Louisiana
Louisiana 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 9, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Louisiana is a one-party consent state, meaning you can legally record any phone call you participate in without notifying the other party. Under La. R.S. 15:1303, your participation in the call counts as consent. This rule covers landline, cell phone, and VoIP calls.
Louisiana's one-party consent law makes it straightforward to record phone calls. Under La. R.S. 15:1303, you can record any telephone conversation you are participating in without informing the other person. This applies to every type of phone call, from traditional landlines to modern VoIP platforms.
This guide provides a thorough breakdown of Louisiana's phone call recording rules, covering personal calls, business calls, interstate call complications, call recording technology, and the legal consequences of illegal call recording.
The Basic Rule: One-Party Consent
How It Works
Louisiana requires the consent of only one party to a phone call for recording to be legal. That one party can be you. If you are on the call, you have the right to record it without telling anyone else on the line.
The statute is clear. La. R.S. 15:1303 prohibits the willful interception of wire communications but exempts situations where at least one party to the communication consents. Your decision to record a call you are participating in constitutes that consent.
This means:
- You do not need to say "this call is being recorded."
- You do not need verbal or written agreement from the other person.
- You do not need to play a beep tone or any other audible indicator.
- You do not need to get permission before, during, or after the call.
What Types of Phone Calls Are Covered
Louisiana's one-party consent rule covers all forms of telephone communication:
| Call Type | Covered? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional landline | Yes | Standard wired telephone service |
| Cell phone calls | Yes | Includes all mobile carriers |
| VoIP (Zoom, Teams, etc.) | Yes | Internet-based voice communication |
| Video call audio | Yes | Audio portion of video calls |
| Conference calls | Yes | Your consent covers recording of the entire call |
| Cordless phone calls | Yes | Treated the same as landline calls |
| Satellite phone calls | Yes | Covered as wire communications |
Recording Personal Phone Calls
Everyday Situations
You can record personal phone calls in Louisiana for any reason, including:
- Documenting verbal agreements. Recording a contractor's promise about pricing or timelines.
- Preserving important conversations. Capturing medical advice, insurance claim discussions, or legal consultations.
- Protecting yourself in disputes. Recording conversations with a landlord, ex-spouse, neighbor, or anyone you have a disagreement with.
- Memory aid. Recording complex instructions or directions.
- Gathering evidence. Documenting harassment, threats, or fraud.
Recording Calls With Family Members
Louisiana's one-party consent law applies to calls with family members just as it does with anyone else. You can record calls with:
- Your spouse or partner
- Your children (when you are on the call)
- Your parents or siblings
- Your ex-spouse or co-parent
In custody disputes, recording phone calls with a co-parent is common and legal as long as you are a party to the call. However, you cannot instruct your child to record calls with the other parent when you are not on the line, as you would not be a consenting party.
Recording Calls With Businesses
When you call a business, you can record the call under Louisiana's one-party consent law. This is useful for:
- Documenting customer service promises
- Recording insurance claim discussions
- Preserving conversations with utility companies
- Capturing verbal authorizations for services or charges
Many businesses already record their calls with you. When you hear "this call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes," that announcement serves as their consent notification. Your separate right to record under Louisiana law exists independently of the business's recording practices.
Recording Business Phone Calls
Employer Call Recording
Louisiana businesses can record phone calls when an employee who is a party to the call consents to the recording. Common business recording purposes include:
- Quality assurance and training. Reviewing call recordings to improve service.
- Compliance documentation. Preserving records of verbal agreements, disclosures, or consent.
- Dispute resolution. Maintaining an objective record of what was said.
- Legal protection. Documenting interactions that could become the subject of litigation.
FCC Regulations for Business Call Recording
The FCC's notification requirement for telephone common carriers recording interstate calls (formerly 47 C.F.R. 64.501) was removed from the Code of Federal Regulations in 2017. The FCC has not adopted a specific rule replacing it for call-recording disclosure; businesses that record interstate calls should rely on state one-party or all-party consent law instead.
In practice, the following notification methods remain industry standard for interstate call recording:
- A verbal announcement before the conversation begins
- A periodic beep tone during the call
- Written consent obtained before the call (in contracts or terms of service)
Call Center Compliance
Louisiana-based call centers must comply with both state and federal recording requirements. Best practices include:
- Playing an automated recording disclosure at the beginning of each call
- Training employees on one-party consent rules
- Storing call recordings securely with access controls
- Establishing retention policies that comply with industry regulations
- Documenting consent procedures for audit purposes
Interstate Phone Calls
The Multi-State Problem
The most complex aspect of phone call recording involves calls between Louisiana and other states. Louisiana's one-party consent rule is permissive, but if you call someone in a two-party consent state, that state's stricter law may apply.
Two-Party Consent States to Watch
These states require all parties to consent to recording:
| State | Statute | Key Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| California | Cal. Penal Code 632 | All-party consent for confidential communications |
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d | Criminal law is one-party, but civil liability attaches to phone-call recording without all-party consent |
| Delaware | 11 Del. C. 1335; 11 Del. C. 2402(c)(4) | All-party consent is a civil requirement; the criminal wiretap statute is one-party |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. 934.03 | All-party consent |
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 | All-party consent (with exceptions) |
| Maryland | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402 | All-party consent |
| Massachusetts | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99 | All-party consent (strictest in the U.S.) |
| Montana | Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213 | All-party consent |
| Nevada | Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620 | One-party by statute, but courts have read it to functionally require all-party consent for phone calls |
| New Hampshire | N.H. Rev. Stat. 570-A:2 | All-party consent |
| Oregon | ORS 165.540 | All-party consent for electronic communications; one-party consent for in-person conversations |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa.C.S. 5703 | All-party consent |
| Washington | Wash. Rev. Code 9.73.030 | All-party consent |
Which State's Law Applies?
There is no uniform rule for which state's law governs an interstate call. Different courts have applied different approaches:
- Location of the recording device. Some courts apply the law of the state where the recorder is located (favorable for Louisiana residents).
- Location of the recorded party. Other courts apply the law of the state where the other person is located (which could be a two-party consent state).
- Most restrictive approach. Some courts apply whichever state's law is stricter.
Because of this uncertainty, the safest practice when calling someone in a two-party consent state is to inform all parties or obtain all-party consent.
Practical Tips for Interstate Calls
- Know where the other person is located. If they are in a two-party consent state, consider disclosing the recording.
- Use a simple disclosure. A brief statement like "I want to let you know I am recording this call" satisfies most two-party consent requirements.
- Document the disclosure. The recording itself will capture your notification, creating a record of compliance.
- When in doubt, disclose. The cost of disclosing is minimal. The cost of violating another state's law can be significant.
Federal Phone Call Recording Law
The Federal Wiretap Act
The federal Wiretap Act under 18 U.S.C. 2511 also follows a one-party consent standard. This means Louisiana's state law and federal law are aligned. Recording a phone call you participate in is lawful under both.
Key provisions of the federal law:
- One-party consent is sufficient for lawful interception
- Criminal penalties include up to 5 years in federal prison
- Civil damages available under 18 U.S.C. 2520
- Exceptions for law enforcement with proper warrants
State vs. Federal Jurisdiction
Most phone call recording cases are prosecuted under state law. Federal jurisdiction typically applies when:
- The call crosses state lines (interstate commerce)
- Federal law enforcement is involved
- The recording involves organized crime or national security matters
- The violation occurs on federal property
Call Recording Technology
Smartphone Apps
Modern call recording is most commonly done through smartphone apps. Options include:
- Built-in recording features. Some Android phones have native call recording capabilities.
- Third-party apps. Numerous apps are available for both iOS and Android that record phone calls automatically or on demand.
- VoIP platform features. Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and similar platforms have built-in recording functions.
Hardware Devices
For landline recording or situations where app-based recording is not practical:
- Telephone recording adapters that connect between the phone and handset
- Dedicated digital voice recorders with telephone recording attachments
- USB recording devices that connect to computer-based phone systems
Cloud-Based Recording Services
Businesses often use cloud-based recording platforms that automatically capture and store call recordings. These services typically integrate with existing phone systems and provide:
- Automatic recording of all calls
- Searchable archives
- Compliance documentation features
- Secure storage with access controls
Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording
Criminal Penalties
Recording a phone call you are not a party to without the consent of any participant is a felony under La. R.S. 15:1303:
| Penalty | Amount |
|---|---|
| Prison time | 2 to 10 years at hard labor |
| Fine | Up to $10,000 |
| Combined | Both prison and fine |
Civil Liability
Victims can sue under La. R.S. 15:1312 for:
- Actual damages
- Statutory damages of $100 per day or $1,000 (whichever is greater)
- Punitive damages
- Attorney fees and costs
La. R.S. 15:1312 does not state its own statute of limitations. The applicable period is Louisiana's general delictual prescription, now two years under La. C.C. art. 3493.1 for claims arising after July 1, 2024, running from the date the injury or damage is sustained, not from discovery. A claim that arose before July 1, 2024, is still governed by the former one-year period under the now-repealed La. C.C. art. 3492.
Using Phone Call Recordings as Evidence
Admissibility
Phone call recordings made lawfully under Louisiana's one-party consent law are admissible as evidence in court. To use a recording as evidence, you must:
- Authenticate the recording. Testify that it is a true and accurate representation of the conversation.
- Establish relevance. Show the recording relates to a matter at issue.
- Preserve the original. Maintain the unedited original file.
- Address hearsay objections. Some statements on a recording may be subject to hearsay rules, though party admissions and other exceptions often apply.
Types of Cases Where Call Recordings Are Used
- Custody and family law disputes
- Employment discrimination and harassment claims
- Contract disputes (proving verbal agreements)
- Insurance claim disputes
- Harassment and stalking cases
- Personal injury claims
- Landlord-tenant disputes
More Louisiana 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 Louisiana Recording Laws
More Louisiana Recording Topics
More Louisiana Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Louisiana without telling the other person?
Yes. Louisiana is a one-party consent state under La. R.S. 15:1303. You can record any phone call you participate in without informing or getting permission from the other person. This applies to landline, cell phone, and VoIP calls.
What happens if I record someone's phone call without being on the call?
Recording a phone call you are not a party to is a felony in Louisiana. Penalties include 2 to 10 years at hard labor and fines up to $10,000. The victim can also sue for civil damages under La. R.S. 15:1312.
Can I record a call with someone in a two-party consent state?
Louisiana's law permits it, but the other state's stricter law may also apply. If the person you are calling is in a two-party consent state like California, Florida, or Pennsylvania, you could face liability in that state. The safest approach is to inform all parties on interstate calls with two-party consent states.
Can my employer record my phone calls at work in Louisiana?
Your employer can record business calls when an employee who participates in the call consents. Employers cannot record your personal phone calls without your consent. Many employers use automated announcements to notify callers that the call may be recorded.
Are recorded phone calls admissible in Louisiana courts?
Yes, if the recording was made lawfully under Louisiana's one-party consent law. You must authenticate the recording, show it is relevant to the case, and preserve the original unedited file. Illegally obtained recordings are generally inadmissible.
Updates
Removed an incorrect claim that a specific FCC order (24-24) sets current call-recording carrier obligations; that order actually governs robocall consent revocation and has no bearing on call recording. Also expanded the two-party consent state comparison table to match the sibling Louisiana recording-law pages, adding Delaware, Nevada, and Oregon with the nuances each of those states carries.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the civil statute-of-limitations claim for La. R.S. 15:1312: the statute itself states no limitations period, and 'runs from the date of discovery' is actually the federal 18 U.S.C. 2520 rule, not Louisiana's. Louisiana's general delictual prescription (La. C.C. art. 3493.1, 2 years, effective July 1, 2024) runs from the date injury or damage is sustained.
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.
Louisiana Revised Statutes
§ 15:1303Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic, or oral communicationsIn forcecited in 36 of our articles
A. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to: (1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, electronic or oral communication; (2) Willfully use, endeavor to use, or procure any other person to use or endeavor to use, any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when: (a) Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire or electronic communication; or (b) Such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication; (3) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication in violation of this Subsection; or (4) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.la.gov
Cited in 25 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Louisiana courts apply the consent exception in La. R.S. 15:1303. Smith v. Smith (2005) held a parent may consent for a child where he has a good faith, reasonable basis that it serves the child’s best interest, placing the recording within 15:1303(C)(4). Keller v. Aymond (1998) held willfulness is not required for civil liability.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Smith v. Smith (Louisiana Court of Appeal 2005, 923 So. 2d 732)✓A father secretly taped his daughter's calls with her mother in his own home during a custody fight; the court applied vicarious consent and held his good faith, objectively reasonable belief that taping served the child's best interest fell within La. R.S. 15:1303(C)(4).
- Johnson v. Aymond (Louisiana Court of Appeal 1998, 709 So. 2d 1072)✓A newspaper printed excerpts of a phone conversation a defendant had allegedly taped and handed out at a press conference; the court held those allegations, accepted as true, state a cause of action under the literal language of La. R.S. 15:1303(A)(4), and reversed the dismissal.
- Keller v. Aymond (Louisiana Court of Appeal 1998, 722 So. 2d 1224)✓A newspaper published excerpts of private calls taped by another and handed out at a press conference; the court held criminal willfulness under section 1303 is not needed for civil damages, and that fact issues over the paper's reason to know barred summary judgment under 1303.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 15:1302DefinitionsIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
As used in this Chapter: (1) "Aggrieved person" means a person who was party to any intercepted wire or oral communication or a person against whom the interception was directed. (2) "Attorney for a governmental entity" means an attorney on the staff or under the direct supervision of the district attorney authorized by law to prosecute such offenses as are subject of the pen register, a trap and trace device, or a cellular tracking device. (3) "Aural transfer" means a transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception. (4) "Bail enforcement agent" means a licensed bail agent who engages in the apprehension or surrender by a natural person of a principal who is released on bail or who has failed to appear at any stage of the proceedings to answer the charge before the court in which the principal may be prosecuted.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.la.gov
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2017
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Benoit v. Roche (Louisiana Court of Appeal 1995, 657 So. 2d 574)“…calls received or made while at Delchamps store # 106. See La.R.S. 15:1302(14). The district court also implicitly…”
- Opinion Number (Louisiana Attorney General Reports 1995)“…ing of the term "law enforcement officer" as referred to in La. R.S. 15:1302 (12), 15:1310 (A)(1) and 15:1314 (A)…”
- State v. Marinello (Louisiana Court of Appeal 2010, 9 La.App. 3 Cir. 1260)“…ormation by an application for a pen register, we note that La. R.S. 15:1302(15) 26 specifically excludes this type…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 15:1312Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 17 of our articles
A. Any person whose wire, electronic, or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this Chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use such communications, and be entitled to recover from any such person: (1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation or one thousand dollars, whichever is greater. (2) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (3) Punitive damages. B. A good faith reliance on a court order shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this Chapter.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.la.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Benoit v. Roche (Louisiana Court of Appeal 1995, 657 So. 2d 574)“…eets Act of 1968 authorize a civil damages cause of action. La.R.S. 15:1312; 18 U.S.C. § 2520 ; see also United S…”
- Keller v. Aymond (Louisiana Court of Appeal 1998, 722 So. 2d 1224)“…spaper before the plaintiffs can claim a civil remedy under La. R.S. 15:1312. Hence, the newspaper can be held civil…”
- Wingrave v. Hebert (Louisiana Court of Appeal 2007, 964 So. 2d 385)“…of this Chapter shall have a civil cause of action. . . ." La. R.S. 15:1312(A). The substance of LESA was first i…”
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
§ 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
- La. R.S. 15:1303(legis.la.gov).gov
- La. R.S. 15:1302 - Definitions(law.justia.com)
- La. R.S. 15:1312 - Civil Damages(law.justia.com)
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- 47 C.F.R. 64.501(ecfr.gov).gov
- FCC Recording Guide(fcc.gov).gov
- Louisiana SB 53 (2025)(legis.la.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2520 - Recovery of Civil Damages(law.cornell.edu)