North Dakota
North Dakota Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Guide (2026)
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. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
North Dakota is a one-party consent state under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02, which means you can record any phone call you participate in without notifying the other party. The law requires only that the recording not serve a criminal or unlawful purpose.
North Dakota is a one-party consent state for phone call recording. Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02, you can legally record any telephone conversation you participate in without informing the other parties. The critical condition is that the recording must not be for criminal or unlawful purposes.
This guide covers the rules for recording phone calls in North Dakota, including personal calls, business calls, VoIP and video calls, interstate call recording with neighboring Montana, and penalties for violations.
How One-Party Consent Works for Phone Calls
The Basic Rule
Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02, you can record phone calls you participate in without announcing the recording, playing a beep tone, or getting written permission. Your participation as a party satisfies the consent requirement.
The Unlawful Purpose Exception
Both conditions must be met: (1) you are a party or have one party's consent, AND (2) the recording is not for criminal or unlawful purposes. Recording for blackmail, fraud, or extortion removes the protection.
Types of Calls Covered
| Call Type | Consent Rule |
|---|---|
| Landline calls | One-party consent |
| Cell phone calls | One-party consent |
| VoIP (Zoom, Teams, Meet) | One-party consent |
| Video calls with audio | One-party consent |
| Conference calls | One party on the call must consent |
Interstate Phone Calls
Neighboring Montana is a two-party consent state. When calling Montana from North Dakota, the stricter law typically applies.
Two-party consent states to watch: California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana (neighbor), Nevada (phone calls), New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington
Best practice: inform all parties when calling two-party consent states.
Business Phone Call Recording
North Dakota businesses can record calls for quality assurance, training, and compliance. The employee on the call provides one-party consent. The federal FCC recommends businesses provide notification for interstate calls.
Recording Apps and Technology
Smartphone call recording apps, built-in Android recording features, external recording devices, and AI transcription services are all legal under one-party consent. Your participation satisfies the legal requirement regardless of the technology used.
Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Illegal interception | Class C Felony | 5 years prison, $10,000 fine |
| Disclosure of intercepted calls | Class C Felony | 5 years prison, $10,000 fine |
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) provides additional penalties up to 5 years in federal prison.
Civil Liability for Illegal Phone Recording
North Dakota's wiretapping statute does not include a state-law civil cause of action for victims. There is no private right of action under Chapter 12.1-15. Victims instead proceed under federal 18 U.S.C. § 2520, which provides the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, $100 per day per violation, or $10,000 in statutory damages, plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees. The federal statute of limitations is two years.
Using Phone Recordings as Evidence
Lawfully recorded calls are generally admissible in North Dakota courts. Preserve originals without editing, note date/time/parties, and provide recordings to your attorney promptly.
More North Dakota 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 North Dakota Recording Laws
More North Dakota Recording Topics
More North Dakota Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in North Dakota without telling the other person?
Yes. North Dakota is a one-party consent state under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02. You can record any phone call you participate in without informing other parties, as long as the recording is not for criminal or unlawful purposes.
Can I record a call with someone in Montana from North Dakota?
Montana is a two-party consent state. When calling Montana from North Dakota, the stricter law typically applies. You should inform all parties or get explicit consent before recording.
Can I record a Zoom call in North Dakota?
Yes. VoIP and video calls follow the same one-party consent rules as traditional phone calls. You can record Zoom, Teams, and similar calls you participate in without informing others.
What is the penalty for illegally recording a phone call in North Dakota?
Illegal interception is a Class C felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Federal penalties under the Wiretap Act can also apply.
Can my employer record my work phone calls in North Dakota?
Yes. Under one-party consent, an employer can record work calls as long as at least one participant consents. Many employers announce recording as a best practice.
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.
North Dakota Century Code
§ 12.1-15-02Interception of wire or oral communications - EavesdroppingIn forcecited in 17 of our articles
A person is guilty of a class C felony if he: Intentionally intercepts any wire or oral communication by use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device; or Intentionally discloses to any other person or intentionally uses the contents of any wire or oral communication, knowing that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if he secretly loiters about any building with intent to overhear discourse or conversation therein and to repeat or publish the same with intent to vex, annoy, or injure others. It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection 1 that: The actor was authorized by law to intercept, disclose, or use, as the case may be, the wire or oral communication. The actor was: A person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, and He was a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication had given prior consent to such interception.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ndlegis.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Fargo Women's Health Organization, Inc. v. Larson (1986) applied the subsection 3(c) defense to this section and held that recordings of calls were properly admitted because the callers knew of and consented to the recording of their own conversations.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Fargo Women's Health Organization, Inc. v. Larson (North Dakota Supreme Court 1986, 391 N.W.2d 627)✓A private investigator hired by an abortion clinic recruited callers to phone a rival anti-abortion clinic and recorded the calls with the callers' consent; the court held that consent triggered the defense in section 12.1-15-02(3)(c), so the tapes were admitted.
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…Ann. § 30-12-1 (1994); N. C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287 (1999); N. D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02 (1997); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.52…”
- American Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2012, 679 F.3d 583)“…55 § 750.539c; N.D. Cent. Code. Ann. § 12.1-15-02. The Cali- fornia statute is illustrat…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: North Dakota Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), North Dakota AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), North Dakota Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 422 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.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
§ 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.
Also relied on in: Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know, Alaska Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02(ndlegis.gov).gov
- FCC Recording Guide(fcc.gov).gov
- ND Sentencing(ndlegis.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2520 - Federal Civil Recovery for Wiretap Violations(law.cornell.edu)