Nevada Phone Call Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Required (2026)

Nevada requires all-party consent to record phone calls under NRS 200.620. Although the statute's text references one-party consent, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in Lane v. Allstate (1998) that every participant must agree before recording begins. Recording without universal consent is a Category D felony.

Recording phone calls in Nevada is illegal without everyone's consent. This is the single most important rule you need to know about Nevada recording laws. While Nevada allows you to record in-person conversations you participate in under one-party consent (NRS 200.650), phone calls are governed by a completely different statute, NRS 200.620, which requires every participant to agree.

This guide covers the all-party consent requirement, the case law that established it, what types of communications it covers, the exceptions, and the penalties for violations.

The All-Party Consent Rule for Phone Calls

What NRS 200.620 Says

NRS 200.620 prohibits any person from intercepting or attempting to intercept any wire communication unless authorized by court order or with the consent of the parties to the communication.

The statute's original text references consent of "one of the parties," but the Nevada Supreme Court interpreted this language to require consent from all parties. This interpretation has been binding law since 1998.

Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1998): The Foundational Case

The all-party consent requirement was established in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998), decided December 8, 1998.

Randy Lane, a former Allstate insurance employee, secretly recorded over 700 telephone conversations with coworkers and witnesses to support employment-related claims. Allstate argued the recordings violated NRS 200.620.

The Nevada Supreme Court agreed, though the decision was fractured across four separate opinions rather than a clean majority-versus-dissent split. The lead opinion (joined on this specific point by a second justice) reasoned that:

1. When a party to a phone call records it, they are "intercepting" the call under the statute
2. The legislature used different consent language for in-person conversations (NRS 200.650, clearly one-party) and wire communications (NRS 200.620)
3. This deliberate difference in language shows the legislature intended different consent standards
4. NRS 200.620 therefore requires all-party consent

One justice dissented outright, while a separate opinion concurred in the judgment reversing the district court without joining the statutory-construction holding, writing that "[o]nly three members of this court can agree as to what the statute means." Despite that fracture, the core holding, that NRS 200.620 requires all-party consent to record a phone call, commands support from at least three justices and remains binding law.

Sharpe v. State (2015): Extension to Modern Technology

In Sharpe v. State, 350 P.3d 388 (Nev. 2015), the Nevada Supreme Court held that NRS 200.620 applies to cell phone calls and text messages, extending the all-party consent rule to modern communications technology. The court read the statute's definition of "wire communication" under NRS 200.610(2), the definition that actually governs NRS 200.620, broadly enough to cover:

• Cell phone calls
• Text messages

NRS 200.610(2), the definition section that actually governs NRS 200.620 ("as used in NRS 200.610 to 200.690, inclusive"), defines "wire communication" as the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by wire, cable, or other similar connection. Cell phone calls, VOIP calls, and video calls carry a voice component transmitted by wire or cable, so they clearly fit. A text message is literally writing transmitted over a wireless carrier's network, which the statute's definition also reaches on its face. Sharpe remains the controlling Nevada Supreme Court decision extending NRS 200.620 to cell phone calls and text messages; this review could not independently retrieve the full opinion text (the source was blocked), so the court's own stated reasoning is unconfirmed, though the outcome is consistent with NRS 200.610(2)'s plain text.

What Types of Communications Require All-Party Consent

Phone Calls

All types of phone calls require all-party consent in Nevada:

Text messages are covered under Sharpe v. State (2015) and fit the plain text of NRS 200.610(2), Nevada's governing wire-communication definition, which expressly includes writing transmitted by wire, cable, or similar connection.

The In-Person vs. Phone Distinction

This is the critical distinction in Nevada law:

The same conversation between the same two people follows different rules depending on whether it happens in person or over the phone. An employee can record an in-person meeting with their boss without telling anyone. That same employee commits a felony by recording a phone call with the same boss without permission.

How to Legally Record Phone Calls in Nevada

Getting Consent

To lawfully record a phone call in Nevada, you must obtain consent from every party before recording begins. Effective methods include:

1. Verbal notification at the start of the call: "I would like to record this call. Is that okay with everyone?"
2. Automated announcement: Many businesses play a pre-recorded message: "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes."
3. Written consent in advance: Parties can agree in writing (such as in a contract) that calls will be recorded.

Implied Consent

If you announce that the call is being recorded and the other party stays on the line without objecting, Nevada courts may treat continued participation as implied consent. However, this is not as legally certain as explicit verbal agreement. The safest practice is to get a clear "yes" before pressing record.

If a party objects to recording, you must stop recording immediately. Continuing to record after an objection is a clear violation of NRS 200.620.

Recording Voicemails

When someone leaves you a voicemail, they have consented to the recording by voluntarily speaking into your voicemail system. You can save and retain voicemail messages without violating NRS 200.620.

Exceptions to the All-Party Consent Rule

Law Enforcement Court Orders

Under NRS 179.410 through 179.515, law enforcement can intercept phone calls with a court-ordered wiretap. The application must demonstrate probable cause, and a district court judge must approve the order.

Emergency Exception

NRS 200.620(1)(b) allows phone call interception without a court order when:

• An emergency situation exists
• Obtaining a court order is impractical
• The interceptor seeks judicial ratification within 72 hours

If the judge denies ratification, the interceptor must notify both parties and the recording becomes inadmissible.

Emergency Call Recording (911)

Under NRS 200.620(4), law enforcement and fire-fighting agencies may record calls to emergency telephone lines, provided they inform the caller that the call is being recorded. This is why 911 operators typically state or play a message indicating the call is being recorded.

Collection Agency Calls

NRS 649.331 provides a specific exception for debtors recording calls from collection agencies. To use this exception:

1. You must be the debtor being contacted
2. You must notify the collection agent at the beginning of the call
3. You must state that the call is being recorded

This exception recognizes that debtors need the ability to document collection practices. It does not extend to other types of business calls.

Service Provider Exception

NRS 200.620(2) allows wire communication service providers to intercept communications for construction, maintenance, or operational purposes. This is a narrow technical exception for telecommunications companies, not a general exception for businesses.

Penalties for Illegally Recording Phone Calls

Criminal Penalties

Under NRS 200.690, recording a phone call without all-party consent is a Category D felony:

Civil Liability

Victims can sue under NRS 200.690 for:

The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. Section 2520) provides additional civil remedies including statutory damages of $10,000 per violation.

Inadmissibility of Evidence

Under NRS 200.680, recordings obtained in violation of NRS 200.620 are generally inadmissible in court. This means that even if a recording reveals crucial evidence, it cannot be used if it was made illegally.

Interstate Phone Calls

Which Law Applies?

Nevada's all-party consent rule does not automatically extend to a call just because a Nevada resident is on the line. In Ditech Financial LLC v. Buckles, 133 Nev. 493, 401 P.3d 215 (2017), answering a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the Nevada Supreme Court held that NRS 200.620 does not apply extraterritorially because interceptions and recordings occur where they are made. The controlling factor is where the recording equipment is located, not merely where the other party happens to be.

If you are recording from inside Nevada, NRS 200.620 applies regardless of where the other party is located. You need every participant's consent, even if the person you are calling is in a one-party state.

If you are recording from outside Nevada, the law of the state where your recording equipment is located governs, not Nevada's. A caller in a one-party state who records a call to a Nevada resident is generally bound by that state's one-party rule, not NRS 200.620, because the recording did not occur in Nevada.

Neighboring States

Because the location of the recording equipment controls, not the other caller's identity, the safest practice for anyone recording from inside Nevada is to announce the recording and get everyone's consent before substantive discussion begins, regardless of where the other party is located.

Business Compliance

Businesses recording calls from equipment located in Nevada, such as an in-state call center, must comply with the all-party consent standard on every call, regardless of where the other party is located. A multi-state business recording calls from equipment located outside Nevada is instead governed by the law of that location. Because this location-based rule is easy to get wrong across a distributed call center, the safest practice is to default to all-party consent and disclosure on every call.

Phone Call Recording and Common Scenarios

Can I Record a Call With My Landlord?

Not without their consent. Even though you can record an in-person conversation with your landlord under NRS 200.650, a phone call with the same landlord requires all-party consent under NRS 200.620. You must tell your landlord you are recording and get their agreement before pressing record.

Can I Record a Call With My Insurance Company?

Only with their consent. However, many insurance companies already record their calls and play an announcement at the beginning. If the company announces recording and you also want to record, state that you are recording as well. The mutual recording with mutual notification satisfies all-party consent.

Can I Record a Call With a Government Agency?

Not without consent from everyone on the call. Government employees are not exempt from NRS 200.620 protections. If you call a Nevada state agency or local government office, you need their consent to record.

Can I Record Sales Calls or Robocalls?

If you answer a sales call or robocall and the caller does not announce recording, you still need to inform them and get consent before recording your end. However, the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act provides separate protections against unwanted calls.

Phone Recording Apps and Technology

Call Recording Apps

Many smartphone apps offer call recording functionality. Using these apps in Nevada is legal only if you comply with the all-party consent requirement. The app itself is not illegal; using it without universal consent is.

Popular apps like TapeACall, Rev Call Recorder, and Google's built-in call recorder all function the same way under Nevada law: you must get everyone's consent before activating them.

VOIP Platform Recording Features

Platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet have built-in recording features that typically notify all participants when recording begins. This notification mechanism can help satisfy the consent requirement, as participants who remain on the call after notification have implicitly consented.

However, using external screen recording software or separate audio recording devices to capture a call without notification violates NRS 200.620.

More Nevada 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 Nevada Recording Laws

More Nevada Recording Topics

• Nevada Biometric Privacy Laws
• Surveillance Camera Laws

More Nevada Laws

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