Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026)

Whether video recording someone without their consent is illegal depends on three independent legal layers that must all be analyzed: the wiretap consent rules for the audio track, voyeurism statutes for the location and subject matter, and civil privacy torts for any resulting damages. Missing any one layer can mean criminal exposure even when the other two seem clear.

Information last verified on August 3, 2026. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses video recording consent law across all 50 US states and under federal statutes. It does not address Canadian recording consent law; see Canada recording laws for that.

---

The Short Answer: Three Legal Layers Must Align

Silent video recording in a public place is almost always legal. Silent video recording in a bathroom, bedroom, locker room, or other private space is almost always a crime, under voyeurism statutes in every state plus 18 U.S.C. § 1801 on federal property. The moment the microphone turns on, wiretap consent rules from the federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.) and their state counterparts govern the audio track independently. And even when no criminal law is technically violated, secretly recording someone in a private setting can still produce civil liability under the common-law privacy torts recognized in most states. Each of those three layers is independent: a recording can be protected from wiretap prosecution (because there is no audio) while still violating a voyeurism statute (because the subject is in a private space), and still give rise to a civil intrusion claim. A recording can be silent, taken in public, and still expose the recorder to a defamation or right-of-publicity claim if the footage is misused. Understanding all three is the only way to assess legality.

The three layers in brief:

1. Wiretap consent (audio only). No audio, no wiretap issue. Audio present: one-party or all-party consent rules apply depending on the state. (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d); state wiretap statutes.)
2. Voyeurism statutes (location and subject matter). Private spaces and intimate areas are protected everywhere, audio or not. (18 U.S.C. § 1801 for federal property; state voyeurism statutes for everywhere else.)
3. Civil privacy torts. Four Restatement torts can attach even when criminal liability does not: intrusion upon seclusion (§ 652B), public disclosure of private facts (§ 652D), false light (§ 652E), and appropriation of likeness (§ 652C).

---

Layer 1: The Audio Track and Wiretap Consent Laws

Silent video recording is not covered by the federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq.) because the Act applies to "wire, oral, and electronic communications," and a purely visual recording does not intercept a "communication" as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(1), (2), and (4). The moment a video recording also captures audio, however, the Wiretap Act and its state counterparts treat the audio track as an intercepted oral communication. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), one participant in a conversation may consent to interception, making one-party consent the federal floor. State law can be stricter. In 38 states plus the District of Columbia, the federal one-party consent rule applies: if you are a party to the conversation you are recording, your own consent is generally sufficient for the audio portion.

Nevada sits in that column but operates as a hybrid for the audio track. NRS 200.620, as construed by the Nevada Supreme Court in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998), requires the consent of every party before a telephone call may be recorded, and a willful violation is a category D felony (NRS 200.690). In-person conversations remain one-party under NRS 200.650, which permits recording when authorized by one of the persons engaging in the conversation. See Nevada recording laws for the full breakdown.

In 12 states, all parties must consent before audio may be captured. Those all-party consent states are California (Cal. Penal Code § 632), Connecticut, Delaware, Florida (Fla. Stat. § 934.03), Illinois (720 ILCS 5/14-2), Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington (Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030).

Connecticut belongs on that list only for telephone calls. Its criminal eavesdropping definitions are one-party and reach only a recorder who is not a party or is not present: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-187(a)(1) defines wiretapping as recording a telephonic communication "by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver," and § 53a-187(a)(2) defines mechanical overhearing of a conversation as recording it "without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat." The all-party requirement comes instead from Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d, a civil cause of action limited to private telephonic communications and satisfied by consent obtained at the start of the recording, a recorded verbal notification, or an automatic tone warning device.

Michigan is the state most often miscounted in that list. Its eavesdropping statute reads like an all-party rule, but Michigan courts have read a participant exception into the statutory definition of "eavesdrop" (MCL 750.539a), so a party to a conversation may record it without the other party's consent. Michigan operates as a one-party consent state in practice; see Michigan recording laws for the governing case law.

The practical implication for video: a person filming a public event on their phone with the microphone on must comply with the consent rules of the state where the recording is made. In all-party consent states, bystanders whose conversations are captured without knowledge or consent may have a wiretap claim even though the video itself would have been perfectly legal. In one-party consent states, the recorder's own participation is sufficient consent for the audio.

A useful way to frame the distinction: wiretap law governs the microphone, not the lens. Keeping the microphone off sidesteps the consent tier entirely. The voyeurism and civil-tort tiers, discussed below, remain in force regardless of whether audio is captured.

Watch out: Adding a microphone to a security camera or dashcam in an all-party consent state converts a lawful visual recording system into a potential wiretap violation the moment a conversation that the recorder is not party to is captured.

---

Layer 2: Voyeurism and Unlawful Surveillance Statutes

Every state has a voyeurism or unlawful surveillance statute that makes secret video recording of a person in a private space a crime, completely independent of the wiretap consent analysis. Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1801) covers the same conduct on federal maritime and territorial property. Understanding the scope of each is essential.

Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1801 (Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004)

Section 1801 makes it a federal crime to intentionally capture an image of a "private area" of an individual without consent, under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (18 U.S.C. § 1801). The statute defines "private area" as:

"the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual" 18 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(3)

Critically, the statute applies to any location (including public spaces) where the person reasonably expects not to be imaged, not merely to traditional private spaces. However, § 1801 is jurisdictionally limited to "the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States": military bases, national parks, the District of Columbia, federal courthouses, ships, and aircraft (18 U.S.C. § 1801). It does not create a nationwide federal ban on voyeurism. State statutes carry the load for the vast majority of locations.

State voyeurism statutes: ten major jurisdictions

For deeper analysis of individual states, see the dedicated voyeurism spoke pages: California voyeurism laws, Florida digital voyeurism law, New York unlawful surveillance, Texas invasive visual recording, Illinois hidden camera laws, Michigan voyeurism law, and Virginia hidden camera laws.

Every other state has equivalent statutes. The common thread across all of them is the location and subject matter: bathrooms, bedrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and recording of intimate areas are protected everywhere in the country.

Watch out: 18 U.S.C. § 1801 is confined to federal property. If a voyeuristic recording occurs in an ordinary apartment, retail store, or private school, federal § 1801 does not apply. The state voyeurism statute is the operative law.

---

Layer 3: Civil Torts and Intrusion Upon Seclusion

Even when no criminal charge is filed, surreptitious video recording can trigger civil liability under four common-law privacy torts recognized by the Restatement (Second) of Torts. These torts are available regardless of whether the footage was ever shared with anyone else.

1. Intrusion upon seclusion (Restatement § 652B)

Section 652B imposes liability on anyone who "intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns... if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person." The act of making a surreptitious recording in a private setting is itself sufficient to state a claim: no publication, sharing, or use of the footage is required. This is the most frequently litigated of the four torts in the recording context.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court recognized the tort's application to surveillance equipment in Hamberger v. Eastman, 106 N.H. 107, 206 A.2d 239 (N.H. 1964). A landlord installed in a married couple's bedroom a device "capable of transmitting and recording any sounds and voices originating in [the] bedroom," and the court held the intrusion actionable as an invasion of privacy, allowing the couple to recover for the resulting emotional distress. What the court treated as the invasion was the installation of a device capable of capturing the couple's private life, not any later use made of a recording.

The California Supreme Court applied the same principle to video in Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc., 18 Cal. 4th 200, 955 P.2d 469 (Cal. 1998). The court held that the interior of a rescue helicopter could constitute a private space creating a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that media defendants have no constitutional privilege to intrude on private communications. The court stated: "defendants had no constitutional privilege to intrude on plaintiffs' seclusion and private communications." The focus of the intrusion analysis is whether the recording was made in a private place or of a private matter, not merely whether the recorder was physically present.

2. Public disclosure of private facts (Restatement § 652D)

Section 652D liability attaches when "publicity" is given to private matters that are "highly offensive to a reasonable person" and lack "legitimate concern to the public." The Restatement defines "publicity" as "communication to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge." Posting a surreptitious video to social media or distributing it to others satisfies the publicity element. This tort requires publication, unlike intrusion upon seclusion.

3. Appropriation of name or likeness (Restatement § 652C)

Section 652C imposes liability when someone appropriates another's name or likeness "for their own use or benefit." Commercial exploitation of a secretly-recorded image, for example in advertising or for sale, triggers this theory. It operates as a property right, licensable to others but belonging initially to the subject.

4. False light (Restatement § 652E)

False light liability arises when a recording is published in a way that places the subject in a false and highly offensive light before the public, and when the recorder had knowledge of or reckless disregard for the falsity. Selective editing or misleading framing of footage can satisfy this element even if individual frames are accurate.

Civil damages: In states that recognize intrusion upon seclusion, damages include actual damages (emotional distress, lost wages), nominal damages, and punitive damages when conduct is egregious. California adds statutory civil remedies under Cal. Penal Code § 637.2, which provides $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages (whichever is greater) for wiretap violations that include audio. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2520, federal wiretap civil claims can yield $100 per day of violation or $10,000 (whichever is greater) plus attorney fees.

---

Public vs. Private Spaces and the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Line

The dividing line between lawful and unlawful video recording turns on whether the subject had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the location where the recording was made. This standard originates in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), and has been extended by courts to video surveillance contexts across the country. The Katz test asks: (1) did the person subjectively expect privacy? and (2) is that expectation one that society is prepared to recognize as objectively reasonable?

Clearly public spaces (no reasonable expectation of privacy):

Recording is generally lawful in streets, sidewalks, parks, government buildings open to the public, public transit, retail store floors, public events, and anywhere visible from a public vantage point. People who enter these spaces accept that their appearance and movements may be observed and recorded.

Clearly private spaces (near-absolute privacy expectation):

Bathrooms, restrooms, bedrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, fitting rooms, hotel rooms, medical examination rooms, and tanning booths. Recording in any of these without consent is illegal under state voyeurism statutes and, on federal property, under 18 U.S.C. § 1801. No consent exception exists.

Gray area spaces (context-specific analysis):

The key question for gray-area cases is whether a reasonable person standing in that space would expect to be unobserved. The California public recording laws page provides a detailed breakdown of how California courts apply this framework to common scenarios.

---

Special Contexts: Workplaces, Schools, Healthcare, and Restrooms

Workplaces

Open office floors, common areas, and production spaces generally carry no reasonable expectation of privacy for work activities visible to coworkers. Employer video recording in those spaces is typically lawful. However, restrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas within workplaces retain full privacy protection under state voyeurism statutes regardless of who installs the camera. Employers who place cameras in restrooms or changing areas face criminal liability under state voyeurism statutes and civil liability under Restatement § 652B.

Employee recording of coworkers or supervisors at work is governed by the same wiretap and voyeurism rules that apply to anyone. Additionally, employer no-recording policies must satisfy the National Labor Relations Board's Stericycle (2023) standard: a policy that would chill employees from exercising their Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act (concerted activity, discussion of wages and working conditions) is presumptively unlawful unless the employer can demonstrate a legitimate, substantial business justification that outweighs the burden on those rights.

Schools

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g and 34 C.F.R. Part 99, governs video recordings in K-12 schools when those recordings constitute "education records." Under the US Department of Education's guidance, a video is an education record when it is (1) directly related to an identifiable student and (2) maintained by the school or educational institution. Schools cannot release education-record videos to police or third parties without written parental consent or a valid FERPA exception (such as a health and safety emergency or a judicial order). Videos that happen to show students incidentally in the background at public school events are not education records. Parents recording at public school events are not subject to FERPA themselves, but they remain subject to state wiretap and voyeurism statutes if the recording is made in a private space.

Healthcare

The HIPAA Privacy Rule (45 C.F.R. § 164.502) restricts covered entities (hospitals, clinics, insurers, and their business associates) from making or sharing video recordings that constitute protected health information (PHI). A video recording that identifies a patient and is made by or at the direction of a covered entity during the delivery of care constitutes PHI and cannot be disclosed without patient authorization or a valid HIPAA exception. Patients who wish to record their own medical encounters are not subject to HIPAA (which protects patients' information, not the act of recording by patients). They are, however, subject to state wiretap consent rules if their recording captures audio of healthcare providers.

Restrooms (universal rule)

Regardless of context, location, or who owns the building, recording in a bathroom, restroom, or toilet facility without consent is illegal everywhere in the United States under state voyeurism statutes and, on federal property, under 18 U.S.C. § 1801. There are no exceptions for employers, landlords, or building owners. Posting a sign does not constitute consent.

---

Modern Contexts: Drones, Doorbell Cameras, Smart Glasses, Body Cameras, and Nanny Cams

Drones

Since March 16, 2024 the FAA has enforced its Remote ID rule (14 C.F.R. Part 89) against every drone that is required to be registered, meaning any drone weighing 250 grams or more and any drone flown under Part 107 rather than the recreational exception. Those aircraft must broadcast identification, location, and altitude in real time (14 C.F.R. § 89.305). Recreational drones under 250 grams are outside the rule, and a drone without Remote ID equipment may still be flown inside an FAA-Recognized Identification Area so long as it stays within visual line of sight. FAA Remote ID addresses airspace management, not privacy: the rule says nothing about what a drone may lawfully record. Privacy is governed entirely by state law. As of 2025, 44 states have enacted drone-specific privacy statutes. California, Florida, Idaho, and Wisconsin have explicit statutes restricting video recording from drones over private property or of individuals with a reasonable expectation of privacy. Florida's statute (Fla. Stat. § 934.50) prohibits using a drone to photograph private property or persons on it without written consent. Idaho (Idaho Code § 21-213) prohibits drone surveillance of private property without consent. Wisconsin (Wis. Stat. § 942.10) classifies drone voyeurism as a Class A misdemeanor.

The underlying analysis is the same as for any camera: the drone can record public spaces freely but cannot peer into spaces where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy, including the interiors of homes, enclosed backyards, and private pools.

Doorbell Cameras

Doorbell cameras (Ring, Nest, Eufy, and similar devices) that are angled toward public sidewalks, driveways, and streets are lawful in all 50 states. People on public thoroughfares have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The legal exposure arises when a camera is deliberately angled to capture a neighbor's interior spaces: a bedroom window, an enclosed backyard, a private patio. In those cases, the camera operator may face voyeurism statute liability and a civil intrusion claim under Restatement § 652B.

The FTC took action against Ring LLC in 2023 for allowing employees and contractors to access consumers' private home video footage without authorization, and for failing to implement adequate security measures that enabled hackers to access customer accounts. In April 2024, the FTC distributed $5.6 million to approximately 117,044 Ring customers, with refunds processed through PayPal. The settlement also required Ring to implement a privacy and security program and prohibited the company from monetizing customer video without explicit consent (FTC v. Ring LLC, FTC File No. 192 3130 (2023 settlement)).

Smart Glasses

Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses (2023 to present) can record video without an obvious indicator visible to the subject. In 2024, Harvard researchers demonstrated that the glasses could be used to identify strangers in real time via facial recognition. No federal smart-glasses-specific privacy statute exists as of 2026. The recording rules that apply to any camera apply equally to smart glasses: recording in public is generally lawful; recording in private spaces without consent implicates voyeurism statutes and Restatement § 652B. For background on the privacy concerns raised by the glasses' design, see the Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses privacy scandal coverage on this site.

Body Cameras

Law enforcement body cameras are governed by state body-camera statutes and department policies, not by general wiretap or voyeurism law. Private individuals wearing body cameras in public are subject to the same wiretap and voyeurism rules as any other recording device: audio triggers consent rules; recording in private spaces without consent triggers voyeurism liability.

Nanny Cams and Hidden Cameras

Nanny cams (hidden cameras installed by homeowners to monitor care workers) are lawful in most states when placed in common areas of the owner's own home. They become unlawful when: (1) placed in bathrooms or bedrooms where care workers have a reasonable expectation of privacy; (2) they capture audio in all-party consent states without the worker's knowledge; or (3) the subject is a tenant rather than an employee and the state restricts landlord surveillance of tenants' living spaces. Common areas (living rooms, kitchens, entryways) on the homeowner's own property are generally permissible recording locations.

On the other side of that equation, a guest, tenant, or short-term renter who suspects a camera has been hidden in their space can follow the sweep method in our guide to detecting hidden cameras and listening devices.

---

Recording Police and Public Officials: First Amendment Protection

Video recording police officers performing official duties in public places is protected by the First Amendment. Every federal circuit court that has ruled on the question has recognized this right: the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have each affirmed it, with the Fourth, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits recognizing the right in varying contexts. Key decisions include Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011); Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017); Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017); and ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012).

The right extends to silent video and to video with audio alike. Officers cannot lawfully order a person to stop recording from a public space or from their own property, and cannot confiscate recording devices without a warrant. The right does not permit physical interference with law enforcement activities, recording in non-public spaces (such as the interior of a police station without authorization), or recording in locations requiring security clearance.

For recording immigration enforcement officers and other federal officials in public, see the related article on recording ICE during raids.

---

Penalties: Federal and State Criminal Plus Civil Damages

The penalties for illegal video recording vary significantly by jurisdiction and offense type. The table below summarizes the principal criminal provisions and available civil remedies.

In addition to the criminal provisions above, civil intrusion upon seclusion claims under Restatement § 652B are available in the vast majority of states. Damages include actual damages (emotional distress, lost wages), nominal damages where actual harm is not shown, and punitive damages where the conduct was egregious. No publication of the recording is required to state an intrusion claim.

---

State-by-State Quick Reference

Every state has both an audio consent rule and a voyeurism statute protecting private spaces. The table below covers the 15 highest-traffic states with links to the detailed voyeurism spoke pages for each.

For the full state-by-state audio consent breakdown, see US recording laws by state.

---

Deepfakes, AI-Generated Content, and the TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025-2026)

Video recording analysis now intersects with a substantial federal and state AI-deepfake regime. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025, makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate images of an identifiable adult, including AI-generated or synthetic depictions. The criminal prohibitions took effect immediately upon signing. The platform notice-and-takedown obligations begin May 19, 2026, requiring covered online services to remove identified content within 48 hours of a valid notice. The FTC enforces the platform-compliance provisions.

Even where a person consented to be filmed in real life, downstream use of that footage to generate a sexual deepfake remains independently criminal under the Act and under the rapidly growing state-level deepfake statutes. Tennessee's ELVIS Act (eff. July 1, 2024) protects voice and likeness against AI cloning. Wyoming's Enrolled Act 32 (eff. July 1, 2026) creates a 10 to 12 year felony for synthetic NCII. South Carolina's Act 37 of 2025 reaches both authentic and digitally-forged intimate imagery. Rhode Island, Florida, California, New York, Texas, Maryland, Idaho, and over thirty other states have enacted or amended deepfake or NCII statutes since 2024. For video recording in a public place, the underlying capture may be lawful, but the subsequent edit, alteration, or AI-generated derivative can independently violate state criminal law, state civil tort law, and the federal Act.

---

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about video recording consent laws in the United States. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws vary by state and are subject to change. The information on this page was verified as of August 3, 2026. For advice about your specific situation, consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction.

---

About the Author

[PLACEHOLDER: author roster pending]

---

Related Articles

• US recording laws by state: full state-by-state audio consent breakdown
• All-party consent states: the 12 states requiring everyone's permission to record audio
• One-party consent states: the 38 states where your own consent is sufficient
• Can employers record employees at work?: workplace recording rules in depth
• Recording ICE during raids and detentions: First Amendment rights when recording federal officers

---

---

Last updated: August 3, 2026. Statutes cited reflect their in-force versions as of August 3, 2026.