Vermont
Vermont 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. · 2 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Vermont has no general wiretapping statute, so most phone call recording is governed by federal law. Under 18 U.S.C. 2511, any participant in a call may generally record it without notifying the other party. Two Vermont provisions set a different rule for health care calls: a patient or provider may record a telemedicine or telephone consultation only if both consent (18 V.S.A. 9361(d), 9362(d), as amended by Act 80 of 2026).
Vermont generally allows you to record a phone call you take part in under federal one-party consent law (18 U.S.C. 2511). Because Vermont has no general wiretapping statute, federal law is the main framework, with one Vermont exception for health care consultations.
This guide covers personal calls, business calls, VoIP, interstate rules, and penalties.
One-Party Consent
Your participation in the call is your consent. No announcement required. Applies to cell phones, landlines, VoIP, video calls, and messaging apps.
Telehealth and Health Care Calls
Under 18 V.S.A. 9361(d) and 9362(d), as amended by Act 80 of 2026 effective April 20, 2026, neither a health care provider nor a patient may record a provider's telemedicine consultation or audio-only telephone consultation with a patient unless both the patient and the provider consent. Before that amendment, the statutes barred recording these consultations altogether. That rule covers only those consultations; other Vermont calls stay one-party.
Interstate Calls
Vermont borders two all-party consent states:
- Massachusetts -- all-party consent
- New Hampshire -- all-party consent
It is not settled which state's law a court would apply to a call between Vermont and one of these states, so the safe practice is to inform the other party or get their agreement before recording. Before you call, run both states through our recording consent checker.
Business Call Recording
A business may record calls its employee takes part in under federal one-party consent. The FCC has no rules on call recording by individuals, so the rules come from the federal Wiretap Act and the law of the other caller's state. Many businesses announce recording as best practice.
Penalties
| Offense | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Illegal interception (18 U.S.C. 2511) | Up to 5 years |
| Civil damages (18 U.S.C. 2520) | The court may award the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits or statutory damages (the greater of $100/day of violation or $10,000), plus punitive damages and attorney fees |
Evidence
Lawfully recorded calls are admissible in Vermont courts. Keep originals unedited.
More Vermont 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
Back to Vermont Recording Laws
More Vermont Recording Topics
More Vermont Laws
- Vermont AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Vermont Dashcam Laws
- Vermont Data Privacy Laws
- Vermont Deepfake Laws
- Vermont Employee Monitoring Laws
- Vermont GPS Tracking Laws
- Vermont Police Bodycam Laws
- Vermont Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Vermont?
Generally yes. Federal one-party consent (18 U.S.C. 2511) allows recording a call you take part in, with no announcement required. The exception: under 18 V.S.A. 9361(d) and 9362(d), as amended by Act 80 of 2026, a patient or health care provider may record a telemedicine or telephone consultation only if both consent.
Can I record a call with someone in Massachusetts?
You should get consent. Massachusetts requires all-party consent, and it is not settled which state's law a court would apply to the call.
Is wiretapping illegal in Vermont?
Yes. Intercepting calls without any participant's consent violates federal law (18 U.S.C. 2511), carrying up to 5 years imprisonment.
Can I use a recorded call as evidence?
Yes. Lawfully recorded calls are generally admissible in Vermont courts.
Why does Vermont have no wiretapping law?
Vermont never enacted a comprehensive wiretapping statute, so federal law governs most phone call recording there. The Vermont provisions that do address call recording, 18 V.S.A. 9361(d) and 9362(d) (as amended by Act 80 of 2026), cover only telemedicine and telephone consultations with health care providers, which need both patient and provider consent.
Updates
Described Vermont's telehealth recording rule as two statutory provisions rather than one statute.
We noted that video telehealth consultations need both patient and provider consent and softened a statement that Vermont has only one statute on call recording.
Corrected the page to reflect Vermont law, as amended by Act 80 of 2026, which allows a telemedicine or telephone health care consultation to be recorded only with both patient and provider consent; also noted that it is unsettled which state's law governs an interstate call, that the FCC has no call-recording rules, and that federal statutory damages are discretionary.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Restated the federal civil-damages formula under 18 U.S.C. 2520 as the greater of $100 a day of violation or $10,000, rather than a flat $10,000 minimum.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; 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.
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?
§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 130 of our articles
Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 860 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walker v. Darby (1990) held a 2520 plaintiff need not prove the contents of intercepted conversations, only interception and a justified expectation against it. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) barred 2520 damages against defendants who took no part in the interception, obtained the tape lawfully, and disclosed a matter of public concern.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573)✓A postal letter carrier said three supervisors wired an intercom near his workstation to listen in. Reversing summary judgment, the Eleventh Circuit held a section 2520 plaintiff can show interception without proving the contents of specific conversations.
- Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)“…disclosure, or use is entitled to recover civil damages, 18 U. S. C. § 2520 . Title III also bars the use as eviden…”
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)“…7 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(4), or alternatively, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (a), or alternatively, for violations o…”
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), How to Detect and Block Listening Devices in Your Home (2026), Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026)
Sources and References
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 -- Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. 2520 -- Civil Damages(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC Recording Guide(fcc.gov).gov
- Reporters Committee -- Vermont(rcfp.org)
- Act 80 of 2026 (H.84), As Enacted: recording telehealth appointments (Vermont General Assembly)(legislature.vermont.gov).gov