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

Michigan's eavesdropping statute, MCL 750.539c, prohibits recording the private conversations of others, but courts have established a participant exception that lets you record any phone call you are part of without notifying the other party. When calling into a stricter state, disclosing the recording is the safest practice.
Phone call recording is one of the most common and practical applications of Michigan's recording laws. Whether you want to record a personal call, a business conversation, or a call with a government agency, the rules depend on the participant exception established by Michigan courts and the location of the person on the other end of the line.
This guide covers every aspect of phone call recording law in Michigan, including the legal framework, interstate calling rules, business recording practices, and how to use recorded calls as evidence.
Michigan's Legal Framework for Phone Call Recording
The Eavesdropping Statute and Phone Calls
MCL 750.539c prohibits eavesdropping on private conversations. This statute applies to phone calls when a third party (someone not on the call) uses a device to intercept or record the conversation without all-party consent.
However, the statutory definition of "eavesdrop" under MCL 750.539a(2) limits the prohibition to recording "the private discourse of others." When you are on the phone call, the conversation is not solely that of "others." It is also yours.
How the Participant Exception Applies to Calls
The Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476, 324 N.W.2d 58 (1982), participant exception, affirmed by the Sixth Circuit in Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022) and reached again on reconsideration by the same district court in AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas, No. 4:17-cv-13292 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2021), directly applies to phone calls. If you are a party to the call, you can record it without informing the other person.
This applies to:
- Landline calls on home or office phones
- Cell phone calls on any carrier or device
- VoIP calls through services like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, FaceTime, and WhatsApp
- Conference calls where you are an active participant
- Video calls where audio is captured along with video
You do not need to announce the recording, play a beep tone, or obtain verbal agreement. Your participation is the consent.
Limits of the Participant Exception for Calls
The exception has clear boundaries:
- You must be on the call. You cannot tap someone else's phone line, intercept calls between others, or use a device to listen to a call you are not part of.
- You cannot delegate recording rights. You cannot ask a friend to record a call on your behalf from an extension or separate device while you are on the line. The person doing the recording must be a direct participant.
- The exception covers your calls only. Setting up a recording device to automatically capture all calls on a shared phone line may record calls made by others when you are not present, which would violate the eavesdropping statute.
Interstate Phone Call Recording Rules

The Multi-State Problem
When you make or receive a call between Michigan and another state, both states' laws potentially apply. Michigan's participant exception makes the recording legal under Michigan law, but the other state may have different rules.
All-Party Consent States
The following states require consent from all parties before recording a phone call:
- California
- Connecticut
- Florida
- Illinois
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Montana
- New Hampshire
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Washington
If the person on the other end of your call is in one of these states, their state's law may govern the recording. Several of these states have applied their laws to calls that originate from or terminate in their jurisdiction, regardless of where the recording party is located.
The most notable example is California, where the state Supreme Court held in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006) that California's all-party consent law applies to calls involving California residents even when the recording occurs elsewhere.
Practical Guidance for Interstate Calls
To minimize legal risk when recording calls with people in other states:
- Know where the other party is. If they are in an all-party consent state, consider disclosing the recording.
- When in doubt, disclose. A simple statement like "I am recording this call for my records" satisfies even the strictest state laws.
- Document the disclosure. If you inform the other party of the recording and they continue the conversation, that continuation generally constitutes implied consent.
International Calls
Recording laws vary significantly by country. Canadian federal law generally allows one-party consent recording under the Criminal Code. European Union countries generally require consent from all parties under GDPR privacy principles. When recording calls with international parties, research the specific country's laws or default to disclosure.
Business Phone Call Recording in Michigan

Legal Requirements
Michigan businesses where employees participate in customer calls can legally record those calls under the participant exception. The employee's participation on the call satisfies the consent requirement.
However, best practices for business call recording go beyond the minimum legal requirement:
Recommended Business Practices
Pre-call notification: Play an automated message at the start of the call: "This call may be monitored or recorded for quality assurance and training purposes." This approach satisfies all-party consent requirements for any state the caller may be in and builds customer trust.
Employee training: Train all staff who handle recorded calls on proper procedures, including when recording starts, how to disclose recording, and how to handle callers who object.
Written policies: Maintain a written call recording policy that covers:
- Which calls are recorded and why
- How recordings are stored and for how long
- Who has access to recordings
- How recordings are deleted when retention periods expire
- Employee responsibilities regarding recorded calls
Compliance with interstate rules: If your business serves customers in all-party consent states, the pre-call notification approach eliminates legal risk across all jurisdictions.
Call Center Recording
Michigan-based call centers that handle calls from multiple states should default to providing notice on all calls. This is the industry standard because it is impossible to know in advance which state each caller is in. A blanket notification policy is simpler, more reliable, and legally safer than trying to determine the caller's location before deciding whether to disclose.
Recording Government Agency Calls

Calling State Agencies
When you call a Michigan state agency, the agency may record the call (and usually discloses this at the start). You can also record the call under the participant exception. Many Michigan agencies provide recorded disclosures that effectively put both sides on notice.
Calling Federal Agencies
Federal phone calls are governed by the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511, which follows one-party consent. You can record your own calls with federal agencies.
Using Recorded Phone Calls as Evidence
Admissibility in Michigan Courts
Phone call recordings made legally under the participant exception are admissible in Michigan courts, subject to the Michigan Rules of Evidence. The party introducing the recording must establish:
- Authenticity: The recording accurately captures what was said
- Chain of custody: The recording has not been altered since it was made
- Relevance: The recording relates to an issue in the case
Common Uses of Recorded Calls
Legally recorded phone calls frequently serve as evidence in:
- Contract disputes: Proving what terms were agreed to verbally
- Harassment and stalking cases: Documenting threatening or harassing statements
- Family law cases: Recording co-parenting conversations, discussions about custody, or evidence of misconduct
- Insurance claims: Preserving statements made by insurance adjusters or agents
- Consumer complaints: Documenting conversations with businesses or service providers
- Employment disputes: Recording conversations about wages, working conditions, or discriminatory statements
Recordings in Family Law
Parents in custody disputes frequently record phone calls with the other parent. Under the participant exception, a parent can record their own conversations with the co-parent. However, recording the child's conversations with the other parent when the recording parent is not part of the call raises third-party eavesdropping concerns.
Michigan courts have addressed parent-child recording scenarios with mixed results. The safest approach is to only record calls where you are a direct participant.
Criminal Penalties for Illegal Phone Recording
Illegally recording phone calls in Michigan carries the same felony penalties as other eavesdropping violations:
| Offense | Statute | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercepting phone calls of others | MCL 750.539c | 2 years | $2,000 |
| Disclosing illegally intercepted calls | MCL 750.539e | 2 years | $2,000 |
Federal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 2511 may also apply, carrying up to 5 years imprisonment. Civil liability for statutory damages is authorized separately under 18 U.S.C. 2520.
Phone Recording Apps and Technology
Legal Considerations for Recording Apps
Using a recording app on your own phone to record calls you participate in is legal under Michigan's participant exception. Popular apps include built-in phone recording features, third-party apps, and cloud-based recording services.
Automatic Recording Settings
Some apps and phone systems offer automatic recording of all calls. If you are the only person who uses the phone, this is functionally the same as manually recording each call you participate in. However, if the phone is shared with family members or coworkers, automatic recording may capture their calls when you are not a participant, violating the eavesdropping statute.
Cloud Storage and Security
Recorded calls stored in the cloud should be secured with strong passwords and encryption. Michigan law does not have specific requirements for storing recorded calls, but maintaining security protects you from potential liability if recordings are accessed by unauthorized parties.
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
More Michigan Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Michigan without telling the other person?
Yes. Under Michigan's participant exception from Sullivan v. Gray (1982), you can record any phone call you are a party to without informing the other person. This applies to landline, cell phone, and VoIP calls. You do not need to announce the recording or obtain consent.
What if I am calling someone in an all-party consent state from Michigan?
When calling someone in an all-party consent state like California, Florida, or Pennsylvania, the stricter state's law may apply. To avoid legal risk, consider disclosing that you are recording. A simple statement at the start of the call satisfies even the strictest state laws.
Can a business record customer phone calls in Michigan?
Yes. Michigan businesses can record calls where an employee participates under the participant exception. However, best practice is to play an automated notice at the start of the call informing the caller that the call may be recorded. This satisfies all-party consent requirements for callers in other states and builds customer trust.
Can I use a recorded phone call as evidence in court in Michigan?
Yes. Phone call recordings made legally under the participant exception are admissible in Michigan courts. You must establish that the recording is authentic, has not been altered, and is relevant to the case. Illegally recorded calls are typically inadmissible and may expose you to criminal liability.
Is it legal to use a phone recording app in Michigan?
Using a recording app on your own phone to record calls you participate in is legal under the participant exception. However, if the phone is shared and the app automatically records all calls, it may capture conversations of others when you are not a participant, which would violate the eavesdropping statute.
Updates
Corrected a fabricated 2026 federal court ruling in AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas; the real case reached its participant-exception holding via a November 8, 2021 reconsideration order after an initial 2019 ruling the other way. Added a verified citation for Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney and corrected the federal civil-damages citation from 18 U.S.C. 2511 (the criminal provision) to 18 U.S.C. 2520 (the civil-remedy provision).
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
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.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 750.539cEavesdropping upon private conversationIn forcecited in 42 of our articles
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 32 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts read MCL 750.539c to reach third-party eavesdropping only. Sullivan v. Gray (1982) held the statutory phrase "private discourse of others" excludes recording by a participant in the conversation; People v. Lucas (1991) held an officer who answered an arrestee's ringing car phone did not violate the section.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Lucas (Michigan Court of Appeals 1991, 188 Mich. App. 554)✓Police answering the arrested defendant's ringing car phone took drug-purchase calls and testified to them; the court held the officer was not an eavesdropper because there was no private discourse between the sender and some other receiver, so MCL 750.539c was not violated.
- Sullivan v. Gray (Michigan Court of Appeals 1982, 117 Mich. App. 476)✓A party to a phone call about a failed car dealership sale secretly taped it and the transcript was used in later litigation; reading the statute to reach only the private discourse of others, the court held participant recording is not eavesdropping under MCL 750.539c.
- People v. Warner (Michigan Supreme Court 1977, 401 Mich. 186)✓A motel switchboard operator deliberately listened in on a guest's call and reported it to police; the court held her willful eavesdropping violated MCL 750.539c, but the defendant, not shown to be a party to the call, had no standing to suppress the resulting evidence.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539aDefinitionsIn forcecited in 30 of our articles
As used in sections 539a to 539i: (1) "Private place" means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access. (2) "Eavesdrop" or "eavesdropping" means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. Neither this definition or any other provision of this act shall modify or affect any law or regulation concerning interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications common carriers. (3) "Surveillance" means to secretly observe the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person observed. (4) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation or association.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 26 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lewis v. LeGrow (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 258 Mich. App. 175)“…such unauthorized installation, is guilty of a felony.... MCL 750.539a provides the definitions of phrases use…”
- People v. Stone (Michigan Supreme Court 2001, 463 Mich. 558)“…permission of all persons engaged in the discourse.” MCL 750.539a(2); MSA 28.807(1)(2). In…”
- People v. Lucas (Michigan Court of Appeals 1991, 188 Mich. App. 554)“…e Commander Turner, in answering the mobile phone, violated MCL 750.539a et seq.; MSA 28.807(1)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539eUse or divulgence of information unlawfully obtainedIn forcecited in 10 of our articles
Any person who uses or divulges any information which he knows or reasonably should know was obtained in violation of sections 539b, 539c or 539d is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in a state prison not more than 2 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Warner (Michigan Supreme Court 1977, 401 Mich. 186)“…Auslander overheard `I've got drugs' accidentally and that MCLA 750.539e; MSA 28.807(5) did not bar the admissio…”
- Dickerson v. Raphael (Michigan Court of Appeals 1997, 222 Mich. App. 185)“…ore than 2 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00. [MCL 750.539e; MSA 28.807(5).] Additionally, M…”
- People v. Livingston (Michigan Court of Appeals 1975, 64 Mich. App. 247)“…sections 539b, 539c or 539d is guilty of a felony * * * .” MCLA 750.539e; MSA 28.807(5). "This act shall…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539hCivil remediesIn forcecited in 22 of our articles
Any parties to any conversation upon which eavesdropping is practiced contrary to this act shall be entitled to the following civil remedies: (a) An injunction by a court of record prohibiting further eavesdropping. (b) All actual damages against the person who eavesdrops. (c) Punitive damages as determined by the court or by a jury.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McAuley v. General Motors Corp. (Michigan Supreme Court 1998, 457 Mich. 513)“…MSA 4.1801(10)(7), MCL 600.2911(2)(b); MSA 27A.2911(2)(b), MCL 750.539h(c); MSA 28.807(8)(c). In additio…”
- Eide v. Kelsey-Hayes Co. (Michigan Supreme Court 1988, 431 Mich. 26)“…violation); MCL 600.2911; MSA 27A.2911 (libel or slander); MCL 750.539h; MSA 28.807(8) (eavesdropping, allowing…”
- Anzaldua v. Band (Michigan Supreme Court 1998, 457 Mich. 530)“…this act, the court or jury who shall try the same); and MCL 750.539h(c); MSA 28.807(8)(c) (any party to a co…”
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
- Michigan Legislature - MCL 750.539c (Eavesdropping)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan Legislature - MCL 750.539a (Definitions)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan Legislature - MCL 750.539e (Divulging Information)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan Legislature - MCL 750.539h (Civil Remedies)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022)(law.justia.com)
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas, No. 4:17-cv-13292 (E.D. Mich., reconsideration order Nov. 8, 2021)(courtlistener.com).gov
- Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006)(courtlistener.com).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2520 - Civil Action for Unauthorized Interception(law.cornell.edu).gov