees |
More Rhode Island Recording Topics
- Rhode Island Recording Laws
- Rhode Island Audio Recording
- Rhode Island Video Recording
- Rhode Island Medical Recording
- Rhode Island Schools Recording
- Rhode Island Workplace Recording
- Rhode Island Police Recording
- Rhode Island Security Cameras Recording
- Rhode Island Voyeurism Recording
- Rhode Island Landlord Tenant Recording
- Rhode Island Dashcam Recording
- Rhode Island Public Recording Recording
- Rhode Island Biometric Privacy Laws
- Surveillance Camera Laws
More Rhode Island Recording Laws
- TCPA: Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Rhode Island Employee Monitoring Laws
- Rhode Island AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Rhode Island Data Privacy Laws
- Rhode Island Deepfake Laws
More Rhode Island Laws
- Rhode Island AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Rhode Island Dashcam Laws
- Rhode Island Data Privacy Laws
- Rhode Island Deepfake Laws
- Rhode Island Employee Monitoring Laws
- Rhode Island GPS Tracking Laws
- Rhode Island Police Bodycam Laws
- Rhode Island Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Rhode Island?
Yes. One-party consent under § 11-35-21 allows recording calls you participate in. Do not record for criminal, tortious, or injurious purposes.
Can I record calls with people in Massachusetts from Rhode Island?
Massachusetts requires all-party consent, and courts have not settled which state's law governs a call between the two states. Inform all parties before recording interstate calls to Massachusetts or Connecticut.
Can I record a Zoom call in Rhode Island?
Yes. VoIP calls follow one-party consent. Be aware participants in two-party consent states may require notification.
What is the penalty for illegal phone recording in Rhode Island?
A felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. A civil claim may also be available under § 12-5.1-13 (at least $100/day or $1,000, plus punitive damages and attorney fees), but whether that section covers a private recording is unsettled.
Can my employer record work calls in Rhode Island?
Yes, under one-party consent with at least one participant consenting.
Updates
We corrected the cross-border call section to say courts have not settled which state's law applies and that Rhode Island borders only Massachusetts and Connecticut, brought the list of all-party consent states in line with our 13-state classification, said whether 12-5.1-13 damages cover a private recording is unsettled, and removed an unsupported claim about FCC notification.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
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.
Rhode Island General Laws, Title 11: Criminal Offenses, Chapter 11-35: Public Utilities
§ 11-35-21Unauthorized interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic, or oral communicationIn forcecited in 18 of our articles
(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in chapter 5.1 of title 12, any person: (1) who willfully intercepts, attempts to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire, electronic, or oral communication; (2) who willfully discloses or attempts to disclose to any person the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing, or having reason to know that the information was obtained through interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication in violation of this section; or (3) who willfully uses or attempts to use the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing, or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication in violation of this section; shall be imprisoned for not more than five (5) years. (b) The provisions of subdivisions (a)(2) and (3) of this section shall not apply to the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence derived from those contents, which has become common knowledge or public information.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at webserver.rilegislature.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walden v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RI (2010) held municipalities are not persons who may be sued under sections 11-35-21 and 12-5.1-13. The earlier Walden v. City of Providence (2007) held this section is criminal but that R.I. Gen. Laws 9-1-2 supplies a civil right of action for its violation.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…Stat. § 165.540 (1997); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (2000); R. I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 (2000); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601 (…”
- Walden v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RI (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2010, 596 F.3d 38)“…te, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.; Rhode Island's wiretap laws, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 11-35-21, 12-5.1-13; and the state'…”
- Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A. (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999, 191 F.3d 463)“…43 (1998); 18 Pa Cons Stat. Ann. §§ 5703, 5725 (West 1999); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 (1998); Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-13-601 to…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Rhode Island Enacts AI Recording Consent Laws for Health Care, Rhode Island Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, Rhode Island Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 52 (Civil Actions), Chapter 925
§ 52-570dAction for illegal recording of private telephonic communications.In forcecited in 56 of our articles
(a) No person shall use any instrument, device or equipment to record an oral private telephonic communication unless the use of such instrument, device or equipment (1) is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication and such prior consent either is obtained in writing or is part of, and obtained at the start of, the recording, or (2) is preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning and is part of the communication by the recording party, or (3) is accompanied by an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at intervals of approximately fifteen seconds during the communication while such instrument, device or equipment is in use.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 22 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (1998) held section 52-570d creates a cause of action unknown at common law that is strictly construed, and does not reach a third party's rerecording of an already illegal tape. Jezouit v. Malloy (2019) held the statute does not waive the state's sovereign immunity from suit.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (Connecticut Appellate Court 1998, 47 Conn. App. 764)✓A girlfriend secretly taped a radio employee's call, and a coworker re-recorded that tape and used it to get him fired. The court held section 52-570d, strictly construed, bars taping a private call but not a third party's re-recording of an already illegal tape.
- Jezouit v. Malloy (Connecticut Appellate Court 2019, 193 Conn. App. 576)“…his complaint because (1) he brought his claim pursuant to General Statutes § 52-570d, which he contends waives sovereign imm…”
- State v. Skok (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2015)“…on without the consent of all parties to the communication. General Statutes § 52-570d (a) prohibits the use of ‘‘any instrume…”
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 Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?, Can You Record ICE Agents? Know Your Rights by State (2026)
Rhode Island General Laws, Title 12: Criminal Procedure, Chapter 12-5.1: Interception of Wire and Oral Communications
§ 12-5.1-13Civil remedyIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
(a) Any person whose wire, electronic, or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses the communications, and shall be entitled to recover from that person: (1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages, computed at the rate of one hundred dollars ($100) per day for each day of violation, or one thousand dollars ($1,000), whichever is higher; (2) Punitive damages; and (3) Reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation disbursements reasonably incurred. (b) Good faith reliance on a court order issued under this chapter shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this section or any other law. Any communications common carrier and its employees shall be deemed to have acted in good faith upon receipt of a certified copy of the court order issued under this chapter and the representations of the attorney general or an assistant attorney general specially designated by the attorney general.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at webserver.rilegislature.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2010
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Walden v. City of Providence (District Court, D. Rhode Island 2007, 495 F. Supp. 2d 245)“…son who intercepts, discloses, or uses the communications.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-13. Thus, where an interception is made in…”
- Walden v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RI (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2010, 596 F.3d 38)“…scloses, or uses the communications" at issue. R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-13(a). Further, recovery is "from that pe…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Rhode Island Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Rhode Island Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026), Rhode Island AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
Sources and References
- R.I. § 11-35-21(law.justia.com)
- FCC(fcc.gov).gov
- RI Legislature(rilegislature.gov).gov
- R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov
- R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-13 - Civil Remedy(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov