Washington
Washington Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Exceptions (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. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Washington is an all-party consent state, so everyone on a phone call must consent before any recording begins under RCW 9.73.030. You satisfy that requirement by announcing the recording before it starts; staying on the line after the announcement counts as consent. An exception permits recording without notice when a call involves threats.
Washington requires the consent of every party before any private phone call can be recorded. Under RCW 9.73.030, it is unlawful to intercept or record any private communication transmitted by telephone without the knowledge and consent of all participants. This two-party consent requirement applies to personal calls, business calls, conference calls, and calls made through internet-based platforms.
Whether you are a consumer recording a customer service call, a business recording client conversations, or an individual documenting a dispute, understanding Washington's phone call recording rules is critical. Violations carry criminal penalties, civil liability, and the automatic exclusion of the recording from any court proceeding.
The All-Party Consent Requirement for Phone Calls
What the Law Requires
RCW 9.73.030(1)(a) prohibits any person from intercepting or recording "any private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device" without the consent of all parties. The statute applies equally to:
- Landline telephone calls
- Cell phone and mobile calls
- VoIP and internet-based calls (Zoom, Teams, FaceTime, etc.)
- Conference calls involving multiple participants
- Recorded voicemail greetings that capture caller messages
The word "other device" in the statute is broad enough to cover modern communication technologies that did not exist when the law was originally enacted.
How to Obtain Valid Consent
Under RCW 9.73.030(3), consent is deemed obtained when one party announces to all other parties in any reasonably effective manner that the call is about to be recorded. The statute specifies two additional requirements:
- The announcement must be made before recording begins
- The announcement itself must be recorded as part of the call
Once a clear announcement has been made, the other party's decision to continue the conversation constitutes implied consent. The other party does not need to say "I agree" or provide any verbal confirmation. Staying on the line after hearing the announcement is sufficient.
What Qualifies as "Reasonably Effective"
The statute does not prescribe a specific script or formula. Courts have accepted various methods as reasonably effective, including:
- A verbal statement at the start of the call: "I want to let you know I am recording this conversation."
- An automated message before the call connects: "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes."
- A clear and audible tone or message that precedes the recording
The key is that the announcement must be clear enough that a reasonable person would understand recording is about to occur. Mumbling, speaking too quickly, or burying the disclosure in a lengthy menu of options may not satisfy the standard.
The Threat Exception for Phone Calls

One of the most significant provisions in Washington phone call recording law is the threat exception under RCW 9.73.030(2)(b). This exception allows one-party consent recording when a phone call conveys:
- Threats of extortion against any person
- Threats of blackmail against any person
- Threats of bodily harm against any person
- Unlawful requests or demands
How the Threat Exception Works
If you are receiving threatening phone calls, you may record those calls without announcing the recording and without obtaining the caller's consent. Only your own consent is required. This exception exists because victims of threats need the ability to preserve evidence without tipping off the person making the threats.
The exception applies to both incoming and outgoing calls. If you call someone and they begin making threats during the conversation, you may begin recording at that point without notification.
Practical Considerations
While the threat exception provides important protection, several practical points are worth noting:
- Document the circumstances: Keep notes about why you believed the call involved threats, in case the recording's legality is later challenged.
- The exception covers the threatening content: If a call starts as an ordinary conversation and escalates to threats, the exception applies to the threatening portion.
- Admissibility: Recordings made under the threat exception are admissible in court because they comply with the statute. However, you may need to demonstrate that the exception applied at the time of recording.
- Do not provoke threats: Courts may scrutinize recordings where the recording party appears to have deliberately provoked the threatening statements.
Harassing Phone Calls
A separate exception under RCW 9.73.030(2)(c) covers harassing communications. You may record a phone call with one-party consent if the call is:
- Anonymous: The caller refuses to identify themselves
- Repeated: The same caller contacts you repeatedly in a harassing pattern
- Made at extremely inconvenient hours: Calls at times that would be unreasonable, such as late at night or very early in the morning
Business Phone Call Recording in Washington

Businesses that record customer or client phone calls must comply with RCW 9.73.030. Washington does not provide a blanket business exception to the all-party consent requirement.
Compliance Methods
The most common methods businesses use to satisfy the consent requirement include:
- Automated pre-call announcements: Playing a recorded message such as "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" before the call connects to a representative.
- Verbal disclosure by the representative: Having the employee inform the caller at the start of the conversation that the call is being recorded.
- IVR menu disclosures: Including a recording notice within an interactive voice response system that callers navigate before reaching an agent.
Best Practices for Businesses
- Ensure the announcement plays before any recording begins, not after
- Record the announcement itself as required by the statute
- Give callers the option to proceed without recording if feasible
- Train employees on proper disclosure protocols
- Document consent procedures in written company policies
- Retain records of consent notifications for a reasonable period
Call Centers and Customer Service
Washington-based call centers must record the consent announcement for every call. Unlike some states where a blanket disclosure in terms of service may suffice, Washington's statute requires real-time notification. A disclosure buried in a privacy policy or terms of service, without any announcement during the call itself, does not satisfy RCW 9.73.030.
Recording Conference Calls

Conference calls with multiple participants present unique challenges under Washington's all-party consent law. Every person on the call must be notified before recording begins. If participants join the call after the initial announcement, the host should repeat the announcement so that latecomers are informed.
Multi-State Conference Calls
When a conference call includes participants in Washington and other states, the safest approach is to follow the strictest applicable law. Since Washington requires all-party consent, announce at the start of every multi-state call that recording is occurring and allow any participant to object.
Common multi-state scenarios:
| Scenario | Recommended Approach |
|---|---|
| Washington + one-party consent state | Announce recording (follow Washington's rule) |
| Washington + another two-party consent state | Announce recording (both states require it) |
| Washington + international participant | Announce recording and confirm no objections |
VoIP, Video Calls, and Modern Technology
Washington's phone call recording law applies to all private communications transmitted by any device. This includes modern platforms that were not contemplated when the statute was enacted:
VoIP and Internet Calls
Calls made through services like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, FaceTime, and similar platforms are subject to RCW 9.73.030. The built-in recording features of these platforms typically display a notification to all participants when recording begins. This notification may satisfy the consent requirement, but relying solely on a visual indicator may not be sufficient for audio-only participants who cannot see the notification.
Best practice: verbally announce that you are activating the recording feature, in addition to any platform notification.
Call Recording Apps
Third-party apps that record phone calls on smartphones (such as call recorder apps) do not automatically satisfy the consent requirement. The app itself does not announce the recording to the other party. You must make a separate announcement before recording begins.
AI Transcription Services
Services that transcribe phone calls using artificial intelligence still capture and process the audio of the conversation. Using an AI transcription tool without the consent of all parties violates RCW 9.73.030 in the same way that a traditional recording device would.
Interstate Phone Call Recording
When a phone call crosses state lines, the question of which state's law applies becomes important. Washington courts generally apply Washington law when at least one party is located in Washington.
Choice of Law Considerations
Washington follows the principle that its Privacy Act protects the privacy interests of people within the state. If you are in Washington and recording a call with someone in another state, Washington law applies to your conduct. Similarly, if someone in another state records a call with a Washington resident, the Washington resident may have a cause of action under Washington law.
Common Interstate Scenarios
- Washington to Oregon: Oregon has one-party consent for telephone calls. Washington's stricter all-party rule still applies to the Washington participant. Announce the recording.
- Washington to Idaho: Idaho allows one-party consent. Announce the recording to comply with Washington law.
- Washington to California: Both states require all-party consent. Announce the recording.
- Washington to Montana: Montana allows one-party consent. Follow Washington's all-party rule.
The Safest Approach
Regardless of which state the other party is in, the safest practice is to announce the recording and obtain consent from all parties. This ensures compliance with Washington law and avoids potential liability under any other state's law.
Criminal Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording
Under RCW 9.73.080, recording a private phone call without proper consent is a gross misdemeanor in Washington.
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Classification | Gross Misdemeanor |
| Maximum Jail Time | 364 days |
| Maximum Fine | $5,000 |
| Applies To | Recording, intercepting, or disclosing |
Each separate recording can constitute a separate offense. A pattern of recording calls without consent can result in multiple counts.
Civil Liability
Under RCW 9.73.060, any person whose phone call is illegally recorded may file a civil lawsuit and recover:
- Actual damages, including compensation for mental pain and suffering
- Liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation, up to a maximum of $1,000
- Reasonable attorney fees and costs of litigation
Civil remedies exist independently of criminal prosecution. A person can face both criminal charges and a civil lawsuit for the same illegal recording.
Admissibility in Court
Under RCW 9.73.050, any phone call recording obtained in violation of Washington's Privacy Act is inadmissible in any civil or criminal court in Washington. This applies in all courts of general or limited jurisdiction.
The only exceptions are:
- The person whose rights were violated gives permission to use the recording
- A criminal case involving a crime that jeopardizes national security
This exclusionary rule makes it essential to follow proper consent procedures. A recording that could be powerful evidence becomes worthless if it was obtained illegally.
More Washington Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to Washington Recording Laws
More Washington Recording Topics
More Washington Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Washington state?
Yes, but only if you announce the recording to all parties on the call and they consent or continue the conversation after the announcement. Washington is a two-party (all-party) consent state under RCW 9.73.030. The announcement must be made before recording begins and must itself be recorded.
Can I record a threatening phone call without telling the caller?
Yes. RCW 9.73.030(2)(b) provides an exception that allows one-party consent recording of phone calls that convey threats of bodily harm, extortion, or blackmail. You do not need to announce the recording or obtain the threatening caller's consent. A related exception under RCW 9.73.030(2)(c) covers harassing calls that are anonymous, repeated, or made at extremely inconvenient hours.
Does the 'this call may be recorded' message satisfy Washington law?
Yes, if the message plays before recording begins and is itself recorded. An automated announcement such as 'this call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes' satisfies the consent requirement under RCW 9.73.030(3) when it is delivered in a reasonably effective manner and the caller continues the conversation after hearing it.
What happens if I record a phone call without consent in Washington?
Recording a phone call without consent is a gross misdemeanor under RCW 9.73.080, punishable by up to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine. The person who was recorded can also file a civil lawsuit under RCW 9.73.060 and recover actual damages or liquidated damages of $100 per day (capped at $1,000), plus attorney fees. The recording is also inadmissible in court.
Can I record a phone call with someone in another state from Washington?
You must follow Washington's all-party consent law regardless of the other party's location. When calling from Washington to a one-party consent state, Washington's stricter rule still applies. The safest approach is always to announce the recording and obtain consent from everyone on the call.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the RCW 9.73.030 subsection citation for Washington's harassing-call recording exception: it is subsection (2)(c), not (2)(b) (which covers only extortion/blackmail/bodily-harm threats).
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.
Revised Code of Washington
§ 9.73.030Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.In forcecited in 41 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication; (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 221 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Washington courts have policed what counts as a private communication under Sec. 9.73.030: State v. Gunwall (1986) concluded a pen register intercept comes within a private communication transmitted by telephone, while State v. Riley (1993) held a line trap that reveals only the calling number does not record one.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Salinas (Washington Supreme Court 1992, 119 Wash. 2d 192)“…alties for divulging a telegram or opening a sealed letter. RCW 9.73.030-.070, making it unlawful to intercept,…”
- State v. Gunwall (Washington Supreme Court 1986, 106 Wash. 2d 54)✓Everett police pulled a suspected cocaine dealer's toll records and put a pen register on her line without valid legal process; the court held a pen register intercept is a private communication transmitted by telephone, installable only under the eavesdropping statutes.
- State v. Brown (Washington Supreme Court 1997, 132 Wash. 2d 529)✓Palm Springs officers secretly recorded a Washington murder suspect's statements after his arrest; the court treated RCW 9.73.090, not 9.73.030, as the provision reaching recordings of arrested persons, and held the Privacy Act did not require suppressing that recording.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 9.73.050Admissibility of intercepted communication in evidence.In forcecited in 11 of our articles
Any information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030 or pursuant to any order issued under the provisions of RCW 9.73.040 shall be inadmissible in any civil or criminal case in all courts of general or limited jurisdiction in this state, except with the permission of the person whose rights have been violated in an action brought for damages under the provisions of RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080, or in a criminal action in which the defendant is charged with a crime, the commission of which would jeopardize national security.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 116 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Wanrow (Washington Supreme Court 1977, 88 Wash. 2d 221)“…epartment of an emergency telephone call, on the basis that RCW 9.73.050 and RCW 9.73.090 which authorize the re…”
- State v. Rupe (Washington Supreme Court 1984, 101 Wash. 2d 664)“…find that this statement violated the terms of the statute. RCW 9.73.050 provides that information obtained in v…”
- State v. Fjermestad (Washington Supreme Court 1990, 114 Wash. 2d 828)“…At the time RCW 9.73.040 was enacted, the Legislature added RCW 9.73.050 4 which deals with admissibility of *…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 9.73.060Violating right of privacy—Civil action—Liability for damages.In forcecited in 14 of our articles
Any person who, directly or by means of a detective agency or any other agent, violates the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to legal action for damages, to be brought by any other person claiming that a violation of this statute has injured his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation. A person so injured shall be entitled to actual damages, including mental pain and suffering endured by him or her on account of violation of the provisions of this chapter, or liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation, not to exceed one thousand dollars, and a reasonable attorney's fee and other costs of litigation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 36 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Washington courts read RCW 9.73.060 as supplying civil damages only for conduct chapter 9.73 prohibits. Kearney v. Kearney (1999) held RCW 9.73.050 creates no civil liability for filing illegally recorded material. Dillon v. Seattle Deposition Reporters, LLC (2014) reversed summary judgment on secretly transcribed calls.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Wanrow (Washington Supreme Court 1977, 88 Wash. 2d 221)“…case under RCW 9.73.050; there is no civil liability under RCW 9.73.060; and, there is no criminal liability un…”
- Kearney v. Kearney (Court of Appeals of Washington 1999, 95 Wash. App. 405)✓A father sued a guardian ad litem, an evaluator and an attorney under RCW 9.73.060 for filing transcripts of calls with his children that his estranged wife taped; the court held the act creates liability only for recording or intercepting, not filing, and affirmed dismissal.
- Dillon v. Seattle Deposition Reporters, LLC (Court of Appeals of Washington 2014, 179 Wash. App. 41)“…act is a gross misdemeanor and is also actionable in tort. RCW 9.73.060, .080. “We engage in a four-pronged ana…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 9.73.080Penalties.In forcecited in 16 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any person who violates RCW 9.73.030 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. (2) Any person who knowingly alters, erases, or wrongfully discloses any recording in violation of RCW 9.73.090(1)(c) is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Wanrow (Washington Supreme Court 1977, 88 Wash. 2d 221)“…9.73.090, which opens with a waiver of RCW 9.73.030 through RCW 9.73.080, [9] i.e., the recording is not unlaw…”
- State v. Williams (Washington Supreme Court 1980, 94 Wash. 2d 531)✓ATF agents recorded a suspect's conversations with an informant and undercover agents with only one party's consent. The court assumed without deciding that the RCW 9.73.080 criminal penalty may not reach federal agents, but held the tapes were still inadmissible in state court.
- State v. Clark (Washington Supreme Court 2007, 916 P.2d 384)“…Violation of RCW 9.73.030 constitutes a gross misdemeanor, RCW 9.73.080, and may also result in civil liability…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 9.73.090Certain emergency response personnel exempted from RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080—Standards—Court authorizations—Admissibility.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
(1) The provisions of RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080 shall not apply to police, fire, emergency medical service, emergency communication center, and poison center personnel in the following instances: (a) Recording incoming telephone calls to police and fire stations, licensed emergency medical service providers, emergency communication centers, and poison centers; (b) Video and/or sound recordings may be made of arrested persons by police officers responsible for making arrests or holding persons in custody before their first appearance in court.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 99 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Salinas (Washington Supreme Court 1992, 119 Wash. 2d 192)“…all participants in the communication, was passed in 1967. RCW 9.73.090 was enacted in 1970, and allowed police…”
- State v. Brown (Washington Supreme Court 1997, 132 Wash. 2d 529)“…133 Recording of Appellant’s Custodial Statements and RCW 9.73.090 (7) Whether Appellant’s statement…”
- State v. Wanrow (Washington Supreme Court 1977, 88 Wash. 2d 221)“…mergency telephone call, on the basis that RCW 9.73.050 and RCW 9.73.090 which authorize the recording of such a…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 9.92.020Punishment of gross misdemeanor when not fixed by statute.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
Every person convicted of a gross misdemeanor for which no punishment is prescribed in any statute in force at the time of conviction and sentence, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of up to three hundred sixty-four days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 37 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Lewis (Court of Appeals of Washington 1976, 15 Wash. App. 172)“…eached after an examination of RCW 9.01.020, 4 RCW 9.92.020, 5 and RCW 9.95.010, the c…”
- Robinson v. Peterson (Washington Supreme Court 1976, 87 Wash. 2d 665)“…ls in which the maximum sentence is for a period of 1 year (RCW 9.92.020), most occupancies being of much briefe…”
- Mortell v. State (Court of Appeals of Washington 2003, 118 Wash. App. 846)“…heme. Several provisions comprise this sentencing scheme. RCW 9.92.020 reads, in part, “Every person convicted…”
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
- RCW 9.73.030 - Intercepting, Recording, or Divulging Private Communications(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.050 - Admissibility of Intercepted Communications(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.060 - Civil Damages for Privacy Violations(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.080 - Criminal Penalties(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.090 - Law Enforcement Recording Exceptions(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.92.020 - Gross Misdemeanor Penalties(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)