Utah
Utah Phone Call Recording Laws
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. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Utah is a one-party consent state for phone call recording. Under Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4, you may record any phone call you are part of without notifying the other party or obtaining their permission.
Utah's one-party consent law makes it legal to record any phone call you participate in. Under Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4, you do not need to announce "this call is being recorded" or get verbal permission.
This guide covers personal call recording, business call recording, VoIP calls, interstate calls, penalties for illegal recording, and how phone recordings work as evidence.
Utah Phone Call Recording Law
The One-Party Consent Rule
Under 77-23a-4, recording is lawful when at least one party to the communication consents. Your participation is your consent. You can record landline calls, cell phone calls, VoIP calls, video calls, messaging app calls, and conference calls.
Interstate Phone Calls
When you call someone in a two-party consent state, that state may apply its own law to the call, and courts disagree about which state's law governs. In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006), the California Supreme Court applied California law, going forward only, to a Georgia company that recorded calls with California clients, and applied Georgia law to damages for past calls, while the Nevada Supreme Court held that Nevada's statute does not reach a call recorded outside Nevada (Ditech Financial v. Buckles, 2017). The safe course is to tell everyone and get consent before recording. Check both states with our recording consent checker before you place the call.
Thirteen states require the consent of every party: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Several of these are partial: Connecticut (phone calls, civil rule) and Nevada (phone calls) require every party's consent only for calls, Oregon only for in-person conversations and video calls, and Delaware has two conflicting statutes.
Business Phone Calls
Utah businesses can record calls with an employee's consent as the participating party. No federal rule requires a beep or an announcement: the FCC removed its beep-tone rule in 2017. Telemarketing and robocalls are separately regulated under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
VoIP and Digital Calls
Zoom, Teams, Meet, and other platforms are covered by the same rules. Built-in recording features typically notify all participants. External recording methods follow one-party consent.
Penalties
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Illegal interception | Third degree felony | 5 years, $5,000 fine |
| First offense (non-tortious, non-commercial, unencrypted radio, not cellular/PLMR/paging) | Class A misdemeanor | Set by Utah's general misdemeanor sentencing law |
| First offense (non-tortious, non-commercial, cellular, public land mobile radio, or paging radio portion) | Class B misdemeanor | 6 months |
| Civil damages (77-23a-11) | -- | Court may award the greater of actual damages plus profits, $100/day, or $10,000 |
Phone Recordings as Evidence
Lawfully recorded calls are generally admissible in Utah courts. Authentication, relevance, and hearsay rules apply. Keep originals unedited and document metadata.
More Utah Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
More Utah Recording Topics
More Utah Laws
- Utah AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Utah Dashcam Laws
- Utah Data Privacy Laws
- Utah Deepfake Laws
- Utah Employee Monitoring Laws
- Utah GPS Tracking Laws
- Utah Police Bodycam Laws
- Utah Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Utah without telling the other person?
Yes. Utah is a one-party consent state under 77-23a-4. You can record any call you participate in without notification.
Can I record a call with someone in California from Utah?
You should get consent first. California requires all-party consent, and in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006) the California Supreme Court applied California law, going forward only, to an out-of-state company that recorded calls with California clients. Courts in other states disagree about which law governs an interstate call, so getting consent is the safe course.
Is it illegal to tap someone's phone in Utah?
Yes. Intercepting calls you are not part of without any participant's consent is a third degree felony.
Can I use a recorded phone call as evidence in Utah?
Yes. Lawfully recorded calls are generally admissible. The recording must be authenticated, relevant, and unaltered.
Can my employer record my work phone calls?
Yes, if an employee on the call consents. This satisfies one-party consent. Many employers announce recording as a best practice.
Updates
Clarified that Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney applied California law to an out-of-state company's call recording only going forward, with Georgia law governing damages for past calls.
We corrected the civil-damages description (a court may award damages; $10,000 is not a guaranteed minimum), replaced the stricter-state rule for interstate calls with the unsettled choice-of-law picture and the full list of 13 all-party states, and removed a reference to FCC call-recording rules that no longer exist.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Hedged the Connecticut entry in the interstate all-party-consent list to reflect that Connecticut's criminal wiretap law is one-party consent, with all-party consent required only for civil liability on phone-call recording under C.G.S. 52-570d.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the classification of Utah's narrow first-offense misdemeanor exception under 77-23a-4(10)(b): a cordless-phone signal falls under the Class A misdemeanor tier, not Class B, which is reserved for cellular, public land mobile radio, or paging radio-portion communications.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected penalty table: the narrow first-offense alternative under 77-23a-4(10)(b) is a Class B misdemeanor (not Class A), limited to non-tortious, non-commercial, unencrypted radio/cordless interceptions.
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.
Utah Code, Title 77: Criminal Procedure
§ 77-23a-4Offenses -- Criminal and civil -- Lawful interception.In forcecited in 19 of our articles
(1) (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who violates Subsection (1)(b) is guilty of an offense and is subject to punishment under Subsection (10), or when applicable, the person is subject to civil action under Subsection (11). (b) A person commits a violation of this subsection who: (i) intentionally or knowingly intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication; (ii) intentionally or knowingly 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 the device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication or when the device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of the communication; (iii) intentionally or knowingly discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Wood (2023) held a jail's recording of inmate calls fell within the consent exception in section 77-23a-4(7)(a) because the inmate impliedly consented by using phones he was told were monitored. The Quarasan Group, Inc. v. Nozani, LLC (2020) dismissed an eavesdropping claim once Utah law governed and did not bar the recording.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Wood (Utah Supreme Court 2023, 532 P.3d 997)✓A jail recorded an inmate's calls to his wife after warning him by handbook, placard and a message before each call; the Utah Supreme Court held he impliedly consented, so the interception fell within section 77-23a-4(7)(a) and suppression was denied.
- State v. Draughon (Court of Appeals of Utah 2026, 2026 UT App 52)“…rties to the call—consented to the call being recorded. See Utah Code §§ 77-23a-4(7)(b), -7. He claims Counsel should hav…”
- United States v. Maynard (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2010, 615 F.3d 544)“…ined by the police acting pursuant to a warrant. See, e.g., Utah Code Ann. §§ 77-23a-4, 77-23a-7, 77-23a-15.5; Minn Stat §§ 62…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Utah Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Utah Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Utah Audio Recording Laws
§ 77-23a-11Civil remedy for unlawful interception -- Action for relief.In forcecited in 8 of our articles
(1) Except under Subsections 77-23a-4(3), (4), and (5), a person whose wire, electronic, or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover relief as appropriate from the person or entity that engaged in the violation. (2) In an action under this section appropriate relief includes: (a) preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as is appropriate; (b) damages under Subsection (3) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and (c) a reasonable attorney's fee and reasonably incurred litigation costs.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
Also relied on in: Utah Workplace Recording Laws, Utah AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Utah Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
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)
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 I Record My Boss Harassing Me? State-by-State Legal Guide (2026), Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026), How to Detect and Block Listening Devices in Your Home (2026)
Sources and References
- Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4 -- Interception of Communications(le.utah.gov).gov
- Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-11 -- Civil Remedies(le.utah.gov).gov
- FCC Guide on Recording Telephone Conversations(fcc.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 -- Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)