California
California Laws on Recording Doctors and Medical Appointments (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 22, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 22, 2026. · 11 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
California law requires all parties to consent before anyone records a medical appointment. Under Penal Code 632, a conversation between a patient and doctor qualifies as a confidential communication, making secret recordings a criminal offense punishable by fines up to $2,500 and up to one year in jail.
California's Two-Party Consent Rule and Medical Visits
California is one of the strictest states in the country when it comes to recording conversations. Under Penal Code 632, it is illegal to use any electronic device to record a confidential communication without the consent of every person involved.
A conversation between you and your doctor qualifies as a "confidential communication" under state law. This means that before you press record on your phone, you need your doctor's clear and explicit agreement. Unlike one-party consent states where you only need your own permission to record, California requires that all parties to the conversation say yes.
This rule applies whether you are recording audio, video, or both. It does not matter if you are recording for personal reference, to share with a family member, or to keep a record of your diagnosis. Without consent from your doctor (and anyone else present in the room, such as a nurse or specialist), the recording is illegal.
What Counts as Consent?
Consent can be given verbally or in writing. The safest approach is to ask your doctor on the recording itself so that the consent is documented. For example, you might say, "I would like to record this appointment so I can review your instructions later. Is that okay with you?" If the doctor says yes, that exchange on the recording serves as evidence of consent.
California courts have found that consent must be affirmative. If you tell your doctor you are recording and the doctor says "no" but continues with the appointment, that is not implied consent. The doctor's objection stands, and continuing to record after that point could expose you to criminal charges.
Confidential vs. Non-Confidential Communications
PC 632 only protects "confidential" communications. A conversation is confidential when any party to it has a reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or recording. In a private exam room with the door closed, the conversation between you and your doctor is almost certainly confidential.
A conversation held in a busy waiting room or a public hallway within the hospital may not carry the same expectation of privacy. However, courts interpret this narrowly, and most interactions with medical professionals occur in settings where privacy is expected. The safe assumption is that any direct conversation with a healthcare provider in a clinical setting is confidential under California law.
Penal Code 632.01: Recording Healthcare Providers
In 2017, California enacted Penal Code 632.01 through Assembly Bill 1671. This law specifically targets the recording and distribution of confidential communications involving healthcare providers.
PC 632.01 makes it a separate criminal offense to intentionally disclose or distribute a recording of a healthcare provider that was obtained without consent. This applies to sharing the recording on any platform, including social media, video blogs, podcasts, text messages, email, and websites.
Penalties Under PC 632.01
A first violation of PC 632.01 carries the same penalties as a standard PC 632 violation: a fine of up to $2,500 and up to one year in county jail, or 16 months-3 years state prison if charged as a felony. A second or subsequent conviction raises the maximum fine to $10,000 per violation, with the same county jail or felony state prison exposure.
This law was passed partly in response to undercover recording operations targeting healthcare professionals. It reinforces that California treats medical conversations as deserving heightened privacy protection, even beyond what general eavesdropping statutes provide.
Can Patients Record Their Doctors in California?
Yes, but only with consent. If your doctor agrees to be recorded, you are free to make an audio or video recording of your appointment. Many doctors will agree when they understand the purpose, especially if you explain that you want to review medical instructions at home.
Why Patients Want to Record
Research published in the journal Patient Education and Counseling shows that patients forget roughly 40 to 80 percent of the medical information their doctors provide during an appointment. Recording a visit can help patients and their caregivers review complex instructions, medication changes, and treatment plans at their own pace.
Patients with chronic conditions, those managing multiple medications, elderly patients, and people whose first language is not English often benefit the most from recording medical appointments. A 2013 study published in PLoS ONE found that patients who received recorded information about their care showed significantly better recall and comprehension compared to those who relied on memory alone.
How to Ask Your Doctor
The best approach is direct and respectful. Consider these steps:
- Ask before the appointment starts, not after the doctor has already begun speaking.
- Explain your reason clearly. "I have trouble remembering medical instructions and would like to record this so I can listen again at home" is a reasonable and honest explanation.
- If your doctor declines, respect that decision. Ask if they can provide written summaries or after-visit notes instead.
- If the doctor agrees, start the recording and confirm consent on tape.
Some medical practices have formal policies about patient recording. You may want to check with the front desk or patient services department before your visit.
Can Doctors Record Patients Without Consent?
No. California's two-party consent law applies equally to healthcare providers. A doctor who records a conversation with a patient without the patient's knowledge and consent violates Penal Code 632 in the same way a patient would.
If a medical practice records visits for quality assurance, training, or documentation purposes, the practice must obtain your consent before recording. This consent should be documented, typically through a form you sign at check-in or a verbal agreement noted in your chart.
The Cooperative of American Physicians recommends that practices adopting visit-recording programs develop clear policies that explain the purpose of the recording, who will have access to it, where it will be stored, and how long it will be kept.
HIPAA and Recording Medical Appointments
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is a federal law that protects your health information. However, HIPAA does not directly address whether a patient can record a doctor visit.
HIPAA regulates how healthcare providers, insurance companies, and their business associates handle your protected health information (PHI). It gives you the right to access your own medical records, request corrections, and receive an accounting of disclosures. But HIPAA does not create any rule that prohibits or permits a patient from making a personal recording during a visit.
Where HIPAA Does Apply
If a recording captures other patients' information (for example, you accidentally record a conversation about another patient in a shared treatment area), that recording could implicate HIPAA privacy concerns for the provider. Healthcare providers have a legal obligation to protect the privacy of all patients, and a recording that captures another person's PHI could create liability for the practice.
HIPAA also applies to recordings made by healthcare providers themselves. If a doctor or nurse records a patient encounter, that recording becomes part of the patient's protected health information. It must be stored securely, disclosed only with authorization, and handled according to HIPAA's privacy and security rules.
The Bottom Line on HIPAA
Whether you can record your doctor in California depends on state law (PC 632), not federal HIPAA regulations. HIPAA protects your records after they are created. California law governs whether you can create that recording in the first place.
The California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA)
The Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, codified in California Civil Code Sections 56 through 56.37, is one of the strongest medical privacy laws in the United States. Enacted in 1981, it goes beyond HIPAA in several important ways.
What the CMIA Protects
The CMIA prohibits healthcare providers, health plans, contractors, and pharmaceutical companies from disclosing your medical information without a valid written authorization. This authorization must meet specific requirements:
- It must be handwritten by the patient or printed in at least 14-point font.
- It must clearly describe the information to be disclosed.
- It must name the parties authorized to receive the information.
- It must state the purpose of the disclosure and an expiration date.
CMIA and Recordings
While the CMIA primarily governs how providers handle your medical records, it has indirect implications for recordings. If you make a lawful recording of a medical appointment (with consent), the information in that recording is your personal property. The CMIA does not prevent you from sharing your own medical information.
However, if a provider makes a recording of your visit, that recording is governed by the CMIA. The provider cannot share it with third parties without your written authorization, except in certain narrow circumstances such as court orders, public health reporting, or law enforcement investigations.
Penalties Under the CMIA
A provider who negligently discloses your medical information in violation of the CMIA faces administrative fines of up to $2,500 per violation. Knowing and willful violations by a licensed health care professional are tiered: up to $2,500 for a first violation, up to $10,000 for a second, and up to $25,000 for a third or subsequent violation; non-licensed persons or entities face up to $25,000 for any knowing and willful violation, and violations for financial gain can reach up to $250,000. Patients can also bring a civil lawsuit and recover at least $1,000 in nominal damages without needing to prove actual harm, plus any actual damages incurred.
Recording Telehealth Appointments in California
Telehealth has become a routine part of medical care in California. Under Business and Professions Code 2290.5 and related statutes, California requires healthcare providers to obtain written or verbal consent before starting a telehealth session. However, consenting to a telehealth visit is not the same as consenting to have that visit recorded.
Does PC 632 Apply to Telehealth?
Yes. PC 632 applies to any confidential communication, whether it occurs in person or over a phone line, video call, or internet connection. A Zoom call with your doctor carries the same two-party consent requirement as an in-person appointment.
If you want to record a telehealth visit, you must ask your provider for permission before starting the recording. Many telehealth platforms include built-in recording features, but activating those features without consent from all participants violates California law.
Provider Recording of Telehealth Sessions
Some telehealth platforms automatically record sessions for quality assurance or medical documentation. Providers who use these features must inform patients and obtain consent before the recording begins. The California Telehealth Resource Center provides sample consent forms that include language about recording.
If your provider's telehealth platform records sessions automatically, you should see a notification or disclosure in your consent paperwork. If you do not want the session recorded, you have the right to ask the provider to disable the recording feature.
Recording in Hospitals and Emergency Rooms
Hospitals in California generally have policies that restrict or prohibit recording by patients and visitors. These policies are legally enforceable because hospitals are private property, and the administration can set reasonable rules about conduct within their facilities.
Hospital Recording Policies
Major California hospital systems, including UCLA Health, UC Davis Health, and Southwest Healthcare, require patients to refrain from audio, video, or photographic recording without the consent of everyone involved. These policies typically cite California's two-party consent law and patient privacy obligations as the legal basis.
Even if you are the patient, you do not have an automatic right to record inside a hospital. If you attempt to record and a staff member or doctor objects, you must stop. Continuing to record after being told to stop could result in removal from the facility, criminal charges under PC 632, or both.
Emergency Room Considerations
Emergency rooms present unique challenges for recording. The fast-paced, high-stress environment often involves multiple patients in close proximity, conversations between medical staff about different cases, and urgent situations where stopping to obtain recording consent is impractical.
A 2019 study published in the Western Journal of Emergency Medicine examined the intersection of HIPAA and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) in emergency departments. The study found that both patients and physicians have privacy interests in the ER, and that live streaming or recording without consent poses risks to both groups.
If you need to document your care in an emergency room for legal or medical reasons, consider asking a patient advocate to take notes on your behalf rather than attempting to record.
Recording Mental Health Sessions in California
Mental health treatment records receive extra protection under both California law and federal regulations. Recording a therapy session, psychiatric evaluation, or counseling appointment raises additional legal issues beyond the standard two-party consent rule.
Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege
Under California Evidence Code 1014, communications between a psychotherapist and a patient are privileged. This means they cannot be disclosed in court proceedings without the patient's consent. The privilege belongs to the patient, and the therapist has a duty to assert it on the patient's behalf if a subpoena is issued for treatment records.
A recording of a therapy session, if made with consent, could potentially be subpoenaed in a legal proceeding. However, the psychotherapist-patient privilege would likely protect it from disclosure unless the patient waives the privilege or one of the narrow exceptions applies (such as a threat of harm under the Tarasoff duty).
The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act
The Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act governs involuntary civil commitment to mental health institutions in California. Under the LPS Act, patients who are held on a 5150 (72-hour involuntary psychiatric hold) or subsequent holds have specific rights, including the right to privacy.
Recording within a psychiatric facility that operates under LPS designations is generally prohibited without explicit consent from the patient and the facility. Staff members at these facilities cannot record patients, and patients are typically not permitted to use recording devices on the premises due to the privacy rights of other patients.
Therapy Session Recording With Consent
If both you and your therapist agree, recording a therapy session is legal in California. Some therapeutic approaches actually encourage recording. For example, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) practitioners sometimes suggest that patients record sessions so they can review homework assignments and coping strategies between appointments. The consent should be documented in your treatment record.
Recording for Disability Documentation
Patients sometimes want to record medical appointments to document a disability for purposes of requesting workplace accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Can You Record for ADA Purposes?
The ADA does not override California's two-party consent law. Even if you need documentation of a medical condition for an accommodation request, you still need your doctor's permission to record the appointment. The recording itself is not required for an ADA accommodation. Employers must accept sufficient written medical documentation that describes the nature, severity, and duration of the impairment.
Better Alternatives to Recording
For disability documentation, written records are generally more useful than recordings. Ask your doctor to provide a letter that addresses:
- The nature of your medical condition
- How the condition limits your ability to perform specific job functions
- Recommended accommodations
- The expected duration of the condition
This written documentation, prepared on the doctor's letterhead, carries more weight with employers and is easier to submit with an accommodation request than an audio recording.
Using Recordings as Evidence in Medical Malpractice Cases
If you believe your doctor made a medical error, you might consider recording future conversations to gather evidence. However, California's recording laws create significant obstacles to this approach.
Admissibility of Illegal Recordings
Under Penal Code 632(d), evidence obtained through an illegal recording is not admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding. This means that if you secretly record your doctor without consent, the recording cannot be used as evidence in a malpractice lawsuit.
There is one narrow exception, but it does not help a malpractice plaintiff. PC 632(d) allows an illegally obtained recording to be used only as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of Section 632 itself, such as a case charging the person being recorded with their own eavesdropping violation. The statute does not create a general exception for impeaching a witness's inconsistent testimony, so a secretly recorded conversation with your doctor cannot be introduced in a malpractice case for that purpose either.
The PC 633.5 Exception
Penal Code 633.5 allows a person to record a conversation without all-party consent when they reasonably believe the recording will capture evidence of a violent felony, extortion, kidnapping, bribery, or domestic violence. Medical malpractice, even when it results in serious harm, does not typically fall within these categories. This exception is unlikely to apply in most medical recording situations.
What to Do Instead
If you suspect malpractice, the most effective steps are to:
- Request complete copies of your medical records under HIPAA and the CMIA.
- Keep a detailed written journal of your symptoms, treatments, and conversations with your healthcare team.
- Consult with a medical malpractice attorney before attempting any recording.
- If you do want to record, ask your doctor for consent first. A consensual recording is admissible and avoids criminal liability.
Wearable Devices and Medical Recording
The rise of smartwatches, smart glasses, and other wearable technology has introduced new questions about recording in medical settings.
Current Law
As of 2026, California treats wearable devices the same as any other recording device under PC 632. If your smartwatch or smart glasses have the ability to record audio or video, using those features during a medical appointment without the doctor's consent is illegal.
Proposed Legislation: SB 1130
In February 2026, California Senator Eloise Reyes introduced Senate Bill 1130, the Wearable Device Privacy Protection Act. This proposed law would add Penal Code Section 632.8 to establish specific rules for wearable recording devices.
If enacted, SB 1130 would require that wearable devices capable of recording include a visible indicator (such as a light) when the recording function is active. The bill specifically targets medical facilities, financial offices, and retail establishments where sensitive personal information is shared.
Practical Advice
When visiting a doctor's office, hospital, or clinic, be aware that your wearable device could trigger concerns. If you are wearing smart glasses or a device with obvious recording capability, a healthcare provider may ask you to remove it or disable the recording function before proceeding with the appointment.
Penalties for Illegally Recording a Medical Appointment
Recording a doctor without consent in California can result in both criminal and civil consequences.
Criminal Penalties
| Offense | Fine | Jail/Prison |
|---|---|---|
| First violation of PC 632 | Up to $2,500 | Up to 1 year county jail, or 16 months-3 years state prison if charged as a felony |
| Repeat violation of PC 632 | Up to $10,000 | Up to 1 year county jail, or 16 months-3 years state prison if charged as a felony |
| First violation of PC 632.01 (distribution) | Up to $2,500 | Up to 1 year county jail, or 16 months-3 years state prison if charged as a felony |
| Repeat violation of PC 632.01 | Up to $10,000 | Up to 1 year county jail, or 16 months-3 years state prison if charged as a felony |
PC 632 is a "wobbler" offense, meaning prosecutors can charge it as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances. A felony conviction can carry 16 months, two years, or three years in state prison.
Civil Liability
In addition to criminal penalties, the person who was illegally recorded can sue for civil damages. Under Penal Code 637.2, a victim can recover the greater of $5,000 or three times the actual damages suffered, plus attorney's fees and court costs.
Related California Recording Law Topics
- California Recording Laws Overview
- California Audio Recording Laws
- California Video Recording Laws
- California Phone Call Recording Laws
- California Workplace Recording Laws
- California Laws on Recording Police
- California Laws on Recording in Public
- California Security Camera and Surveillance Laws
- California Landlord-Tenant Recording and Surveillance Laws
More California Recording Topics
- California Schools Recording
- California Voyeurism Recording
- California Biometric Privacy Laws
- Surveillance Camera Laws
More California Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record my doctor in California without telling them?
No. California is a two-party consent state under Penal Code 632. You must get your doctor's explicit permission before recording any part of a medical appointment. Recording without consent is a criminal offense that can result in fines of up to $2,500 and up to one year in jail.
Does HIPAA prevent me from recording my doctor?
No. HIPAA is a federal law that governs how healthcare providers handle your protected health information. It does not contain any provision that prohibits or permits patients from recording their own appointments. Whether you can record depends on California state law (PC 632), which requires all-party consent.
Can I record a telehealth video call with my doctor in California?
Only with your doctor's consent. California's two-party consent law applies to all confidential communications, including video calls, phone calls, and telehealth sessions. Consenting to a telehealth visit is not the same as consenting to have the visit recorded. You must ask for and receive separate permission to record.
Can I use a secret recording of my doctor as evidence in a malpractice lawsuit?
Almost certainly not. Under Penal Code 632(d), evidence obtained through an illegal recording is inadmissible in judicial proceedings. A secretly recorded conversation with your doctor would be excluded from a malpractice case. You could also face criminal charges for making the recording.
What should I do if my doctor refuses to let me record?
Respect your doctor's decision. Instead, ask for detailed written after-visit summaries, bring a family member or friend to take notes, request copies of your medical records, or ask the doctor to provide written instructions for your treatment plan. These alternatives give you a record of your care without violating the law.
Updates
Corrected SB 1130's proposed Penal Code additions (adds only Section 632.8, not 632.9) and clarified the CMIA's tiered penalty structure for improper medical-record disclosures.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the PC 632 penalty figures (state prison time is not capped at one year for a felony conviction) and removed a fabricated impeachment exception to PC 632(d)'s inadmissibility rule; the statute's only exception is for proof in a prosecution of a PC 632 violation itself.
Corrected the PC 632.01 (healthcare-provider recording distribution) penalty description and table, which restated a fixed understatement of PC 632's felony exposure for the identical-penalty companion statute.
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.
California Penal Code
§ 632In forcecited in 39 of our articles
(a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 267 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kimmel v. Goland (1990) held the section 47(2) litigation privilege does not bar a damages claim under Section 632 for recording confidential conversations without consent. Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc. (2003) held a Section 632 violation is complete the moment the recording is made, whether or not it is disclosed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rubin v. Green (California Supreme Court 1993, 4 Cal. 4th 1187)“…f telephone conversations with defendants, an offense under Penal Code section 632. We noted that defendants alleged that…”
- Kimmel v. Goland (California Supreme Court 1990, 51 Cal. 3d 202)✓Mobilehome owners secretly taped phone calls with park management in anticipation of suing; the court held the section 47(2) litigation privilege did not bar the cross-complaint for damages under Penal Code section 632, since the injury came from recording, not publication.
- Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (California Supreme Court 1998, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843)✓A TV producer put a wireless microphone on the flight nurse treating a crash victim. No section 632 claim was before the court, but it called section 632 and the intrusion tort laws of general applicability and said the press may not eavesdrop in violation of section 632.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: California Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026)
§ 632.01In force
(a) (1) A person who violates subdivision (a) of Section 632 shall be punished pursuant to subdivision (b) if the person intentionally discloses or distributes, in any manner, in any forum, including, but not limited to, Internet Web sites and social media, or for any purpose, the contents of a confidential communication with a health care provider that is obtained by that person in violation of subdivision (a) of Section 632. For purposes of this subdivision, “social media” means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos or still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations. (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to aid and abet a violation of paragraph (1), for the purposes of Section 31, the person shall either violate, or aid and abet in a violation of, both Section 632 and paragraph (1).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Shenefield v. Shenefield (California Court of Appeal 2022)“…eking restraining orders or prosecuting domestic violence. (Pen. Code, §§ 632.01, subd. (d)(1)(F), 633.5.) Penal Code se…”
- Gutierrez v. Converse Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2025)“…ial communication with a health care provider . . . .” See Cal. Penal Code § 632.01. California has failed to update § 631…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 633.5In forcecited in 8 of our articles
Sections 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, and 632.7 do not prohibit one party to a confidential communication from recording the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission by another party to the communication of the crime of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person, including, but not limited to, human trafficking, as defined in Section 236.1, or a violation of Section 653m, or domestic violence as defined in Section 13700. Sections 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, and 632.7 do not render any evidence so obtained inadmissible in a prosecution for extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person, including, but not limited to, human trafficking, as defined in Section 236.1, a violation of Section 653m, or domestic violence as defined in Section 13700, or any crime in connection therewith.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 21 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Baker (California Court of Appeal 1978, 88 Cal. App. 3d 115)“…ction 632. 3 . Appellant has overlooked Penal Code section 633.5, 4 which is dispositive of…”
- Malinowski v. Martin (California Court of Appeal 2024)“…se permitted under statutory exceptions to the Privacy Act (Pen. Code, §§ 633.5 and 633.6). In the published port…”
- Geragos v. Abelyan (California Court of Appeal 2023)“…matter pleaded.”].) The Geragos Parties next contend Penal Code section 633.5 exempts Kazarian’s recording from exclu…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can I Record My Boss Harassing Me? State-by-State Legal Guide (2026), California Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), California Landlord-Tenant Recording and Surveillance Laws (2026)
§ 637.2In forcecited in 20 of our articles
(a) Any person who has been injured by a violation of this chapter may bring an action against the person who committed the violation for the greater of the following amounts: (1) Five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation. (2) Three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff. (b) Any person may, in accordance with Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525) of Title 7 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bring an action to enjoin and restrain any violation of this chapter, and may in the same action seek damages as provided by subdivision (a). (c) It is not a necessary prerequisite to an action pursuant to this section that the plaintiff has suffered, or be threatened with, actual damages. (d) This section shall not be construed to affect Title 4 (commencing with Section 3425.1) of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Civil Code.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 103 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ribas v. Clark (1985) held the section 637.2 award accrues at the moment of the Privacy Act violation, so the Civil Code section 47 litigation privilege does not bar it, though damages flowing solely from privileged testimony fail. Kimmel v. Goland (1990) applied that reasoning to recordings made in anticipation of litigation.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rubin v. Green (California Supreme Court 1993, 4 Cal. 4th 1187)“…asion of privacy and related torts as well as damages under Penal Code section 637.2, granting persons injured by eavesdropp…”
- Ribas v. Clark (California Supreme Court 1985, 38 Cal. 3d 355)✓A wife asked a third party to listen on an extension phone while she called her husband, and that listener later testified about it; the court held the judicial privilege barred damages from the testimony but not Section 637.2's fixed award, which accrues at the violation.
- Kimmel v. Goland (California Supreme Court 1990, 51 Cal. 3d 202)✓Mobilehome residents secretly taped calls with park management to gather evidence for a planned lawsuit; the court held the litigation privilege did not bar management's Section 637.2 claim, because the injury came from the recording itself and not from any publication.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?, How to Detect and Block Listening Devices in Your Home (2026), Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026)
California Business and Professions Code
§ 2290.5In force
(a) For purposes of this division, the following definitions apply: (1) “Asynchronous store and forward” means the transmission of a patient’s medical information from an originating site to the health care provider at a distant site. (2) “Distant site” means a site where a health care provider who provides health care services is located while providing these services via a telecommunications system. (3) “Health care provider” means any of the following: (A) A person who is licensed under this division. (B) An associate marriage and family therapist or marriage and family therapist trainee functioning pursuant to Section 4980.43.3. (C) A qualified autism service provider certified by a national entity as defined in Section 4999.200 or a qualified autism service professional as defined in Section 4999.201. (D) An associate clinical social worker functioning pursuant to Section 4996.23.2. (E) An associate professional clinical counselor or clinical counselor trainee functioning pursuant to Section 4999.46.3.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hageseth v. Superior Court (California Court of Appeal 2007, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 385)“…lly authorized by the Telemedicine Development Act of 1996 (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 2290.5, subd. (a)(1)). Furthermore, the Medica…”
- Phonedoctorx, LLC v. Healthbridge Management, Inc. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2014, 58 F. Supp. 3d 152)“…r states have enacted similar provisions. See, e.g., CaL. Bus. & Prof.Code § 2290.5(g)(3) (telehealth includes "telemedicin…”
- Woods v. Commissioner Social Security Administration (District Court, D. Oregon 2023)“…ly authorized by the Telemedicine Development Act of 1996 (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 2290.5, subd. (a)(1).)” Hageseth v. Superior…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
California Civil Code
§ 56.10In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) A provider of health care, health care service plan, or contractor shall not disclose medical information regarding a patient of the provider of health care or an enrollee or subscriber of a health care service plan without first obtaining an authorization, except as provided in subdivision (b) or (c). (b) A provider of health care, a health care service plan, or a contractor shall disclose medical information if the disclosure is compelled by any of the following: (1) (A) A court order issued by a court of this state or a federal court, including, but not limited to, a court order issued by a court of this state pursuant to Section 2029.300 of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to a foreign subpoena. (B) A provider of health care, health care service plan, or contractor shall not comply with a court order that constitutes a foreign subpoena, absent a court order issued pursuant to Section 2029.300 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) A board, commission, or administrative agency for purposes of adjudication pursuant to its lawful authority.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 74 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Heller v. Norcal Mutual Insurance (California Supreme Court 1994, 8 Cal. 4th 30)“…provider without first obtaining an authorization . . . .” (Civ. Code, § 56.10, subd. (a).) This core provision is fol…”
- Inabnit v. Berkson (California Court of Appeal 1988, 199 Cal. App. 3d 1230)“…e raised several affirmative defenses, including the bar of Civil Code section 56.10, subdivision (b)(3), 1 con…”
- California Consumer Health Care Council v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (California Court of Appeal 2006, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 593)“…0, subdivision (a), a provision of the Confidentiality Act (Civ. Code, §56.10, subd. (a) (section 56.10(a)), which st…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: HIPAA and Subpoenas: When Can PHI Be Disclosed? (2026)
California Evidence Code
§ 1014In force
Subject to Section 912 and except as otherwise provided in this article, the patient, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between patient and psychotherapist if the privilege is claimed by: (a) The holder of the privilege. (b) A person who is authorized to claim the privilege by the holder of the privilege. (c) The person who was the psychotherapist at the time of the confidential communication, but the person may not claim the privilege if there is no holder of the privilege in existence or if he or she is otherwise instructed by a person authorized to permit disclosure.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 137 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (California Supreme Court 1976, 17 Cal. 3d 425)“…treatment ... depends." (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, comment on Evid. Code, § 1014.) The giving of a warning, defendants c…”
- People v. Wharton (California Supreme Court 1991, 53 Cal. 3d 522)“…e psychotherapist-patient privilege on the facts presented. Evidence Code section 1014 declares, in pertinent part, that “the…”
- In Re Lifschutz (California Supreme Court 1970, 2 Cal. 3d 415)“…emotional condition, the statutory psychotherapist-patient (Evid. Code, § 1014) privilege did not apply. On December 2…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
California Welfare and Institutions Code
§ 5000In force
This part shall be known and may be cited as the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 328 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (California Supreme Court 1976, 17 Cal. 3d 425)“…r's confinement pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 ff. ) Defendants, in turn, assert that…”
- San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Ben C. (California Supreme Court 2007, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 856)“…ervatorship under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). 1 We conclude neither Consti…”
- In Re Qawi (California Supreme Court 2004, 7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 780)“…commitment scheme—the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). 1 Therefore, rather than gra…”
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
- California Penal Code 632 - Eavesdropping on Confidential Communications(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Penal Code 632.01 - Recording and Distributing Healthcare Provider Communications(law.justia.com)
- California Penal Code 633.5 - Exception for Recording Evidence of Crimes(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Your Rights Under HIPAA - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services(hhs.gov).gov
- Individuals Right to Access Health Information Under HIPAA(hhs.gov).gov
- California Civil Code 56.10 - Disclosure of Medical Information by Providers(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Business and Professions Code 2290.5 - Telehealth(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Welfare and Institutions Code 5000 - Lanterman-Petris-Short Act(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation Under the ADA(eeoc.gov).gov
- HIPAA Versus CIPA: Physician Protections in Emergency Departments(pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).gov
- SB 1130 - Wearable Device Privacy Protection Act (2026)(sd29.senate.ca.gov).gov
- Recording Office Visits: Is it Right for Your Practice?(capphysicians.com)
- UCLA Health Patient Rights and Responsibilities(uclahealth.org)
- California Penal Code 637.2 - Civil Remedies for Privacy Violations(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Evidence Code 1014 - Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege(shouselaw.com)