Georgia
Georgia Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 7, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Georgia is a one-party consent state under O.C.G.A. 16-11-66, which means you can legally record any phone call you participate in without telling the other person. No announcement, beep tone, or prior permission from other parties is required.
Georgia law gives you broad rights to record your own phone calls. Under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66, Georgia follows one-party consent for recording wire, oral, and electronic communications. If you are a party to a phone call, you can record it without informing or getting permission from anyone else on the line.
This guide covers everything you need to know about recording phone calls in Georgia, including personal calls, business calls, VoIP and video conference audio, interstate call complications, the parental monitoring exception, and the penalties you face if you record calls illegally.
Georgia's One-Party Consent Rule for Phone Calls
The Legal Basis
Two Georgia statutes govern phone call recording. O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62 prohibits intercepting private communications without consent. O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66 then creates the one-party consent exception, stating that nothing in the wiretapping statute prohibits a person from intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication where that person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties has given prior consent.
This means phone call recording is legal in Georgia when:
- You are on the call. Your own participation satisfies the consent requirement.
- Someone on the call authorized you to record. A participant can give you prior consent to record, even if you are not directly on the line.
What Types of Calls Are Covered
Georgia's one-party consent rule applies to all forms of telephone communication:
- Landline calls from home or office phones
- Cell phone calls on any carrier or device
- VoIP calls through platforms like Skype, WhatsApp, Signal, or Google Voice
- Video call audio from Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, or FaceTime (note: the video portion follows different rules in private settings)
- Conference calls with multiple participants, as long as you are one of them
What You Do NOT Need to Do
Under Georgia's one-party consent law, you are not required to:
- Announce that you are recording the call
- Play a beep tone or notification sound
- Get verbal or written consent from other parties
- Use any specific type of recording device or software
- Inform the other party after the call that it was recorded
Recording Personal Phone Calls

Calls With Family Members
You can record phone calls with family members, including your spouse, parents, siblings, or adult children, as long as you are participating in the conversation. These recordings can be useful for preserving important family discussions, documenting verbal agreements, or keeping a record of conversations during family disputes.
In divorce and custody proceedings, recorded phone calls are commonly submitted as evidence. Georgia courts will generally admit recordings made under the one-party consent rule, though judges evaluate each recording for relevance, authenticity, and potential prejudice.
Calls With Service Providers
Recording calls with customer service representatives, insurance companies, utility providers, medical offices, and other service providers is lawful. Many consumers record these calls to:
- Document promises or commitments made by representatives
- Preserve details of service agreements
- Create evidence if a dispute arises later
- Remember complex instructions or information
Since many companies already record their calls (and often announce this at the start), you are exercising the same right they do when you record from your end.
Calls Involving Disputes
Recording phone calls during disputes with landlords, contractors, neighbors, business partners, or creditors can provide valuable evidence. Georgia's one-party consent law protects these recordings as long as you are a participant.
Recording Business Phone Calls in Georgia

Employer Recording Policies
Georgia businesses can record calls for quality assurance, training, compliance monitoring, and dispute resolution. Because Georgia follows one-party consent, a business employee participating in the call provides the necessary consent. The employer does not need consent from the customer or client on the other end.
Despite this, many Georgia businesses announce call recording as a standard practice. Common methods include:
- Automated announcements. "This call may be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes."
- Verbal notification by the representative. The employee states at the beginning of the call that recording is in progress.
- Tone alerts. A periodic beep tone during the conversation.
These announcements serve as a best practice rather than a legal requirement under Georgia law. They reduce friction with callers from other states and provide an additional layer of legal protection.
Federal Law Alignment
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) also follows a one-party consent standard. This alignment means Georgia businesses operating under both state and federal jurisdiction face consistent rules. Federal law permits recording when one party to the communication consents, which matches Georgia's standard exactly.
Industry-Specific Requirements
Certain industries face additional recording obligations:
- Financial services. Regulations from the SEC and FINRA may require recording of client calls and retention of those recordings for specified periods.
- Healthcare. HIPAA does not prohibit patients from recording their own calls, but healthcare providers must handle recordings containing protected health information (PHI) under HIPAA's privacy and security rules.
- Legal profession. Attorneys should consider the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct when recording calls with clients, opposing parties, or witnesses.
Interstate and Cross-State Phone Calls

The Two-State Problem
Phone call recording becomes complicated when parties are in different states with different consent laws. If you are in Georgia (one-party consent) calling someone in a two-party consent state, both states' laws may apply.
Courts have generally held that the stricter standard controls. In one notable case, when a Georgia company routinely recorded business calls with California clients, a court applied California's two-party consent law, reasoning that failing to apply California law would impair California's interest in protecting the privacy of its residents.
Two-Party Consent States to Watch
If you regularly make calls to people in any of the following states, consider informing all parties or getting explicit consent:
| State | Consent Standard |
|---|---|
| California | All-party |
| Connecticut | All-party for calls (civil liability under Conn. Gen. Stat. section 52-570d; the criminal wiretap law itself is one-party) |
| Florida | All-party |
| Illinois | All-party |
| Maryland | All-party |
| Massachusetts | All-party |
| Montana | All-party |
| New Hampshire | All-party |
| Pennsylvania | All-party |
| Washington | All-party |
A few more states are not full two-party jurisdictions but still warrant caution on phone calls specifically. Oregon requires all-party consent for in-person conversations but stays one-party for calls (ORS 165.540). Nevada is generally one-party, but the Nevada Supreme Court's reading of NRS 200.620 in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176 (1998), treats phone call recording as effectively requiring all-party consent. Delaware's status is contested: its wiretap statute reads one-party, while a separate privacy statute pulls the other way.
Best Practices for Interstate Calls
- Know where the other party is located. Consent requirements depend on physical location, not area code.
- When in doubt, inform all parties. A simple statement like "I am recording this call for my records" satisfies even the strictest all-party consent states.
- Document the other party's location if possible. This helps determine which state's law applies if a dispute arises.
- Businesses should default to all-party notice. Companies making calls across state lines benefit from routinely announcing recording to avoid liability.
The Parental Monitoring Exception
What Parents Can Do
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66 includes a specific provision allowing parents to monitor their children's phone communications. A parent or guardian of a child under 18 years of age may, with or without the child's consent:
- Monitor or intercept the child's telephone conversations using an extension phone within the family home
- Monitor or intercept the child's electronic or other communications from within the family home
This exception exists to protect children from predators, trafficking, drug involvement, and other dangers.
Reporting Criminal Evidence
If a parent discovers through monitoring that a phone conversation contains evidence of criminal conduct involving the child as a victim, the parent may:
- Disclose the content to a district attorney
- Share the recording with law enforcement officers
- Use the recording as evidence in judicial proceedings
Recordings made under the parental exception that contain evidence of criminal activity targeting the child are admissible in Georgia courts.
Limitations
The parental exception has defined boundaries:
- It covers only phone conversations intercepted through an extension phone in the family home
- It applies to parents and legal guardians, not extended family members or stepparents without legal guardianship
- It protects only children under 18
- It does not authorize installing monitoring software or spyware on the child's personal devices (this may fall under separate computer fraud statutes)
VoIP, Zoom, and Video Conference Recording
Audio Recording of Virtual Meetings
Georgia's one-party consent law applies to the audio component of virtual meetings. If you participate in a Zoom call, Teams meeting, or Google Meet session, you can record the audio without informing other participants.
However, several considerations apply:
- Video component. If participants are in private places, the video recording portion follows Georgia's stricter all-party consent rule for visual recordings in private places under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2).
- Platform notifications. Most conferencing platforms display a recording indicator when someone uses the built-in recording feature. Using a separate, external recording device bypasses these notifications.
- Interstate participants. If any participant is located in a two-party consent state, the stricter standard may apply to the entire call.
AI Meeting Transcription Tools
AI-powered meeting transcription tools like Otter.ai, Fireflies.ai, and similar products record audio and generate transcripts. Using these tools on calls you participate in is lawful under Georgia's one-party consent rule. However, if participants are in two-party consent states, using AI notetakers without everyone's consent may violate those states' laws.
Call Recording Apps and Technology
Recommended Approaches
Several methods exist for recording phone calls in Georgia:
- Built-in phone features. Some Android devices include native call recording. Apple's iOS does not offer built-in call recording.
- Third-party apps. Apps like Rev Call Recorder, TapeACall, and Cube ACR provide call recording functionality.
- Dedicated recording devices. External voice recorders with phone adapters can capture calls from any phone type.
- VoIP platform features. Zoom, Teams, and Google Meet all offer recording functionality for virtual meetings.
Storage and Security
After recording a call, protect the recording by:
- Backing up files to cloud storage and a local device
- Noting the date, time, and participants for each recording
- Storing recordings securely to prevent unauthorized access
- Preserving original files without editing for potential evidentiary use
Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording
Criminal Consequences
Recording a phone call without any party's consent violates O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62 and carries felony penalties under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-69:
- Prison: 1 to 5 years
- Fine: Up to $10,000
- Combined: Both prison and fine
Each illegal recording constitutes a separate offense, so tapping multiple calls can result in multiple felony charges.
Civil Liability
Victims of illegal call recording can file civil lawsuits seeking:
- Compensatory damages for emotional distress and reputational harm
- Statutory damages under the federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2520), equal to the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, compared against actual damages plus profits, whichever calculation is greater
- Punitive damages
- Attorney fees and litigation costs
- Injunctive relief to prevent further recording
Evidence Suppression
Illegally recorded phone calls are generally inadmissible in Georgia courts. Both state and federal exclusionary rules prevent the use of evidence obtained through unlawful wiretapping. A recording that captures proof of someone else's wrongdoing will likely be thrown out if you obtained it illegally.
More Georgia 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 Georgia Recording Laws
More Georgia Recording Topics
More Georgia Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Georgia without telling the other person?
Yes. Georgia is a one-party consent state under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66. As long as you are a party to the call, you can record it without notifying the other person. You do not need to announce the recording, play a beep tone, or get any form of permission.
What if I call someone in a two-party consent state from Georgia?
The stricter law generally applies. If you are in Georgia calling someone in California, Florida, Pennsylvania, or another two-party consent state, you may need consent from all parties. Courts have applied the stricter state's law in interstate recording disputes. The safest approach is to inform all parties when calling across state lines.
Can my employer record my work phone calls in Georgia?
Yes, if at least one person on the call consents. In most cases, the employer's representative on the call provides that consent. Employers commonly record calls for quality assurance, training, and compliance. Georgia's one-party consent law and the federal Wiretap Act both permit this practice.
Can I record a Zoom or Teams call under Georgia law?
You can record the audio portion of virtual meetings you participate in under Georgia's one-party consent rule. The video portion follows stricter rules if participants are in private places. Also, if any participant is in a two-party consent state, the stricter standard may apply to the entire call.
Can parents record their child's phone calls in Georgia?
Yes. O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66 specifically allows parents and legal guardians to monitor their minor child's telephone conversations using an extension phone in the family home, with or without the child's consent. If the call contains evidence of criminal conduct targeting the child, the parent can share it with law enforcement and courts.
Updates
Added a caution note for Oregon, Nevada, and Delaware calls, and clarified that Connecticut's all-party rule for phone calls is a civil-liability rule layered on top of a one-party criminal law, aligning this page with the rest of the cluster.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Corrected the description of federal Wiretap Act civil damages: statutory damages are the greater of $100 per day of violation or a $10,000 floor, compared against actual damages plus profits (not a flat $10,000-per-violation figure).
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.
Official Code of Georgia Annotated
§ 16-11-66Interception of wire, oral, or electronic communication by party thereto; consent requirements for recording and divulging conversations to which child under 18 years is a party; parental exception.In forcecited in 18 of our articles
(a) Nothing in Code Section 16-11-62 shall prohibit a person from intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception. (b) After obtaining the consent…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at advance.lexis.com
Cited in 43 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Cohen (2017) held OCGA 16-11-66(a) reaches only intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communications, so one party's consent does not authorize secretly video recording others in a private place. Bishop v. State (1999) barred vicarious parental consent under the text in force before the 2000 amendment.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Dobbins v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 1992, 262 Ga. 161)✓An investigator recorded a child's call to the defendant using only her father's consent and no warrant; the Supreme Court held the state had neither an investigation warrant nor valid consent of a party to the call, so the recording and its fruits were inadmissible.
- State v. Cohen (Supreme Court of Georgia 2017, 302 Ga. 616)✓A housekeeper secretly videoed her employer naked at home; the Supreme Court held the one-party-consent rule of OCGA 16-11-66(a) covers only intercepted wire, oral or electronic communications and does not permit video recording without the consent of all observed.
- State v. Madison (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2011, 311 Ga. App. 31)✓A molestation complainant secretly videoed the defendant in his law office; the court read the 16-11-66(a) participant exception to reach section 16-11-62, but found no wire, oral or electronic communication captured, so it affirmed suppression. Cohen overruled that reading.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 16-11-62Eavesdropping, surveillance, or intercepting communication which invades privacy of another; divulging private message.In forcecited in 25 of our articles
It shall be unlawful for: (1) Any person in a clandestine manner intentionally to overhear, transmit, or record or attempt to overhear, transmit, or record the private conversation of another which shall originate in any private place; (2) Any person, through the use of any device, without the
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.ga.gov
Cited in 94 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kelley v. State (1998) held OCGA 16-11-62(2) reached a guardian who photographed a nude 16-year-old in the family bathroom, with no exception for family members. Burgeson v. State (1996) held a conversation recorded in a patrol car was not covered, because no reasonable expectation of privacy existed there.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Burgeson v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 1996, 267 Ga. 102)✓Police secretly recorded two arrestees talking in the back of a patrol car. The court held a police car is much like a jail cell, with no reasonable expectation of privacy, so intercepting that conversation did not offend OCGA 16-11-62 and the tape was admissible.
- Kelley v. State (Court of Appeals of Georgia 1998, 233 Ga. App. 244)✓A guardian photographed her 16-year-old niece nude and passed out in the family bathtub. The court held OCGA 16-11-62(2) reaches any person with no family exception, that the film need not be developed, and that a jury could find the bathroom a private place.
- Dobbins v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 1992, 262 Ga. 161)“…th the consent of one of the parties to the conversation. OCGA § 16-11-62 (1) provides that: It shall be unlawf…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 16-11-69Penalty for violations of part.In forcecited in 13 of our articles
Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d) of Code Section 16-11-66.1, any person violating any of the provisions of this part shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years or a fine not to exceed…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-08-17 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2019
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rutter v. Rutter (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2012, 316 Ga. App. 894)“…a penal statute, a violation being punishable as a felony. OCGA § 16-11-69. As such, the rule of lenity is a prope…”
- Prophitt v. the State (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2016, 336 Ga. App. 262)“…The crime of invasion of privacy constitutes a felony, see OCGA § 16-11-69, and this Court has previously held tha…”
- Price v. State (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2013, 320 Ga. App. 85)“…rt order. 2 Because Price was convicted of a felony, see OCGA § 16-11-69, and sentenced to five years of confine…”
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.
§ 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.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62 - Eavesdropping and Interception(law.justia.com)
- O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66 - One-Party Consent Exception(law.justia.com)
- O.C.G.A. § 16-11-69 - Penalties(law.justia.com)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- Georgia Open Meetings Act(law.georgia.gov).gov
- Georgia AG FAQ on Open Government(law.georgia.gov).gov
- NLRB - Employee Rights Under Section 7(nlrb.gov).gov
- FCC 24-17 Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 2024) - AI-generated voices in robocalls(fcc.gov).gov
- Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. 2025) - vacated One-to-One Consent Rule(media.ca11.uscourts.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2520 - Recovery of Civil Damages(law.cornell.edu)
- FAQs on Photos and Videos under FERPA(studentprivacy.ed.gov).gov