Arizona
Arizona AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Arizona is a one-party consent state, so an AI meeting recorder activated by a meeting participant is lawful under A.R.S. 13-3005. The activating participant supplies the required consent. Unauthorized interception by a non-participant, however, constitutes a Class 5 felony under the same statute.
Arizona treats unauthorized interception of communications as a felony, not a misdemeanor. That single distinction sets Arizona apart from most one-party consent states and raises the stakes for anyone deploying AI meeting recording tools. Under ARS § 13-3005, a person who intentionally intercepts a wire or electronic communication without being a party or present, and without the consent of a sender or receiver, commits a Class 5 felony. Under ARS § 13-702(D), a first offense carries a presumptive term of 1.5 years in prison and up to 2.5 years if the court finds aggravating factors.
For AI meeting recorders like Otter.ai, Fireflies, and Zoom AI Companion, this felony classification means the legal analysis carries real weight. When a human participant activates the tool, one-party consent is likely satisfied. But if a court classifies the AI bot as a non-participant interceptor acting independently, the consequences shift from a civil dispute to a potential felony charge.
Arizona's Recording Consent Framework
Arizona's wiretapping statute, ARS § 13-3005, establishes two parallel prohibitions. First, it criminalizes the intentional interception of a wire or electronic communication by a person who is not a party to the communication and does not have the consent of either a sender or receiver. Second, it criminalizes the intentional interception of a "conversation or discussion" by a person who is not present and does not have the consent of a party to the conversation.
One-Party Consent Standard
Under ARS § 13-3005, a recording is lawful when the person recording is a party to the communication, is present during the conversation, or has obtained the consent of at least one party. This framework functions as a one-party consent standard: if one participant consents to the recording, no violation occurs even if other participants are unaware.
The statute draws a clear line between participants and non-participants. A participant who records their own conversation is entirely outside the prohibition. A non-participant who intercepts without any party's consent commits a felony.
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Arizona's statute applies to oral communications where the speaker has "an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation." Conversations in truly public places, such as streets, restaurants, and parks, generally carry no reasonable expectation of privacy and fall outside the statute's scope.
Virtual meetings conducted over Zoom, Teams, or Google Meet typically carry a reasonable expectation of privacy among participants. The statute's protections apply to these communications.
The Felony Distinction
Unlike most one-party consent states that classify eavesdropping as a misdemeanor, Arizona categorizes unauthorized interception as a Class 5 felony. Under ARS § 13-702(D), a first-offense Class 5 felony carries a presumptive sentence of 1.5 years in prison. The full statutory range runs from a mitigated term of 6 months, through a minimum of 9 months and a maximum of 2 years, to an aggravated term of 2.5 years. This felony classification is unusual among one-party consent states and significantly increases the legal risk for AI meeting tools that may be classified as non-participant interceptors.
How Arizona Law Applies to AI Meeting Recorders
AI meeting recording tools like Otter.ai, Fireflies.ai, Microsoft Copilot, Zoom AI Companion, and Google Gemini in Meet function by joining virtual meetings as visible bot participants or by processing audio streams to produce transcriptions, summaries, and action items. The central legal question under Arizona law is whether the AI bot is a "party" to the communication or a non-participant interceptor.
The Consent Analysis
Under ARS § 13-3005, a recording is lawful when the person recording is a party or has a party's consent. When an Arizona-based meeting participant activates an AI recording tool, that participant is a party to the communication who has consented to the recording. The statute is satisfied.
The human user who activates the AI tool provides the required one-party consent. The AI bot functions as the participant's recording instrument. Under this analysis, the bot does not need to independently qualify as a "party" because the human participant's consent covers the interception.
Is the AI Bot a "Party" or "Non-Participant"?
Arizona's statute distinguishes between parties (who may record freely) and non-participants (who commit a felony if they intercept without consent). AI meeting bots that join as visible participants (displaying names like "Otter.ai Notetaker" or "Fireflies.ai" in the participant list) complicate this binary framework.
Under the most natural reading, the AI bot is a tool or agent of the consenting participant rather than an independent non-participant interceptor. As long as a human participant authorized the bot's presence and recording, the one-party consent requirement is met. The bot records on behalf of the authorizing participant.
However, if a court characterizes the AI bot as an independent entity, separate from the human participant, the felony provisions of ARS § 13-3005 could apply. The bot would be a non-party that intercepted communications. Because the human participant's consent would still constitute "consent of a party," the recording would likely remain lawful even under this less favorable analysis. But the felony classification means this question carries substantially greater risk than in misdemeanor states. No Arizona court has ruled on AI meeting bots as of April 2026.
Auto-Join and Autonomous Recording Risks
The most legally vulnerable scenario under Arizona law involves AI tools that auto-join meetings from calendar integrations without explicit per-meeting authorization from a human participant. If no participant actively authorized the bot's presence in a specific meeting, the bot functions as a non-participant interceptor without any party's consent, a clear Class 5 felony under ARS § 13-3005.
The Ambriz v. Google ruling (N.D. Cal., 2025), while decided under California law, established that a vendor's mere "capability" to use intercepted data for its own purposes can state a wiretapping claim. Arizona's felony classification makes autonomous AI recording even more dangerous from a legal perspective.
Popular AI Meeting Tools and Arizona Compliance
| Tool | How It Records | Arizona Compliance Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Otter.ai | Bot joins meeting as participant; auto-join from calendar | Lawful if activated by a participant; auto-join without participant authorization creates felony-level risk under ARS § 13-3005 |
| Fireflies.ai | Bot joins meeting; integrates with calendar | Same consent framework; felony stakes demand explicit participant authorization per meeting |
| Zoom AI Companion | Built into Zoom; summarizes and transcribes | Host activation provides one-party consent; notification banner adds compliance layer |
| Microsoft Copilot | Integrated into Teams meetings | Activated by participant; Teams displays recording indicator. Strong one-party consent position |
| Google Gemini in Meet | Native to Google Meet | Participant activation provides consent; meeting notification shown |
| Fathom | Records locally on host's device | Host is a party recording their own conversation; strongest compliance position under ARS § 13-3005 |
Given Arizona's felony classification, the safest approach is to ensure that every AI recording session is explicitly authorized by a human meeting participant. Tools that offer auto-join features should be configured to require per-meeting confirmation rather than passive calendar integration.
Penalties for Violations
Criminal Penalties
Arizona's wiretapping penalties are among the most severe of any one-party consent state.
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Prison (First Offense) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful interception of wire/electronic communication | ARS § 13-3005(A)(1) | Class 5 felony | 6 months to 2.5 years | Presumptive 1.5 years; 9 months to 2 years absent mitigating or aggravating findings |
| Unlawful interception of oral conversation | ARS § 13-3005(A)(2) | Class 5 felony | 6 months to 2.5 years | Presumptive 1.5 years; 9 months to 2 years absent mitigating or aggravating findings |
| Installing pen register/trap and trace device | ARS § 13-3005(B) | Class 6 felony | 4 months to 2 years | Presumptive 1 year; 6 months to 1.5 years absent mitigating or aggravating findings |
The Class 5 felony classification for interception of communications is notably severe. For comparison, Alabama classifies the same conduct as a Class A misdemeanor (up to 1 year jail, $6,000 fine), and Alaska also classifies it as a misdemeanor (up to 1 year jail, $25,000 fine). Arizona's felony treatment means a conviction carries permanent criminal record consequences, including potential impacts on employment, professional licensing, and civil rights.
Civil Remedies
Arizona provides a statutory civil cause of action under ARS § 12-731. Any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intentionally intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of ARS Chapter 30 may bring a civil action to recover damages.
Recoverable damages include whichever is greatest: actual damages suffered by the plaintiff plus any profits made by the violator, statutory damages of $100 per day for each day of the violation, or statutory damages of $10,000. Courts may also award preliminary and equitable or declaratory relief as appropriate.
Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 provides an additional civil remedy with statutory damages of $10,000 or actual damages (whichever is greater), plus attorney's fees and litigation costs.
Evidentiary Consequences
Communications intercepted in violation of ARS § 13-3005 may be excluded from evidence in court proceedings. The suppression doctrine applies to both criminal and civil litigation, meaning illegally obtained AI meeting transcripts cannot be used to support legal claims.
Employer and Workplace Considerations
Deploying AI Meeting Tools at Work
Arizona employers who use AI meeting recorders face the same felony-level stakes as individual users. Establishing clear written policies is not just best practice; it is risk mitigation against potential Class 5 felony liability.
Essential policy elements should include designating which individuals have authority to activate AI recording tools, requiring explicit per-meeting authorization rather than blanket auto-join settings, documenting participant consent in the meeting record, addressing cross-jurisdictional concerns when meetings include participants in all-party consent states, and establishing data retention and deletion schedules for AI-generated transcripts.
Cross-State Workforce Issues
Remote and hybrid work arrangements mean Arizona employers may have employees participating in meetings from all-party consent states like California, Florida, or Illinois. Arizona's one-party consent rule governs Arizona-based recordings but does not override the recording laws of other states where participants are located.
Employers should implement procedures to identify when meeting participants are in all-party consent jurisdictions and obtain everyone's consent before activating AI recording tools for those meetings.
HIPAA and Healthcare Settings
Healthcare employers in Arizona must comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) when AI meeting tools record conversations containing protected health information (PHI). Organizations should ensure that any AI transcription tool has a signed Business Associate Agreement (BAA), encrypts data in transit and at rest, and does not use recorded content to train AI models unless fully de-identified.
Employee Monitoring
Arizona does not have a specific employee monitoring statute. Employers may generally record workplace communications when at least one party (typically the employer or a manager participating in the meeting) consents. Recording conversations to which the employer is not a party and in which no party has consented constitutes a Class 5 felony under ARS § 13-3005.
Arizona's AI Legislative Landscape
Arizona is actively engaging with AI regulation, though no enacted law directly addresses AI meeting recording as of April 2026.
HB 2410 (2026), sponsored by Representative Alexander Kolodin, would extend privileged communication protections to AI interactions. Under this bill, a person's communication with an AI system would be privileged if the same conversation with a human professional would already qualify for privilege (attorney-client, doctor-patient, or similar). The bill passed the Arizona House 53-4 in March 2026 and was pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee as of March 11, 2026.
HB 2311 (2026) addresses AI chatbot disclosures, requiring operators to clearly inform minor account holders that they are interacting with artificial intelligence. SB 1786 would require provenance metadata on AI-generated or AI-modified content.
These bills signal Arizona's growing legislative interest in AI governance. Future sessions may address AI surveillance and workplace recording tools more directly, potentially creating specific rules for AI meeting bots that supplement the existing felony wiretapping framework.
Cross-State Considerations for Arizona Users
Arizona's one-party consent rule governs recordings made within Arizona. When a meeting includes participants from other states, the legal analysis grows more complex.
The general rule is that the most restrictive state's law applies. If an Arizona participant records a call that includes a California participant, California's all-party consent requirement under Cal. Penal Code § 632 could apply. Some courts apply the law of the state where the recording occurs, while others apply the law of the state where the recorded party is located.
For practical compliance, Arizona-based users of AI meeting tools should consider disclosing the use of AI recording whenever meeting participants are in all-party consent states. Many AI tools now include notification features designed to address cross-jurisdictional requirements.
The ongoing In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation (N.D. Cal., No. 5:25-cv-06911), filed in August 2025, alleges that Otter.ai recorded meetings without all-party consent. While that case proceeds under California law, any resulting precedent about AI vendor liability could influence how courts nationwide, including Arizona courts, evaluate AI meeting recording tools. Given Arizona's felony classification for unauthorized interception, the outcome of this litigation may have outsized implications for AI tool vendors and users operating under Arizona law.
This article provides general legal information about Arizona recording laws as they apply to AI meeting tools. Laws and their interpretations can change. Consult an attorney for advice specific to your situation.
More Arizona Laws
- Arizona Data Privacy Laws
- Arizona Deepfake Laws
- Arizona Employee Monitoring Laws
- Arizona Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I legally use Otter.ai or Fireflies in meetings if I am in Arizona?
Under ARS § 13-3005, Arizona follows a one-party consent rule. If you are a participant in the meeting and you activate the AI recording tool, you have provided the required consent. The recording is lawful under Arizona law without notifying other participants. However, because unauthorized interception is a Class 5 felony in Arizona, you should ensure the AI tool does not auto-join meetings without your explicit per-meeting authorization.
Why is Arizona's wiretapping law more serious than other one-party consent states?
Arizona classifies unauthorized interception of communications as a Class 5 felony under ARS § 13-3005, carrying a presumptive prison sentence of 1.5 years for a first offense. Most other one-party consent states, such as Alabama and Alaska, treat the same conduct as a misdemeanor with maximum jail time of one year and no prison exposure. This felony classification means a conviction in Arizona carries permanent criminal record consequences.
What civil remedies are available if someone illegally records my meeting in Arizona?
Under ARS § 12-731, you may file a civil lawsuit to recover actual damages plus any profits the violator made from the recording, or statutory damages of $100 per day for each day of the violation, or statutory damages of $10,000, whichever is greatest. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 provides a similar remedy of $10,000 or actual damages, plus attorney's fees. Courts may also grant equitable or declaratory relief.
Can my Arizona employer record meetings using AI tools without telling me?
If your employer or a manager is a participant in the meeting and activates the AI tool, one-party consent is satisfied under Arizona law. The employer does not need to notify you for the recording to be lawful under ARS § 13-3005. However, employers with remote participants in all-party consent states must obtain everyone's consent. Healthcare employers must also comply with HIPAA when AI tools capture protected health information.
What happens if an AI bot auto-joins my meeting without anyone's consent in Arizona?
If an AI bot joins a meeting and records without any participant's authorization, the bot is functioning as a non-participant interceptor without consent, a clear violation of ARS § 13-3005. This constitutes a Class 5 felony, punishable on a first offense by a presumptive 1.5 years in prison and up to 2.5 years with aggravating factors. Both the person who configured the auto-join feature and potentially the AI vendor could face criminal liability. This is why explicit per-meeting authorization is critical in Arizona.
Updates
Corrected the Class 5 felony sentencing range for a first offense: 9 months is the minimum term (not the mitigated term of 6 months) and the aggravated maximum is 2.5 years, not 2, and the figures were fixed everywhere they appeared on the page.
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
Verified the core criminal-penalty claim against A.R.S. § 13-3005 and § 13-702 against azleg.gov: unauthorized interception is correctly classified as a Class 5 felony (presumptive first-offense term 1.5 years). Corrected two secondary inaccuracies found during the same primary-source check: the pen register/trap-and-trace penalty row understated the Class 6 felony first-offense minimum as 4 months (the mitigated figure) instead of the correct 6-month minimum, and the ARS § 12-731 civil-damages description (in Key Takeaways, the Civil Remedies section, and the FAQ) omitted the statute's $10,000 flat statutory-damages alternative, understating available civil recovery.
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.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13 (Criminal Code), Chapter 30 (EAVESDROPPING AND COMMUNICATIONS)
§ 13-3005Interception of wire, electronic and oral communications; installation of pen register or trap and trace device; classification; exceptionsIn forcecited in 23 of our articles
A. Except as provided in this section and section 13-3012, a person is guilty of a class 5 felony who either: 1. Intentionally intercepts a wire or electronic communication to which he is not a party, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of either a sender or receiver thereof. 2. Intentionally intercepts a conversation or discussion at which he is not present, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of a party to such conversation or discussion. 3. Intentionally intercepts the deliberations of a jury or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do. B. Except as provided in sections 13-3012 and 13-3017, a person who intentionally and without lawful authority installs or uses a pen register or trap and trace device on the telephone lines or communications facilities of another person which are utilized for wire or electronic communication is guilty of a class 6 felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Morrison (2002) held that 13-3005 criminalizes unlawful interception but provides no exclusionary remedy, so a recording made in violation of it is not automatically inadmissible. State v. Hauss (1984) held the section inapplicable to a police station interview room talk where no reasonable expectation of privacy existed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Morrison (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2002, 203 Ariz. 489)“…ause it was made without his or her consent in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3005 and 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and was, therefo…”
- State v. Hauss (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1984, 142 Ariz. 159)✓Police secretly recorded an arrested suspect's talk with his girlfriend in a station interview room, after telling her the room was being monitored; the court held there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in that setting, so section 13-3005 did not apply.
- State v. Allgood (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1992, 171 Ariz. 522)“…communication.” (Emphasis added.) See also A.R.S. § 13-3005. (penalizing as a class 5 felony interc…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 12 (Courts and Civil Proceedings), Chapter 6 (SPECIAL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS BY INDIVIDUAL PERSONS), Article 13 (Interception or Disclosure of Wire, Oral or Electronic Communications)
§ 12-731Recovery of civil damagesIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
A. Except as provided in title 13, chapter 30, any person whose wire, oral or electronic communication is intentionally intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of title 13, chapter 30 may bring a civil action to recover from the person or entity that engaged in the violation the following: 1. Such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate. 2. Damages in an amount that is the greater of either: (a) The sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation. (b) Statutory damages of one hundred dollars a day for each day of the violation. (c) Statutory damages of ten thousand dollars. 3. Punitive damages in appropriate cases. 4. Reasonable attorney fees and other reasonable costs of litigation. B. A civil action under this section may not be commenced later than one year after the date upon which the plaintiff first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2004
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In Re Cases Filed by DIRECTV, Inc. (District Court, D. Arizona 2004, 344 F. Supp. 2d 647)“…s under A.R.S. § 13-3008(A) and request attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-731 (A)(c)(4). 12 Because…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13 (Criminal Code), Chapter 7 (SENTENCING AND IMPRISONMENT)
§ 13-702First time felony offenders; sentencing; definitionIn forcecited in 12 of our articles
A. Unless a specific sentence is otherwise provided, the term of imprisonment for a first felony offense shall be the presumptive sentence determined pursuant to subsection D of this section. Except for those felonies involving a dangerous offense or if a specific sentence is otherwise provided, the court may increase or reduce the presumptive sentence within the ranges set by subsection D of this section. Any reduction or increase shall be based on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances listed in section 13-701, subsections D and E and shall be within the ranges prescribed in subsection D of this section. B.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 446 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Shattuck (Arizona Supreme Court 1984, 140 Ariz. 582)“…ly under the authority of the language in what is currently A.R.S. § 13-702(D)(11) [formerly A.R.S. 13-702(D)(9)] —…”
- State v. Henderson (Arizona Supreme Court 2005, 210 Ariz. 561)“…t fit within the list of statutory aggravators codified in A.R.S. § 13-702.C: infliction or thr…”
- State v. Walton (Arizona Supreme Court 1989, 159 Ariz. 571)“…he Arizona death penalty statute. Under the provisions of A.R.S. § 13-702(D), which applies to noncapital sentenc…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
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.
§ 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.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- ARS § 13-3005 - Interception of Wire, Electronic and Oral Communications(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS § 13-702 - First Time Felony Offenders; Sentencing(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS § 12-731 - Recovery of Civil Damages (Wiretapping)(azleg.gov).gov
- Arizona HB 2410 - AI Privileged Communications (2026)(azleg.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- RCFP Reporters Recording Guide - Arizona(rcfp.org)
- In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, N.D. Cal., No. 5:25-cv-06911(courtlistener.com)
- Arizona AI Legislation Overview (NCSL 2025)(ncsl.org)