Delaware
Delaware Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules, Interstate Calls, and Penalties (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. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Delaware phone call recording involves a conflict between two state statutes: 11 Del. C. Section 2402 permits recording with one-party consent, while Section 1335 requires consent from all parties to a telephone call. Because the conflict is unresolved, the safest practice is to obtain all-party consent before recording.
Phone call recording in Delaware involves navigating the state's unique dual-statute framework. Because Delaware has two conflicting laws on recording consent, anyone recording a phone call in or involving Delaware must understand both statutes and the practical implications of their conflict. This guide covers the rules for personal calls, business calls, interstate calls, and the penalties for non-compliance.
Delaware's Phone Call Recording Framework
The Statutory Conflict Applied to Phone Calls
Delaware's two recording statutes apply directly to phone call recording:
The Wiretapping Statute (11 Del. C. Section 2402) prohibits the intentional interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication. "Wire communication" specifically includes telephone conversations. The statute permits interception when one party to the conversation consents, as long as the recording is not made for criminal or tortious purposes.
The Privacy Statute (11 Del. C. Section 1335(a)(4)) makes it a crime to "intercept without the consent of all parties thereto a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of communicating privately." The word "telephone" appears explicitly in this provision, making clear that phone calls fall within its scope.
The federal court in U.S. v. Vespe (389 F. Supp. 1359, D. Del. 1975) interpreted Section 1335 as not prohibiting the recording of phone conversations made with the consent of one party. However, this was a federal court ruling with limited precedential weight in Delaware state courts. The safer approach remains obtaining all-party consent for any phone call recording.
What "All-Party Consent" Means for Phone Calls
All-party consent means that every person who is part of the phone conversation must agree to the recording before it begins. This includes:
- All participants on a standard two-person call
- Every participant on a conference call or group call
- Anyone who joins the call after recording has started (they must be notified and must consent)
- Anyone who is put on speakerphone where others can hear the call
The consent requirement applies regardless of who initiates the call or the subject matter of the conversation.
Recording Personal Phone Calls in Delaware

Rules for Individuals
When recording personal phone calls in Delaware, follow these guidelines:
Before the call:
- Decide whether you need to record and for what purpose
- Prepare a brief statement informing the other party about the recording
At the start of the call:
- Clearly state that you intend to record the conversation
- Ask if the other party consents to being recorded
- If they decline, you must not record the call
- If they consent, begin recording and note that consent was given on the recording itself
During the call:
- If additional people join the call, inform them of the recording and obtain their consent
- If any party withdraws consent during the call, stop recording immediately
After the call:
- Store the recording securely
- Do not share the recording with third parties without legal authority or the consent of the recorded parties
Using Phone Recording Apps
Phone recording apps such as TapeACall, Rev Call Recorder, and Google Phone's built-in recorder are widely available but do not change the legal requirements. Using an app to record a phone call in Delaware still requires all-party consent. Some apps play an automated announcement that the call is being recorded, which can help establish consent, but you should still explicitly ask for agreement.
Recording Voicemail and Automated Messages
Recording voicemail messages left on your phone is generally permissible because the person leaving the message has voluntarily communicated with your recording device. Similarly, recording automated messages (such as customer service menus, appointment reminders, or informational hotlines) typically does not raise consent issues because these are not private conversations between parties.
Business Phone Call Recording in Delaware

Employer and Business Requirements
Delaware businesses that record phone calls must comply with both the all-party consent standard and any applicable notice requirements.
Customer-facing calls:
- Play a clear automated message at the start of the call stating that the call may be recorded (e.g., "This call may be monitored or recorded for quality assurance and training purposes")
- The caller's continued participation after hearing this notice generally constitutes implied consent
- If a caller objects, the business should offer to continue the conversation without recording or provide an alternative communication method
Employee phone monitoring:
- Under Title 19 Section 705, employers must provide daily electronic notice or one-time written notice before monitoring employee telephone calls
- The penalty for non-compliance is $100 per violation
- Once an employer monitoring a business call determines the call is personal in nature, they must stop monitoring
Compliance checklist for businesses:
| Requirement | How to Comply |
|---|---|
| All-party consent | Automated announcement at call start |
| Employee notice (Title 19 Section 705) | Written policy acknowledgment or daily electronic notice |
| Record retention | Store securely with access controls |
| Training | Train all staff on recording procedures |
Call Center Operations
Businesses operating call centers in Delaware face heightened compliance obligations due to the volume of recorded calls. Best practices include:
- Automated recording announcements on every inbound and outbound call
- Written employee acknowledgments of monitoring policies
- Regular audits of recording practices
- Clear data retention and deletion policies
- Staff training on handling callers who object to recording
Professional Services Phone Recording
Attorneys, healthcare providers, financial advisors, and other professionals in Delaware may face additional obligations beyond the general recording consent requirements. These may include:
- Attorney-client privilege protections that limit who can access recorded legal consultations
- HIPAA requirements for healthcare providers recording patient calls
- Financial industry regulations under Dodd-Frank and SEC rules requiring certain call recordings
- Insurance industry requirements for recording claims and policy discussions
Interstate Phone Call Recording

Which Law Applies?
When a phone call involves parties in different states, the recording laws of each state may apply. Delaware residents and businesses must consider:
Delaware caller to a one-party consent state: Delaware's all-party consent standard applies because you are subject to Delaware law. Even if the other state only requires one-party consent, you should get consent from all parties.
Out-of-state caller to Delaware: The caller should comply with Delaware's all-party consent requirement, especially if they know or have reason to know the other party is in Delaware.
Calls involving multiple two-party consent states: Follow the strictest standard among all the states involved.
Common Interstate Scenarios
| Scenario | Delaware Party | Other State | Consent Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delaware to Pennsylvania | Yes | Two-party | All-party (both states) |
| Delaware to California | Yes | Two-party | All-party (both states) |
| Maryland to Delaware | No | Two-party | All-party (both states) |
| New Jersey to Delaware | No | One-party | All-party (Delaware standard) |
Federal Law as a Baseline
Federal wiretap law (18 U.S.C. Section 2511) requires only one-party consent, establishing a baseline below which no state can go. Delaware's all-party consent standard exceeds this federal minimum, which is permissible under the federal framework. When Delaware law and federal law conflict, the stricter Delaware standard applies to calls involving Delaware parties.
VoIP, Video Calls, and Digital Communications
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Calls
VoIP calls made through services like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Skype, Google Meet, and similar platforms are subject to Delaware's recording consent requirements. The method of transmission (internet vs. traditional phone lines) does not change the consent standard. If you are recording a VoIP call involving a Delaware party, all-party consent is required.
Video Calls with Audio
Video calls that capture both visual and audio content are covered by Delaware's recording statutes to the extent they involve private communications. Recording a private video call without the consent of all participants violates the same statutes that apply to traditional phone calls.
Many video conferencing platforms include built-in recording features that display a notification to all participants when recording begins. This notification can help establish consent, but it is best practice to also verbally confirm that all parties agree to the recording.
Text Messages and Written Communications
While this guide focuses on phone call recording, it is worth noting that Delaware's privacy statute (11 Del. C. Section 1335(a)(4)) references "message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of communicating privately." This language could be interpreted to cover text messages and other written digital communications, though the application of this provision to text messages has not been widely litigated in Delaware courts.
Criminal Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording
Illegally recording a phone call in Delaware exposes the recorder to criminal penalties under either or both of the state's recording statutes:
Wiretapping Charges (Section 2402)
- Classification: Class E Felony
- Maximum prison sentence: 5 years
- Maximum fine: $10,000
- Disclosing illegally intercepted phone calls: Class F Felony (up to 3 years)
Privacy Violation Charges (Section 1335)
- Classification: Class A Misdemeanor
- Maximum jail sentence: 1 year
- Maximum fine: $2,300
Civil Liability (Section 2409)
In addition to criminal penalties, victims of illegal phone call recording can file civil lawsuits under 11 Del. C. Section 2409 and recover:
- Actual damages with a minimum of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater
- Punitive damages for willful conduct
- Attorney fees and litigation costs
Phone Call Recordings as Evidence
Admissibility in Delaware Courts
For a phone call recording to be admissible as evidence in a Delaware court:
- The recording must have been made with proper consent from all parties
- The recording must be authentic and unaltered
- The party offering the recording must be able to establish its provenance and chain of custody
- The recording must be relevant to the issues in the case
Recordings made in violation of Delaware's consent requirements may be inadmissible and could also expose the recording party to criminal charges and civil liability.
Documenting Consent
To strengthen the evidentiary value of a phone call recording:
- State the date, time, and identities of all participants at the beginning of the recording
- Obtain verbal consent from all parties on the recording itself
- Keep a log of recorded calls with consent details
- Preserve the original recording file without editing
Common Phone Call Recording Questions
Recording Customer Service Calls
When you call a business that announces "this call may be recorded," you can also record the call from your end. The business's announcement effectively provides their consent, and your continued participation provides yours. However, in Delaware's all-party consent framework, it is best practice to verbally note that you are also recording.
Recording Debt Collector Calls
If you are receiving calls from debt collectors, recording those calls can help you document potential violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1692). Before recording, inform the debt collector that the call is being recorded and obtain their consent. If they refuse consent, note the refusal and document the call details in writing instead.
Recording Threatening or Harassing Calls
If you are receiving threatening or harassing phone calls, Delaware law may provide additional grounds for recording. However, there is no explicit crime-evidence exception in Delaware's recording statutes comparable to what some other states provide. Contact law enforcement about the threatening calls and ask about proper procedures for documenting them.
Explore More Delaware Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism Laws | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant Recording | Dashcam Laws | School Recording | Medical Recording
Back to Delaware Recording Laws
More Delaware Recording Topics
More Delaware Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Delaware without telling the other person?
It is not recommended. Due to the unresolved conflict between Delaware's wiretapping and privacy statutes, the safest approach is to treat Delaware as an all-party consent state. You should inform all parties at the start of the call that it is being recorded and obtain their consent before proceeding.
Do businesses in Delaware have to tell callers they are being recorded?
Yes. Businesses should provide clear notice at the beginning of calls that the conversation may be recorded. An automated announcement before the conversation begins, combined with the caller's continued participation, generally establishes implied consent under Delaware's all-party consent framework.
What happens if I record a phone call across state lines involving Delaware?
When a phone call involves parties in Delaware and another state, Delaware's all-party consent standard applies. You should obtain consent from all parties on the call, regardless of whether the other state has a less restrictive one-party consent law.
Can I record a Zoom or Teams call with someone in Delaware?
Yes, but you need all-party consent. VoIP and video calls are subject to the same recording consent requirements as traditional phone calls. While many platforms display recording notifications, it is best practice to verbally confirm all parties agree to the recording.
Is recording a phone call a felony in Delaware?
It can be. Under the wiretapping statute (11 Del. C. Section 2402), illegally intercepting a phone call is a Class E felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Under the privacy statute (11 Del. C. Section 1335), the violation is a Class A misdemeanor with up to 1 year in jail and a $2,300 fine.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the interstate-call table: Pennsylvania is an all-party (two-party) consent state, not a one-party consent state.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Spoke-propagation audit. Confirmed no wrong 19 Del. C. Section 1335 cites (correct title is 11 Del. C.). All citations use delcode.delaware.gov canonical URLs. Two-statute conflict (11 Del. C. Section 2402 one-party vs. Section 1335 all-party) verified present. No em-dash violations found.
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.
Delaware Code, Title 11 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Chapter 024 (WIRETAPPING, ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE AND INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS)
§ 2402Interception of communications generally; divulging contents of communications, violations of chapter.In forcecited in 15 of our articles
(a) Prohibited acts. — Except as specifically provided in this chapter or elsewhere in this Code no person shall: (1) Intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral or electronic communication; (2) Intentionally disclose or endeavor 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 chapter; or (3) Intentionally use or endeavor to use 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 chapter. (b) Penalties for violation of subsection (a) of this section. — Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be guilty of a class E felony and be fined not more than $10,000. (c) Lawful acts.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at delcode.delaware.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Dayton v. Collison (2020) applied 11 Del. C. 2402(a)(1), finding neighbors intercepted a homeowner's backyard conversations with a motion-activated video camera, an intrusion upon seclusion. State v. Hunt (2023) said in the alternative that police access to a consenting owner's phone, if an interception, was lawful under 2402(c)(3).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Dayton v. Collison (Superior Court of Delaware 2020)✓Neighbors aimed a motion-activated audio and video camera at a man's backyard and recorded his conversations there; after trial the court found they intentionally intercepted oral communications in violation of section 2402(a), and that this was an intrusion on his seclusion.
- Everett v. State (Supreme Court of Delaware 2018, 186 A.3d 1224)“…d or a location was bugged, and a host of other details.”); 11 Del. C. § 2402(c)(3) (authorizing government wiretappi…”
- State v. Hunt (Superior Court of Delaware 2023)✓Police read and answered texts on a cooperating witness's phone with his permission; rejecting a postconviction claim, the court found no interception occurred and reasoned in the alternative that any interception in the drug investigation was lawful under section 2402(c)(3).
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 2409Civil liability; defense to civil or criminal action.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(a) Civil liability. — Any person whose wire, oral or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use the communications and be entitled to recover from any person: (1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher; (2) Punitive damages; and, (3) A reasonable attorneys’ fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (b) Defense. — A good faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter or under any other law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at delcode.delaware.gov
Delaware Code, Title 11 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Chapter 005 (SPECIFIC OFFENSES)
§ 1335Violation of privacy; class A misdemeanor; class G felony.In forcecited in 19 of our articles
(a) A person is guilty of violation of privacy when, except as authorized by law, the person: (1) Trespasses on property intending to subject anyone to eavesdropping or other surveillance in a private place; or (2) Installs in any private place, without consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy there, any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds or events in that place; or (3) Installs or uses outside a private place any device for hearing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds originating in that place which would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible outside, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy there; or (4) Intercepts without the consent of all parties thereto a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of communicating privately, including private conversation; or (5) Divulges without the consent of the sender and the receiver the existence or contents of any message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of communicating privately if the accused knows that the message was unlawfully intercepted or if the accused learned of the message in the course of…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at delcode.delaware.gov
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Pulgini (1976) held 11 Del. C. 1335 does not reach police acts covered by sections 1336 and 1431, so a police interception made with one party's consent was lawful. State of Delaware v. Steven Wu (2026) construed 1335(a)(9)(b) as protecting confidentiality from third parties regardless of whether the relationship has ended.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Pulgini (Superior Court of Delaware 1976, 366 A.2d 1198)✓Police recorded a call between the defendant and an informant with the informant's consent but no court order. The court held section 1335 does not apply to police acts covered by sections 1336 and 1431, and one-party consent made the interception lawful.
- State of Delaware v. Steven Wu (Delaware Court of Common Pleas 2026)✓Charged after leaving printed intimate photos from a past affair in the woman's shared mailbox, a man sought a pretrial ruling on section 1335(a)(9)(b). On uncontested facts, the court read beyond that relationship as disclosure outside the private relationship, ended or not.
- Duffy v. State (Supreme Court of Delaware 2019)“…er 2017, Duffy was indicted for Violation of Privacy under 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(7). The charges arose from Duffy tak…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 15
§ 1692Congressional findings and declaration of purposeIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy. Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers. Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection practices are available for the effective collection of debts. Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a substantial extent in interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even where abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate in character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate commerce. It is the purpose of this subchapter to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 6,921 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Marx v. General Revenue Corp. (Supreme Court of the United States 2013, 568 U.S. 371)“…sive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices. See 15 U. S. C. § 1692 . The FDCPA’s private-enforcement provi…”
- Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, L.P.A. (Supreme Court of the United States 2010, 559 U.S. 573)“…il 21, 2010 The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U. S. C. §1692 et seq., imposes civil liability on “…”
- William C. Lewis v. Acb Business Services, Inc., (96-3093/3498), American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. James P. Connors, (96-3498) (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 1998, 135 F.3d 389)“…anguage of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 -1692o, requires us to reverse the judg…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 418 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 2026-08-28 · 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.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- 11 Del. C. Section 2402 - Interception of Communications(delcode.delaware.gov).gov
- 11 Del. C. Section 1335 - Violation of Privacy(delcode.delaware.gov).gov
- 11 Del. C. Section 2409 - Civil Liability(delcode.delaware.gov).gov
- Title 19 Section 705 - Employer Monitoring(delcode.delaware.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- U.S. v. Vespe (D. Del. 1975)(law.justia.com)
- 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 - Fair Debt Collection Practices Act(law.cornell.edu)