Kentucky
Kentucky Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know
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. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Kentucky follows one-party consent for recording phone calls under KRS 526.020, meaning any participant in a call may legally record it without notifying the other parties. That consent rule covers landline, cell, VoIP, and video calls alike, and applies to both personal and business use.
Kentucky is a one-party consent state for phone call recording. Under KRS 526.020, you can record any phone call you participate in without telling the other party. This rule applies to landline calls, cell phone calls, VoIP calls, and video calls with audio.
This guide covers every aspect of phone call recording law in Kentucky, including personal and business call recording rules, cross-state considerations, how recorded calls work as evidence, and practical guidelines for staying on the right side of the law.
The Legal Framework for Phone Call Recording
What KRS 526.020 Allows
KRS 526.020 makes it a crime to intentionally eavesdrop using any device. The companion definition in KRS 526.010 defines "eavesdrop" as overhearing, recording, amplifying, or transmitting a wire or oral communication without the consent of at least one party.
For phone calls, this means:
- If you are on the call, you can record it. Your own participation is the required consent.
- If you are not on the call, you need consent from at least one participant before recording.
- If no participant consents and you record anyway, you have committed a Class D felony.
Types of Calls Covered
The one-party consent rule applies to all forms of telephone and electronic communications:
| Call Type | Covered by KRS 526.020? | One-Party Consent Applies? |
|---|---|---|
| Landline to landline | Yes | Yes |
| Cell phone to cell phone | Yes | Yes |
| Landline to cell phone | Yes | Yes |
| VoIP calls (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet) | Yes | Yes |
| Video calls with audio | Yes (audio portion) | Yes |
| Wi-Fi calling | Yes | Yes |
| Satellite phone calls | Yes | Yes |
What "Wire Communication" Means
KRS 526.010 covers "wire communications," which includes any aural transfer made through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by wire, cable, or other similar connection. This broad definition encompasses traditional phone lines, cellular networks, internet-based voice services, and any hybrid technology used to transmit voice communications.
Personal Phone Call Recording
Recording Your Own Calls
As a Kentucky resident, you can record any phone call you are part of without telling the other person. Common reasons people record personal calls include:
- Documenting verbal agreements about purchases, services, or arrangements
- Preserving important information like medical advice, insurance instructions, or legal guidance
- Creating evidence for potential disputes or legal proceedings
- Recording threatening or harassing calls for protective order applications
- Capturing customer service interactions for accountability
Recording Apps and Tools
Kentucky law does not restrict the type of device or application used to record phone calls. Legal recording tools include:
- Built-in phone recording features (available on many Android devices)
- Third-party recording apps (TapeACall, Rev Call Recorder, Cube ACR, etc.)
- External recording devices connected to the phone
- Computer software for recording VoIP calls
- Call recording services provided by phone carriers
The recording method does not change the legal analysis. One-party consent is the standard regardless of the technology used.
Recording Voicemail Messages
Voicemail messages left for you are already recorded and stored. You do not need additional consent to save, replay, or share voicemail messages left on your phone. The caller implicitly consents to the recording by leaving a message on your voicemail system.
Business Phone Call Recording in Kentucky
Employer Recording of Business Calls
Kentucky businesses can record phone calls involving their employees for legitimate business purposes. Under one-party consent, as long as the employee (acting as the business's agent) is a party to the call, the recording is legal.
Common business reasons for call recording include:
- Quality assurance and service improvement
- Employee training and development
- Compliance documentation (financial services, healthcare, legal)
- Dispute resolution and liability protection
- Performance evaluation
The Business Telephone Exception
The federal wiretap act under 18 U.S.C. 2510(5)(a) includes an exemption for telephone equipment used in the ordinary course of business. This allows businesses to monitor calls on company-provided phone systems when done for legitimate business purposes. Combined with Kentucky's one-party consent rule, this gives businesses broad authority to record calls.
Best Practices for Business Call Recording
While Kentucky law does not require businesses to announce call recording, best practices include:
- Provide a recorded announcement at the beginning of calls: "This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes."
- Include recording disclosures in terms of service and privacy policies.
- Train employees on recording policies and procedures.
- Maintain secure storage for recorded calls with appropriate access controls.
- Establish retention policies specifying how long recordings are kept and when they are deleted.
- Consider cross-state issues. If your business serves customers in two-party consent states, a blanket announcement protects you from liability in those jurisdictions.
KCDPA Considerations for Businesses
The Kentucky Consumer Data Protection Act, effective January 1, 2026, requires businesses processing personal data of Kentucky consumers to provide transparency about data collection and to honor consumer rights regarding their data. Recorded phone calls containing personal information may be considered consumer data subject to KCDPA requirements, including:
- Disclosure of data collection practices in privacy notices
- Consumer right to know what data is collected
- Consumer right to request deletion of personal data
- Duty to implement reasonable data security measures
Cross-State Phone Call Recording
The Interstate Call Problem
When you make or receive a call that crosses state lines, two different state laws may apply. If the other state requires all-party consent, you face a legal conflict. Courts have not reached a uniform conclusion on which state's law governs interstate calls, but the general approach is to apply the stricter standard when the two-party consent state asserts jurisdiction.
Two-Party Consent States to Watch
If you are calling from Kentucky to any of these states, the other state may require you to get consent from all parties:
| State | Key Statute | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| California | Cal. Penal Code 632 | All-party consent for confidential communications |
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d | All-party consent |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. 934.03 | All-party consent |
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 | All-party consent (Kentucky's neighbor) |
| Maryland | Md. Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402 | All-party consent |
| Massachusetts | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 99 | All-party consent (strict interpretation) |
| Montana | Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213 | All-party consent for electronic communications |
| New Hampshire | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 570-A:2 | All-party consent |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 5704 | All-party consent |
| Washington | Wash. Rev. Code 9.73.030 | All-party consent |
Practical Advice for Interstate Calls
- When in doubt, inform all parties. A simple statement at the start of the call eliminates cross-state concerns.
- Businesses with multi-state customers should use a standard announcement on all calls.
- Document the location of all parties when possible, especially for important calls you plan to record.
Phone Call Recording as Evidence
Admissibility in Kentucky Courts
Legally recorded phone calls are generally admissible as evidence in Kentucky criminal and civil proceedings. The Kentucky Rules of Evidence require:
- Authentication (KRE 901): The offering party must demonstrate the recording is genuine, identify the speakers, and show it has not been altered.
- Relevance (KRE 401): The recording must tend to make a fact of consequence more or less probable.
- Not unfairly prejudicial (KRE 403): The probative value must not be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Authenticating Phone Recordings
To authenticate a phone recording in Kentucky court, you typically need to establish:
- Who made the recording and when
- Who the participants in the call were (voice identification)
- That the recording device functioned properly
- That the recording is complete and has not been edited or altered
- How the recording was stored and preserved (chain of custody)
Common Uses of Phone Recordings as Evidence
Phone recordings are frequently used in Kentucky legal proceedings for:
- Family law cases: Documenting threats, harassment, or custody agreement violations
- Employment disputes: Recording conversations about discrimination, harassment, or wrongful termination
- Contract disputes: Preserving verbal agreements and negotiations
- Debt collection: Documenting collector behavior and compliance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Criminal cases: Recording threats, admissions, or fraudulent statements
- Protective order proceedings: Providing evidence of stalking, harassment, or domestic violence
Federal Wiretapping Law and Kentucky Calls
18 U.S.C. 2511 Compliance
Federal wiretapping law under 18 U.S.C. 2511 follows a one-party consent standard for the interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications. Since Kentucky also follows one-party consent, recordings made within Kentucky comply with both state and federal law simultaneously.
Federal penalties for illegal wiretapping are more severe than Kentucky penalties:
| Jurisdiction | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|
| Kentucky (KRS 526.020) | 5 years | $10,000 |
| Federal (18 U.S.C. 2511) | 5 years | $250,000 |
Stored Communications Act
The federal Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. 2701-2712) protects stored electronic communications, including voicemails stored on a service provider's system. Accessing someone else's stored voicemail without authorization is a separate federal offense.
Phone Call Recording and Specific Relationships
Recording Calls With Lawyers
You can record phone calls with your own attorney under one-party consent. However, consider that:
- Attorney-client privilege applies to the conversation, and sharing the recording could waive that privilege
- Recording opposing counsel is legal if you are on the call, but ethical considerations may apply
- Recorded attorney conversations may be subject to heightened scrutiny in legal proceedings
Recording Calls With Medical Providers
Recording phone calls with doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other medical providers is legal under one-party consent. Many patients find it helpful to record calls where medical instructions, test results, or treatment plans are discussed.
Recording Calls With Government Agencies
You can record phone calls with government agencies including:
- Social services (DCBS, child support, Medicaid)
- Tax agencies (Kentucky Department of Revenue, IRS)
- Law enforcement
- Licensing boards and regulatory agencies
- Utility providers and public commissions
Recording Debt Collection Calls
Recording calls from debt collectors is legal and often advisable. Recordings can document violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Kentucky's own consumer protection statutes.
More Kentucky Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism and Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant Recording | Dashcam Laws | School Recording | Medical Recording
Back to Kentucky Recording Laws
More Kentucky Recording Topics
More Kentucky Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Kentucky without telling the other person?
Yes. Kentucky is a one-party consent state under KRS 526.020. As long as you are a participant in the phone call, you can record it without notifying the other party. This applies to landline calls, cell phone calls, VoIP calls, and video calls.
Is it legal for businesses to record customer calls in Kentucky?
Yes. Under one-party consent, as long as an employee is on the call, the business can record it. While not legally required, best practice is to play a recorded announcement informing callers that the call may be recorded, especially if the business serves customers in two-party consent states.
Can I record a call with someone in Illinois from Kentucky?
The recording is legal under Kentucky law, but Illinois requires all-party consent. Courts generally apply the stricter standard when a call crosses into a two-party consent state. You could face liability under Illinois law. The safest approach is to inform all parties.
Can a recorded phone call be used as evidence in Kentucky court?
Yes. Legally recorded phone calls are generally admissible in both criminal and civil proceedings in Kentucky. The recording must be authenticated as genuine and unaltered, and the standard rules of evidence regarding relevance and prejudice apply.
What happens if I record a phone call I am not part of in Kentucky?
Recording a phone call you are not part of, without consent from any participant, is eavesdropping under KRS 526.020. This is a Class D felony punishable by 1 to 5 years in prison and fines of $1,000 to $10,000.
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.
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 526: EAVESDROPPING AND RELATED OFFENSES
§ 526.020EavesdroppingIn forcecited in 20 of our articles
(1) A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he intentionally uses any device to eavesdrop, whether or not he is present at the time. (2) Eavesdropping is a Class D felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Basham v. Commonwealth (1984) held wiretap evidence obtained under a valid federal order is admissible in Kentucky, though it noted no state law authorizes electronic surveillance by Kentucky police. Brock v. Commonwealth (1997) held the exclusionary rule reaches only constitutional violations, so a private recording was not suppressed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Springer v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 1999, 998 S.W.2d 439)✓A neighbor used a police scanner to tape cordless calls from the victim's home, and detectives played it to induce Eades to confess; the court held the federal wiretap act and Kentucky's eavesdropping statutes did not bar using it against someone who was not a party to the calls.
- Stringer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Kentucky Supreme Court 2004, 151 S.W.3d 781)✓Wal-Mart secretly ran about forty hours of audio and video surveillance of employees in a store claims area; the court did not decide whether that violated KRS 526.020, holding instead that the employees' statutory claim failed for lack of damages caused by the recording itself.
- Brock v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 1997, 947 S.W.2d 24)✓Brock, claiming self-defense, was kept from using a private tape of the victim's mother saying her son had gone to kill him; the court held that even assuming the tape violated KRS 526.020, the exclusionary rule reaches only state action, so suppression was not required.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 526.010DefinitionIn forcecited in 15 of our articles
The following definition applies in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: "Eavesdrop" means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto by means of any electronic, mechanical or other device.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Major v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2006, 177 S.W.3d 700)“…the activity was appropriate under Kentucky Criminal Law, KRS 526.010; thus not in violation of his Fourth Am…”
- Springer v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 1999, 998 S.W.2d 439)“…ions, is not precluded by 18 U.S.C. § 2510 , et seq. and KRS 526.010, et seq. Nor do these statutes have a…”
- Carrier v. Commonwealth (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 1980, 607 S.W.2d 115)“…ucky to depart from the federal norm. See also KRS 526.010, which defines “eavesdrop” as “to overh…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
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.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 126 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 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
- KRS 526.020 - Eavesdropping(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- KRS 526.010 - Definition of Eavesdrop(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- KRS Chapter 526 - Eavesdropping and Related Offenses(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- Kentucky Attorney General - KCDPA(ag.ky.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. 2510 - Federal Wiretap Definitions(law.cornell.edu)
- FTC - Fair Debt Collection Practices Act(ftc.gov).gov