Michigan Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules, Statutes, and Penalties (2026)

Michigan audio recording law permits participants to record any conversation they are part of without notifying the other parties. Although MCL 750.539c requires consent from all parties on its face, courts interpret "eavesdrop" to exclude a participant's own conversation. Recording a conversation you are not part of remains a felony.

Michigan has one of the most frequently misunderstood audio recording laws in the country. The statute technically requires consent from all parties to a private conversation. However, every Michigan appellate court and federal court to address the question has concluded that a participant in a conversation may record it without obtaining consent from the other parties.

This guide covers the full scope of Michigan audio recording law, including the key statutes, the participant exception, criminal penalties for violations, civil remedies, and how the law applies to different recording scenarios.

Michigan's Core Audio Recording Statute: MCL 750.539c

MCL 750.539c is the primary statute governing audio recording in Michigan. It states that any person who willfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon a private conversation without the consent of all parties is guilty of a felony.

On its surface, this language appears to make Michigan an all-party consent state. However, the statute must be read together with the definitions section, MCL 750.539a, which fundamentally changes how the law operates in practice.

The Definition That Changes Everything

MCL 750.539a(2) defines "eavesdrop" as "to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse."

The word "others" is the key. Michigan courts have consistently held that when you participate in a conversation, the discourse is not solely that of "others." It is also your own. Because of this interpretation, a participant who records their own conversation is not "eavesdropping" under the statutory definition.

What "Private Discourse" Means

Not every conversation qualifies as "private discourse" under the statute. MCL 750.539a defines "private place" as a location where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance. A place that the public or a substantial group of the public can access does not qualify as a private place.

The same logic applies to conversations. A loud discussion in a busy restaurant or a conversation held in a public park may not constitute "private discourse" because the participants cannot reasonably expect that no one will overhear them. A conversation in a closed office, a private home, or a phone call between two individuals generally does qualify.

The Participant Exception: Sullivan v. Gray

The foundational case establishing Michigan's participant exception is Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476, 324 N.W.2d 58 (1982). The Michigan Court of Appeals examined the statutory language and held that the definition of "eavesdrop" references "the private discourse of others," which by its plain meaning excludes a participant's own conversations.

The court reasoned that unless a person explicitly states that a conversation is "off the record," any participant may reasonably repeat or record what was said. The recording is simply a more precise way of preserving the conversation.

Why This Has Not Been Overturned

Sullivan v. Gray has stood for over 40 years. The Michigan Supreme Court was asked to revisit it when it accepted a certified question in the AFT Michigan litigation but declined to answer in 2021, leaving Sullivan as controlling Court of Appeals authority. The Michigan Legislature has never amended the statute to eliminate the participant exception. Multiple subsequent Michigan Court of Appeals decisions have reaffirmed it.

The district court's own ruling in that same litigation, AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas, No. 4:17-cv-13292 (E.D. Mich.), tells a similar story of the exception holding up under direct challenge: the court first ruled the opposite way in 2019, then reversed itself on reconsideration on November 8, 2021, holding that participant recording does not violate MCL 750.539c. That reconsideration order, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215090 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2021), is the ruling the Sixth Circuit relied on in Fisher v. Perron.

Fisher v. Perron (2022): Federal Confirmation

The most recent and authoritative ruling came from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022). The Sixth Circuit held that a participant does not violate Michigan's eavesdropping statute by recording a conversation without the consent of other participants.

This decision is binding on all federal courts in the Sixth Circuit, which covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Combined with the consistent state court precedent, it means both state and federal courts in Michigan now recognize the participant exception.

What Audio Recording Is Legal in Michigan

Understanding when you can and cannot record audio in Michigan requires applying the participant exception to specific scenarios.

Recording Your Own Conversations

If you are actively participating in a conversation, you can record it. This applies to:

• In-person conversations where you are one of the speakers
• Phone calls that you are a party to, whether on a landline, cell phone, or VoIP platform
• Video calls on platforms like Zoom, FaceTime, Teams, or Google Meet where you are a participant
• Text-to-speech and voice messages that you are sending or receiving in real time

You do not need to announce that you are recording. You do not need to obtain verbal or written consent from the other participants. Your own participation satisfies the consent requirement.

Recording in Public Spaces

Conversations that take place in public areas where people have no reasonable expectation of privacy generally fall outside the statute entirely. You can record audio in:

• Public parks and sidewalks
• Retail stores open to the public
• Government buildings during public meetings
• Outdoor events and gatherings

The Michigan Open Meetings Act (MCL 15.263) explicitly protects the right to tape-record, videotape, broadcast, and telecast proceedings of any public body at a public meeting. This right does not require prior approval.

When All Parties Consent

When every participant in a conversation agrees to recording, the recording is always legal regardless of context. Written consent is the safest approach but is not legally required. Verbal consent or even implied consent (such as continuing a conversation after being told it is being recorded) can satisfy the statute.

What Audio Recording Is Illegal in Michigan

Third-Party Eavesdropping

If you are not a participant in the conversation, recording it without the consent of all parties is a felony. This applies to:

• Placing a hidden recording device in a room where others will have a private conversation
• Using electronic equipment to intercept phone calls you are not part of
• Positioning a microphone to capture conversations between other people
• Hiring or directing someone else to eavesdrop on your behalf

MCL 750.539c specifically states that anyone who "knowingly aids, employs or procures another person" to eavesdrop is equally guilty.

Installing Recording Devices in Private Places

MCL 750.539d separately prohibits installing, placing, or using any device for recording or eavesdropping in a private place without the consent of the person entitled to privacy there. This covers hidden microphones, bugs, and covert recording equipment placed in homes, offices, hotel rooms, or other private locations.

Distributing Illegally Obtained Recordings

MCL 750.539e makes it a separate felony to divulge, disclose, or distribute information obtained through illegal eavesdropping. Even if you did not perform the illegal recording yourself, knowingly sharing the contents of an illegally obtained recording is a crime.

Criminal Penalties for Illegal Audio Recording

Michigan treats eavesdropping violations as serious criminal offenses. All violations are classified as felonies.

These penalties reflect the seriousness with which Michigan treats privacy violations. A felony conviction also carries collateral consequences including potential loss of professional licenses, difficulty finding employment, and loss of voting rights while incarcerated.

Civil Remedies for Victims

MCL 750.539h provides victims of illegal eavesdropping with the right to file a civil lawsuit. Available remedies include:

• Injunctive relief to stop ongoing eavesdropping
• Actual damages for any harm suffered as a result of the illegal recording
• Punitive damages as determined by the court or jury

Michigan's statute does not set a minimum statutory damage amount. Victims must demonstrate actual harm to recover compensatory damages. However, punitive damages may be awarded at the court's discretion to punish particularly egregious conduct and deter future violations.

Federal Liability

Illegal audio recordings may also violate the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511, which carries criminal penalties of up to 5 years imprisonment. The Act's civil remedy is a separate provision, 18 U.S.C. 2520: a private right of action with statutory damages of the greater of actual damages or $100 per day of violation, with a $10,000 minimum.

Interstate and Cross-Border Calls

When recording a phone call between Michigan and another state, the stricter state's law generally applies. Michigan's participant exception means Michigan residents can freely record calls they participate in. However, if the person on the other end of the line is in an all-party consent state, that state's law may govern.

States that require all-party consent include California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. If you are calling someone in one of these states, consider disclosing that you are recording to avoid potential liability under the other state's law.

For calls between Michigan and Canada, Canadian federal law under the Criminal Code of Canada generally allows one-party consent recording. However, provincial privacy laws may impose additional restrictions.

Audio Recording as Evidence in Michigan Courts

Recordings made legally under the participant exception are generally admissible as evidence in Michigan courts. Courts evaluate recorded evidence under the Michigan Rules of Evidence, considering factors including:

• Whether the recording was obtained legally
• Whether the recording is authentic and has not been altered
• Whether the recording is relevant to the case

Recordings obtained through illegal eavesdropping are typically inadmissible. Michigan courts may suppress evidence gathered in violation of MCL 750.539c, and the party who made the illegal recording may face criminal prosecution and civil liability.

Recordings in Family Law Cases

Audio recordings frequently appear in Michigan divorce, custody, and domestic relations cases. A parent who records their own phone conversations with the other parent is generally acting within the participant exception. However, recording a child's conversations with the other parent when the recording parent is not present raises third-party eavesdropping concerns.

Michigan courts have addressed this issue with mixed results. The safest approach is to only record conversations in which you are a direct participant.

Practical Tips for Legal Audio Recording in Michigan

1. Always be a participant. The participant exception only protects people who are actively part of the conversation. Do not record conversations you are not involved in.

2. Understand the limits of "participant." You cannot authorize a third party to record on your behalf. The exception requires your own direct participation.

3. Consider cross-state implications. If the other party is in an all-party consent state, their state's law may apply. When in doubt, disclose that you are recording.

4. Know your employer's policy. Even though recording your own workplace conversations is legal, violating an employer's no-recording policy can result in termination.

5. Preserve recordings carefully. If you plan to use a recording as evidence, keep the original file unedited and note the date, time, and participants.

6. Consult an attorney for sensitive situations. If you are considering recording conversations related to legal proceedings, criminal activity, or family disputes, get legal advice first.

Related Michigan 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 Michigan Recording Laws

More Michigan Recording Topics

• Michigan Biometric Privacy Laws
• Surveillance Camera Laws

More Michigan Laws

• Michigan AI Meeting Recording Laws
• Michigan Dashcam Laws
• Michigan Data Privacy Laws
• Michigan Deepfake Laws
• Michigan Employee Monitoring Laws
• Michigan GPS Tracking Laws
• Michigan Police Bodycam Laws
• Michigan Smart Glasses Recording Laws