South Carolina
South Carolina 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
South Carolina's wiretapping statute, codified at S.C. Code Section 17-30-20, prohibits the intentional interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. The companion provision at Section 17-30-30 establishes the one-party consent exception: a person who is a party to the communication, or who has obtained prior consent from one party, can lawfully record it. South Carolina backs this framework with some of the steepest civil penalties in the country, including statutory damages of $500 per day of violation or $25,000 (whichever is greater). For AI meeting recording tools that process audio through external servers, the question of whether the bot functions as a participant's extension or an independent interceptor carries unusually high financial stakes.
South Carolina's Recording Consent Framework
South Carolina's wiretapping law is organized across several sections within Title 17, Chapter 30 of the state code. Section 17-30-20 establishes the core prohibition: it is unlawful for any person to intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication.
Section 17-30-30 provides the consent exceptions. Under subsection (C), it is lawful for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception.
What the Statute Covers
South Carolina's recording law applies to three categories of communications. Wire communications include phone calls transmitted over telephone lines, cellular networks, and VoIP services. Oral communications cover in-person conversations where at least one participant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Electronic communications encompass email, text messages, video calls, and other digital transmissions.
No Criminal-Tortious Purpose Limitation
Unlike some one-party consent states that restrict the exception when recordings are made for criminal or tortious purposes, South Carolina's one-party consent provision in Section 17-30-30(C) does not include this limitation. The consent exception is straightforward: if you are a party to the communication, or one party has given prior consent, the interception is lawful. This broader exception makes South Carolina's framework more permissive than states like Rhode Island or the federal standard, which includes the criminal-tortious purpose caveat.
Federal Law Alignment
South Carolina's one-party consent standard aligns with the federal framework under 18 U.S.C. Section 2511. Recordings that satisfy South Carolina law generally comply with federal requirements. When a South Carolina participant records a call with someone in a two-party consent state like California or Florida, the stricter state's law typically governs.
How South Carolina Law Applies to AI Meeting Recorders
The central question under South Carolina law is whether an AI meeting bot that joins a call, processes audio through external servers, and stores data independently qualifies under the one-party consent exception in Section 17-30-30.
The Third-Party Interceptor Analysis
Section 17-30-30(C) permits interception when "the person is a party to the communication." When a meeting participant activates a built-in recording feature within Zoom or Microsoft Teams, that participant is using their platform's own tools. The legal picture changes when a participant invites a third-party AI service that joins the meeting as a separate entity, captures audio through its own infrastructure, and processes data under its own terms of service.
The AI vendor is not a party to the communication. It receives conversation content through an independent technical pathway and may use that content for model training, product improvement, or other purposes beyond the meeting participant's control. Under South Carolina's framework, this resembles the type of third-party interception that Section 17-30-20 was designed to prohibit.
The Otter.ai Class Action
The Brewer v. Otter.ai litigation (N.D. Cal., No. 5:25-cv-06911, filed August 2025) alleges that Otter.ai's notetaker bot autonomously joins meetings, records conversations, and transmits audio to Otter's servers without meaningful consent from non-user participants. The complaint raises federal wiretapping and state privacy claims.
As of April 2026, no South Carolina court has applied the state's wiretapping statute to AI meeting recording tools. But the Otter.ai litigation tests legal theories that could be replicated under South Carolina's statutory framework. South Carolina's exceptionally high civil damages ($500/day or $25,000) make the state a potentially attractive venue for similar claims.
The Ambriz "Capability Test"
The Ambriz v. Google LLC decision (N.D. Cal. 2025) held that an AI system's capability to use recorded data for its own benefit is sufficient to classify it as a third-party interceptor, regardless of whether the data was actually used that way. Applied to South Carolina's framework, this reasoning could support the argument that AI vendors with data-use capabilities are third-party interceptors under Section 17-30-20, not authorized recorders under Section 17-30-30.
Popular AI Meeting Tools and South Carolina Compliance
South Carolina's high civil damages create strong incentives for compliance with the state's wiretapping framework. Each AI tool presents a different risk profile.
Otter.ai OtterPilot
Otter.ai's OtterPilot joins calls as a named bot, records audio, generates transcripts, and produces meeting summaries. Under South Carolina law, the critical issue is whether the host's activation of OtterPilot extends their one-party consent to the bot's independent recording and data processing. Because OtterPilot transmits audio to Otter's servers and processes it under Otter's terms, it operates as an entity separate from the consenting participant.
Fireflies.ai Fred
Fireflies.ai's "Fred" bot follows a similar architecture: joining meetings as a visible participant, recording audio, and processing it on external servers. The Cruz v. Fireflies.AI Corp. lawsuit (C.D. Ill., Dec. 2025) raised biometric data concerns, alleging that Fireflies captured voiceprint data without consent; the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice in March 2026. South Carolina does not have a biometric privacy statute, but voiceprint collection could still implicate the state's common law privacy protections.
Zoom AI Companion and Platform-Integrated Tools
Zoom's AI Companion operates as an integrated platform feature rather than a separate third-party service. Under South Carolina law, this distinction matters because the AI processing occurs within the same platform participants already consented to use. Microsoft Teams Copilot and Google Gemini function similarly within their respective host platforms, presenting a stronger compliance position than standalone AI bots.
Penalties for Violations in South Carolina
South Carolina imposes some of the most significant consequences in the country for wiretapping violations, creating substantial exposure for non-compliant AI recording.
Criminal Penalties
S.C. Code Section 17-30-20 is the provision that makes the conduct a felony: a person who commits a prohibited interception "is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be punished as provided in Section 17-30-50." Section 17-30-50 supplies the punishment, which is imprisonment of up to 5 years, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. Section 17-30-50(B) reduces certain first offenses involving unscrambled radio communications, where the interception was not for commercial gain, to a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine.
Civil Remedies
South Carolina provides some of the most generous civil damages for wiretapping victims in the nation. Under S.C. Code Section 17-30-135, any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication has been unlawfully intercepted can recover actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $500 per day of violation or $25,000, whichever is greater. Courts can also award punitive damages, litigation costs, and attorney fees.
Federal Criminal and Civil Exposure
Violations that also implicate 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 carry federal penalties of up to 5 years in prison. Under 18 U.S.C. Section 2520, victims can recover statutory damages of $10,000 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater, plus attorney fees. Cloud-based AI meeting tools almost always transmit data across state lines, creating potential federal jurisdiction.
Evidence Suppression
Recordings obtained through unlawful interception are generally inadmissible in South Carolina court proceedings. This evidentiary consequence can undermine the practical value of AI-generated meeting transcripts and summaries obtained without proper consent.
Employer and Workplace Considerations
South Carolina employers face particular compliance challenges when deploying AI meeting recording tools, given the state's steep civil penalties.
Employer Recording Authority
Under South Carolina's one-party consent framework, an employer who participates in a meeting can record it without informing other participants. A supervisor on a team call could lawfully activate a personal recording device. Activating a third-party AI service that independently processes the recording raises the third-party interceptor concerns discussed above, and the potential $25,000 minimum civil judgment makes careful compliance planning essential.
Workplace Policy Requirements
Effective South Carolina workplace AI recording policies should identify approved AI tools by name, require advance notice to meeting participants, define data retention schedules and access controls, establish clear opt-out procedures, and account for multi-state compliance when remote workers participate from two-party consent jurisdictions.
South Carolina's Evolving Legislative Landscape
South Carolina's legislature has considered changes to its recording consent framework and has introduced several AI-related measures.
Two-Party Consent Proposals
South Carolina legislators have twice introduced bills to convert the state from one-party to all-party consent. H. 4716 was introduced in the 2023-2024 session, and H. 3593 was introduced in the 2025-2026 session with the same intent. Neither bill has been enacted as of April 2026, but their recurring introduction signals that some South Carolina lawmakers favor stricter consent requirements.
If South Carolina eventually adopts all-party consent, the impact on AI meeting recording would be substantial. All participants would need to affirmatively agree before any recording begins, and AI bots joining calls would need explicit authorization from every person in the meeting.
AI-Specific Measures
South Carolina lawmakers have taken up artificial intelligence in the 2025-2026 session, but only one of the two measures below is legislation. S. 225 is a non-binding Senate resolution, introduced January 15, 2025 and referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry. It expresses support for open-source AI development and calls for prohibitions on activities that violate privacy rights or enable mass surveillance, but a resolution enacts nothing and imposes no obligation on anyone using an AI meeting tool. H. 5253 is a general bill, introduced February 24, 2026 and referred to the House Committee on Education and Public Works; it would limit AI use in public schools, requiring opt-in parental consent and human oversight. It has not been enacted.
Practical Compliance Steps for South Carolina Users
Before the meeting: Notify all participants in writing (via calendar invitation or email) that AI recording and transcription will be used. Identify the specific AI tool by name and briefly describe what data it collects.
At the meeting start: Announce that AI recording is active and provide a brief opportunity for objections. Most platforms display a visual recording indicator; supplement this with a verbal statement.
During the meeting: Honor opt-out requests promptly. Pause or disable the AI recorder for participants who object. Document the opt-out for compliance records.
After the meeting: Store recordings securely with appropriate access controls. Follow your data retention policy for deletion timelines. Restrict transcript access to authorized personnel.
For multi-state calls: Default to all-party consent when participants are in different states. South Carolina's one-party consent standard does not protect recordings involving participants in stricter jurisdictions.
- South Carolina Recording Laws: Complete guide to South Carolina's recording consent framework
- South Carolina Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for recording phone calls in South Carolina
Consult an attorney for advice specific to your situation. This article provides general legal information about South Carolina's recording laws as they apply to AI meeting tools, not legal advice. Laws and their interpretations evolve; the information here is current as of April 2026.
More South Carolina Laws
- South Carolina Data Privacy Laws
- South Carolina Deepfake Laws
- South Carolina Employee Monitoring Laws
- South Carolina Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is South Carolina a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
South Carolina is a one-party consent state under S.C. Code Section 17-30-30. A person who is a party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication, or who has obtained prior consent from one party, can lawfully intercept and record it. Bills to change South Carolina to an all-party consent state have been introduced but not enacted as of April 2026.
Can AI meeting bots legally record my South Carolina meetings without everyone's consent?
This is legally uncertain as of April 2026. While South Carolina's one-party consent law permits participant recording, AI bots like Otter.ai and Fireflies.ai operate as independent third-party services that transmit audio to external servers. Under the wiretapping statute, this pattern could be classified as unauthorized interception by a non-party. No South Carolina court has directly addressed this issue.
What are the penalties for illegal wiretapping in South Carolina?
Under S.C. Code Section 17-30-20, violating the wiretapping law is a felony; Section 17-30-50 sets the punishment at up to 5 years imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine. Civil damages include $500 per day of violation or $25,000 (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages and attorney fees. These civil penalties are among the highest in the country.
Does my South Carolina employer need to tell me about AI meeting recording?
Under South Carolina's one-party consent law, an employer who participates in a meeting can technically record without notice. However, activating a third-party AI service raises additional legal questions about whether the bot constitutes an unauthorized interceptor. Best practices call for clear workplace policies that inform employees about AI recording tools, and the national trend strongly favors transparency.
How does South Carolina law handle recordings when participants are in different states?
When call participants are in different states, the stricter state's recording law typically applies. South Carolina's one-party consent standard is relatively permissive, but calls involving participants in two-party consent states like California, Florida, or Washington require all-party consent. Given South Carolina's growing remote workforce, cross-state compliance planning is essential.
Updates
Corrected which statute makes South Carolina wiretapping a felony (Section 17-30-20 declares the felony; Section 17-30-50 sets the penalty), clarified that S. 225 is a non-binding Senate resolution rather than pending legislation, and repaired a broken related-guide link.
Repointed the Cruz v. Fireflies reference to the court docket.
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
Added a missing citation: the Civil Remedies section stated South Carolina's wiretapping civil damages ($500 per day of violation or $25,000, whichever is greater, plus punitive damages and attorney fees) without citing the statute that establishes them. Verified directly against scstatehouse.gov: this is S.C. Code Section 17-30-135 (Civil Action for Wrongful Interceptions), a separate section from the criminal-penalties provision (Section 17-30-50) already cited elsewhere on the page. The dollar figures and remedies described were already accurate and are unchanged; only the missing citation was added, both inline in the Civil Remedies section and in the sources list.
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.
South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 17: CRIMINAL PROCEDURES
§ 17-30-30Interception by employee of Federal Communications Commission, by person acting under color or law, and when party has given prior consentIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
(A) It is lawful under this chapter for an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the commission in the enforcement of 47 U.S.C. Chapter 5, to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication transmitted by radio or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained. (B) It is lawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception. (C) It is lawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McNeely (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)“…a showing. The South Carolina statute cited by Plaintiff—S.C. Code § 17-30-30—provides “it is lawful . . . for a per…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Carolina Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, South Carolina Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, South Carolina Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
§ 17-30-20Prohibited actsIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, a person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be punished as provided in Section 17-30-50 of this chapter: (1) intentionally intercepts, attempts to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (2) intentionally uses, attempts to use, or procures any other person to use or attempt to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when: (a) the device is affixed to or otherwise transmits a signal through a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or (b) the device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of the communication; (3) intentionally discloses or attempts to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; (4) intentionally uses or attempts to use the contents of any wire, oral, or…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ducharme v. Madewell Concrete LLC (District Court, D. South Carolina 2021)“…the intentional interception of electronic communications. S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-20; 18 U.S.C. § 2511. The critical inquir…”
- Carson v. Emergency MD LLC (District Court, D. South Carolina 2020)“…SCHSA’s list of prohibited acts require interception. See S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-20. The SCHSA defines “intercept” as “the…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Carolina Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026, South Carolina Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), South Carolina Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Calls (2026)
§ 17-30-50Penalty for violating Sections 17-30-20 through 17-30-45In forcecited in 11 of our articles
(A) Except as provided in subsection (B), whoever violates the provisions of Sections 17-30-20 through 17-30-45, upon conviction, must be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both. (B) If the offense is a first offense under this chapter and is not for any unlawful purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, and the wire or electronic communication with respect to which the offense under this chapter was committed is a radio communication that is not scrambled, encrypted, or transmitted using modulation techniques the essential parameters of which have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of the communication, then: (1) if the communication is not the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, and the conduct is not that described in Section 17-30-35(7), the person committing the offense is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov
Also relied on in: Alabama Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, South Carolina Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026), South Carolina Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights for Renters and Landlords (2026)
§ 17-30-135Civil action for wrongful interceptionsIn forcecited in 10 of our articles
(A) Any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter has a civil cause of action against any person or entity who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person or entity to intercept, disclose, or use the communications and is entitled to recover from the person or entity which engaged in that violation relief as may be appropriate, including: (1) preliminary or equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; (2) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of five hundred dollars a day for each day of violation or twenty-five thousand dollars, whichever is greater, not to exceed the limits on liability provided in subsection (F)(3); (3) punitive damages, except as may be prohibited in subsection (F)(4); and (4) a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Carson v. Emergency MD LLC (District Court, D. South Carolina 2020)“…ation of this chapter has a civil cause of action . . . .” S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-135(A). Moreover, the SCHSA’s list of proh…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Carolina Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance and Social Media (2026), South Carolina Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (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: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
§ 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: Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know, Alaska Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026)
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 17: CRIMINAL PROCEDURES § 17-30-10 (Interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications authorized)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- S.C. Code Title 17, Chapter 30(scstatehouse.gov).gov
- S.C. Code Section 17-30-30(law.justia.com)
- S.C. Code Section 17-30-50 (Penalties)(law.justia.com)
- S.C. Code Section 17-30-135 (Civil Remedies)(scstatehouse.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2511(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2520(law.cornell.edu)
- S.C. H. 4716 (Two-Party Consent Bill, 2023-2024)(scstatehouse.gov).gov
- S.C. H. 3593 (Two-Party Consent Bill, 2025-2026)(scstatehouse.gov).gov
- Brewer v. Otter.ai (N.D. Cal.)(courtlistener.com)
- Ambriz v. Google LLC(goodwinlaw.com)
- S.C. S. 225 (Senate Resolution on open-source AI, 2025-2026)(scstatehouse.gov)
- S.C. H. 5253 (AI in Education Bill, 2025-2026)(scstatehouse.gov)