Alaska
Alaska Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 15, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

In Alaska, any participant in a phone call may record it without notifying the other parties. AS 42.20.310 prohibits only non-participant interception, a reading confirmed by the Alaska Supreme Court in Palmer v. State. The rule covers landline, cell, VoIP, and video calls equally.
Alaska's one-party consent law makes it straightforward to record phone calls. Under AS 42.20.310, you can record any phone call you participate in without telling the other person. The statute applies to all forms of telephone communication, from traditional landlines to modern VoIP platforms.
This page covers the specific rules for recording phone calls in Alaska, including cell phone calls, landline calls, VoIP and video calls, interstate considerations, business call recording, and the federal regulations that may also apply.
Alaska's One-Party Consent Rule for Phone Calls
The Basic Rule
Under AS 42.20.310, it is illegal to use an eavesdropping device to hear or record an oral conversation without the consent of a party to the conversation. The statute defines "eavesdropping device" as any device capable of hearing or recording an oral conversation "whether such conversation is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means."
Because the statute requires consent from only "a party" (singular), you satisfy the requirement by consenting to the recording of your own call. No notification, announcement, or beep tone is required under Alaska law.
What Types of Calls Are Covered?
The one-party consent rule applies to all forms of telephone communication:
- Landline calls (traditional wired phone service)
- Cell phone calls (all cellular carriers)
- VoIP calls (Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Skype, WhatsApp calls, FaceTime Audio)
- Video calls with audio (the audio portion falls under the eavesdropping statute)
- Satellite phone calls (commonly used in remote Alaska)
- Voice messages and voicemail recording
The Palmer v. State Foundation
The Alaska Supreme Court's decision in Palmer v. State, 604 P.2d 1106, 1108 n.5 (Alaska 1979), construed AS 42.20.310 to reach only third-party interception, confirming that a participant in a communication is not engaged in "eavesdropping" when they record their own conversation. This precedent applies with equal force to phone calls as to in-person conversations.
Recording Cell Phone Calls in Alaska
Using Built-In Recording Features
Many smartphones now include native call recording features or support third-party recording apps. Using these tools to record your own calls is legal in Alaska. Popular methods include:
- Android native recording: Many Android phones offer built-in call recording in the Phone app
- Third-party apps: Apps available on both iOS and Android platforms
- External recorders: Devices that connect to your phone's audio jack or Bluetooth
- Speaker phone with separate recorder: Placing the call on speaker and using a standalone recorder
The recording method does not affect the legal analysis. As long as you are a participant in the call, the recording is legal under Alaska law.
Recording Texts vs. Calls
The eavesdropping statute specifically addresses "oral conversation." Text messages, emails, and other written communications are not covered by AS 42.20.310. Screenshots and saved copies of text conversations involve different legal considerations, primarily around digital privacy and electronic communications law.
Interstate Phone Call Recording

The Complexity of Cross-Border Calls
Alaska's one-party consent rule applies clearly when both parties are in Alaska. Complications arise when you call someone in another state with different consent requirements.
Two-Party Consent States to Watch
If you are in Alaska calling someone in one of these two-party consent states, the stricter law may apply:
| State | Key Statute |
|---|---|
| California | Penal Code 632 |
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. 934.03 |
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 |
| Maryland | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402 |
| Massachusetts | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99 |
| Montana | Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213 |
| New Hampshire | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 570-A:2 |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa.C.S. 5703 |
| Washington | Wash. Rev. Code 9.73.030 |
Which State's Law Controls?
There is no uniform federal rule determining which state's recording law applies to interstate calls. Courts have taken different approaches:
- Some courts apply the law of the state where the recording occurs (Alaska, in this scenario)
- Other courts apply the law of the state where the recorded party is located (the other state)
- California courts have held that California's two-party consent law applies to calls involving California residents, regardless of where the recording takes place (Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 39 Cal.4th 95 (2006))
The safest approach for interstate calls is to inform all parties that the call is being recorded. This complies with the strictest consent requirements and eliminates any ambiguity.
Federal Wiretap Act
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. Section 2511) provides a baseline one-party consent standard. Under federal law, recording a phone call is legal when one party consents. However, federal law establishes a floor, not a ceiling. States can impose stricter requirements, and the stricter law applies when there is a conflict.
Business Phone Call Recording
Why Businesses Record Calls
Alaska businesses commonly record phone calls for:
- Quality assurance and training: Reviewing calls to improve customer service
- Compliance documentation: Creating records of regulatory or financial transactions
- Dispute resolution: Preserving evidence of what was agreed upon during calls
- Security purposes: Monitoring for threats or fraud
- Performance evaluation: Assessing employee phone skills
Methods for Obtaining Consent
While Alaska law does not require businesses to obtain consent from the other party (because the business representative on the call satisfies one-party consent), many businesses choose to provide notice anyway. The FCC provides guidance on acceptable methods:
- Pre-recorded announcement: "This call may be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes." This is the most common method and provides the best legal protection for interstate calls.
- Verbal disclosure by the representative: The employee informs the caller at the start of the conversation that it is being recorded.
- Beep tone: A periodic audible tone during the call indicates recording is in progress. While technically sufficient under FCC rules, this method provides less clear notice than a verbal announcement.
- Written consent: Advance written consent in contracts or terms of service.
Best Practices for Business Compliance
Businesses operating in Alaska should consider these practices:
- Use a pre-recorded announcement for all incoming and outgoing calls, even though Alaska does not require it. This protects against liability when callers are in two-party consent states.
- Train employees on the company's call recording policy and disclosure procedures.
- Maintain recordings securely with appropriate access controls.
- Establish a retention policy that defines how long recordings are kept and when they are deleted.
- Document consent by keeping a record of when and how consent was obtained for each recorded call.
Recording VoIP and Video Calls

Platform-Specific Considerations
Modern communication platforms have their own recording features and terms of service:
- Zoom: Provides built-in recording with a notification indicator visible to all participants. You can also use external recording without the platform's built-in feature.
- Microsoft Teams: Similar built-in recording with participant notification.
- Google Meet: Recording available for certain account types with notification.
- Skype: Built-in recording with notification to all parties.
- WhatsApp/FaceTime: No built-in recording, but external tools can capture the audio.
Under Alaska law, you can record any of these calls without using the platform's built-in feature and without notifying other participants. However, if participants are in two-party consent states, their state's law may apply.
Satellite Phone Calls
Alaska's vast wilderness and remote communities make satellite phones common in the state. The same one-party consent rule applies to satellite phone calls. If you are a participant, you can record the call without informing the other party.
Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording
Illegally recording a phone call in Alaska (such as tapping someone else's phone line without any participant's consent) is a Class A misdemeanor under AS 42.20.330:
| Penalty | Maximum |
|---|---|
| Jail time | Up to 1 year |
| Fine | Up to $25,000 |
Federal penalties under the Wiretap Act can be more severe: up to 5 years in federal prison and fines under 18 U.S.C. Section 2511.
Civil liability is also significant. Under 18 U.S.C. Section 2520, victims can recover:
- Statutory damages of $10,000 per violation
- Actual damages plus profits gained from the illegal recording
- Punitive damages
- Reasonable attorney's fees
Using Phone Call Recordings as Evidence

Legally recorded phone calls are generally admissible as evidence in Alaska courts. To maximize the evidentiary value:
- Preserve the original recording without any edits or modifications
- Document the recording details: date, time, participants, and the device used
- Be prepared to authenticate the recording by testifying about its creation and chain of custody
- Anticipate hearsay objections: The recorded statements may be subject to hearsay rules, though many exceptions apply (party-opponent statements, excited utterances, present sense impressions)
Illegally obtained recordings are generally excluded from criminal proceedings and may be excluded from civil cases as well.
Impact of Proposed SB 85
SB 85: Material Pending Change
Senate Bill 85, pending in the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee as of May 2026, would convert Alaska from a de facto one-party consent state to an all-party consent state. If enacted, recording phone calls in Alaska would change dramatically:
- You would need consent from all parties before recording any call
- Secretly recording a phone call would become illegal even if you are a participant
- Businesses would need to obtain explicit consent from every person on the call
- Law enforcement would be exempt from the all-party requirement
As of May 2026, SB 85 remains pending; no committee hearings have been scheduled.
Practical Tips for Recording Phone Calls in Alaska
- Test your recording setup before an important call. Make sure the audio is clear and both sides of the conversation are captured.
- Use a reliable recording method. Built-in phone features and dedicated recording apps tend to produce better quality than external devices.
- Back up your recordings to a secure cloud service or external storage.
- For interstate calls, inform the other party. A simple statement like "I'd like to record this call for my records" eliminates any legal ambiguity.
- Keep a call log with recording metadata: date, time, duration, participants, and the purpose of the call.
More Alaska 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
More Alaska Recording Topics
More Alaska Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Alaska without telling the other person?
Yes. Alaska is a one-party consent state under AS 42.20.310. As a participant in the phone call, you can record it without informing or obtaining consent from the other person. This applies to landline, cell phone, VoIP, and video calls.
Can I record a Zoom or Teams call in Alaska?
Yes. Alaska's one-party consent law applies to VoIP and video calls. You can record a Zoom, Teams, or similar call without notifying other participants, as long as you are a participant yourself. If other participants are in two-party consent states, their state's law may also apply.
What if I call someone in California from Alaska?
California is a two-party consent state, and California courts have held that their law applies to calls involving California residents regardless of where the recording occurs. The safest approach is to inform the California resident that the call is being recorded and obtain their consent.
Can a business record customer calls in Alaska?
Yes. Under one-party consent, a business representative on the call satisfies the consent requirement. However, businesses are strongly advised to use a pre-recorded announcement notifying callers that the call may be recorded. This protects against liability when callers are in two-party consent states and follows FCC guidelines.
Is it illegal to tap someone else's phone in Alaska?
Yes. Recording phone calls between other people without any participant's consent is illegal under both AS 42.20.310 (Class A misdemeanor, up to 1 year in jail and $25,000 fine) and the federal Wiretap Act (up to 5 years in federal prison). Victims can also pursue civil damages of $10,000 or more per violation.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
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.
Alaska Statutes, Title 42. Public Utilities and Carriers and Energy Programs, Chapter 20. Telegraph and Telephone Systems and Cable Lines; Eavesdropping
§ 42.20.310EavesdroppingIn forcecited in 17 of our articles
(a) A person may not (1) use an eavesdropping device to hear or record all or any part of an oral conversation without the consent of a party to the conversation; (2) use or divulge any information which the person knows or reasonably should know was obtained through the illegal use of an eavesdropping device for personal benefit or another's benefit; (3) publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of any conversation the person has heard through the illegal use of an eavesdropping device; (4) divulge, or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of any conversation the person has become acquainted with after the person knows or reasonably should know that the conversation and the information contained in the conversation was obtained through the illegal use of an eavesdropping device. (b) In this section eavesdropping device means any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation whether the conversation is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means; provided that this definition does not include devices used for the restoration of the deaf or hard-of-hearing to normal or partial hearing.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at akleg.gov
Also relied on in: Alaska Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Alaska Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and Surveillance Rules (2026), Alaska AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
§ 42.20.330PenaltyIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
A person who violates any of the provisions of AS 42.20.300 and 42.20.310 is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at akleg.gov
Also relied on in: Alaska Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026, Alaska Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026
Florida Statutes
§ 934.03Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.In forcecited in 51 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who:(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (b) 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:1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 74 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Walls (1978) held that recording an in-home oral communication without the consent of all parties violated section 934.03 and required suppression, and State v. Inciarrano (1985) held the statute protects only communications uttered with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Walls (Supreme Court of Florida 1978, 356 So. 2d 294)✓An extortion victim secretly recorded threats made to him in his own home; the court held that was a protected oral communication, that recording it without every party's consent violated Section 934.03, and that Section 934.06 barred using the tape as evidence.
- SHARRON TASHA FORD v. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2021)“…ng oral communications in violation of the wiretap statute, section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2009), and for obstructing without vio…”
- State v. Calhoun (Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida 1984, 7 Fla. Supp. 2d 3)“…hall not be violated” . . . (emphasis mine) Furthermore, section 934.03, Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful for *6 any person (…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026), Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 422 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.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 115 of our articles
Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 860 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walker v. Darby (1990) held a 2520 plaintiff need not prove the contents of intercepted conversations, only interception and a justified expectation against it. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) barred 2520 damages against defendants who took no part in the interception, obtained the tape lawfully, and disclosed a matter of public concern.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573)✓A postal letter carrier said three supervisors wired an intercom near his workstation to listen in. Reversing summary judgment, the Eleventh Circuit held a section 2520 plaintiff can show interception without proving the contents of specific conversations.
- Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)“…disclosure, or use is entitled to recover civil damages, 18 U. S. C. § 2520 . Title III also bars the use as eviden…”
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)“…7 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(4), or alternatively, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (a), or alternatively, for violations o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know, Arkansas Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- AS 42.20.310 - Eavesdropping Statute(akleg.gov).gov
- AS 42.20.330 - Penalty for Eavesdropping Violations(akleg.gov).gov
- Senate Bill 85 - 34th Alaska Legislature(akleg.gov).gov
- FCC - Recording Telephone Conversations(fcc.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(uscode.house.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2520 - Federal Wiretap Act Civil Remedies(uscode.house.gov).gov
- Palmer v. State, 604 P.2d 1106, 1108 n.5 (Alaska 1979) (construing AS 42.20.310)(akleg.gov).gov