Not legal advice. This site is an editorial reference. Laws change — always confirm with a qualified attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before recording, and check each page’s last reviewed date.

Call Recording Laws in California

Plain-English summary

California is an all-party-consent state. Cal. Penal Code § 632 makes it a crime to record a “confidential communication” without the consent of all parties. A “confidential communication” under § 632(c) is one carried on in circumstances reasonably indicating that any party desires it to be confined to the parties.

California Penal Code § 631 separately addresses wiretapping (interception by a non-participant), and the two sections together create the strongest participant-recording prohibition of any US state. The civil remedy under § 637.2 makes private enforcement realistic: $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, whichever is greater. The California Supreme Court’s decision in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006), extends California’s rule to out-of-state callers recording California residents.

The statute, explained

The operative text:

Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication… shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

— Cal. Penal Code § 632(a)

Defined terms that matter for this analysis:

  • Confidential communication. Section 632(c): a communication carried on in circumstances reasonably indicating that any party desires it to be confined to the parties. Excludes communications in public gatherings, in legislative or judicial proceedings, or where the parties may reasonably expect the communication may be overheard or recorded.
  • Electronic amplifying or recording device. Any device that can amplify, transmit, or record a communication, including modern smartphones and voice memo apps.
  • Party. A participant in the communication, not a third-party listener.

Case law of note

Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006)

Cal. Supreme Court

California law applies to recordings of California residents by out-of-state callers; California’s interest in protecting its residents’ privacy outweighs the recording state’s interest in permitting one-party recording. The court declined retroactive damages but enjoined future violations.

Flanagan v. Flanagan, 27 Cal. 4th 766 (2002)

Cal. Supreme Court

“Confidential communication” for § 632 purposes is judged by whether any party had an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation would not be recorded, not by the content’s nature.

Smith v. LoanMe, Inc., 11 Cal. 5th 183 (2021)

Cal. Supreme Court

Section 632.7, which prohibits recording cellular and cordless calls without all-party consent, applies to participants as well as third parties.

People v. Nakai, 183 Cal. App. 4th 499 (2010)

Cal. Ct. App.

Recordings made surreptitiously of conversations with minors as part of a sting operation by a private party violated § 632 absent statutory authorization.

Edge cases and special rules

  • Cellular and cordless calls. Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 imposes a separate all-party-consent rule on any call to or from a cellular or cordless telephone. Under Smith v. LoanMe, this rule applies to participants, not just third parties.
  • Business calls. The audible “this call may be recorded” preamble used by call centers serves as notice; continued participation is treated as consent.
  • Voicemail. Voicemail messages are addressed to a specific recipient; recording one’s own voicemail is generally not within § 632.
  • Public-place conversations. A conversation in a setting where overhearing is reasonably foreseeable is not “confidential.”
  • Vicarious consent. California courts have not embraced the federal “Pollock” doctrine of vicarious parental consent as broadly as some other states.
  • Crime-evidence exception. Section 633.5 permits one-party recording for the purpose of obtaining evidence of certain enumerated felonies, including extortion, kidnapping, bribery, and felony violence.

Penalties and remedies

Criminal: under § 632(a), each violation is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 (up to $10,000 for repeat offenders), county jail of up to one year, or state prison. Section 631 imposes parallel penalties for wiretapping.

Civil: § 637.2 creates a private right of action with statutory damages of $5,000 per violation or three times the plaintiff’s actual damages, whichever is greater, plus injunctive relief. The statute of limitations is one year from discovery (Code Civ. Proc. § 340).

Evidence: under Evidence Code § 632(d), an unlawfully recorded communication is not admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding, except as evidence in a prosecution for a violation of § 631 or § 632 itself.

Practical guidance

  • If you are recording an ordinary phone call: obtain audible consent from every party at the start of the call.
  • Suggested opening: See our consent script templates for jurisdiction-specific language.
  • If the other party objects: stop recording. Continued recording over an objection is a separate factual question that no consent statute helps you with.
  • What to keep: the date and time of the call, the parties’ phone numbers, a description of the consent given (express verbal, continued participation after notice, etc.), and the audio file itself.

Compare to

Resources for California