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 Michigan

Short answer: It is contested. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c reads as all-party, but Michigan courts (Sullivan v. Gray) have held that a participant may record their own conversation. Many lawyers treat Michigan as one-party for participants, but notice is the safer practice.

Plain-English summary

Michigan’s rule is contested. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c prohibits anyone “present or who is not present during a private conversation” from recording it “without the consent of all parties.” Read literally, the statute imposes all-party consent, including on participants.

The Michigan Court of Appeals in Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982), read the statute’s participant-recording provision more narrowly, holding that a participant’s own recording was not within the prohibition because a party cannot be “eavesdropping” on her own conversation. The Michigan Supreme Court has not definitively resolved the question. The cautious practice in Michigan is to treat the state as all-party and obtain consent before recording.

Case law of note

No appellate decision in Michigan has materially reshaped the participant-recording rule in recent decades. Lower-court decisions exist but do not change the analytical framework set by the statute and by general federal precedent under § 2511.

Edge cases and special rules

  • In-person vs. phone. Contested — see Sullivan v. Gray
  • Voicemail. Leaving a message creates the recording at the recipient’s direction; reviewing one’s own voicemail is not interception.
  • Vicarious consent. Several federal courts have recognized a parental-consent doctrine permitting a parent to consent on behalf of a minor child (Pollock v. Pollock, 154 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1998)). State law varies; no controlling Michigan appellate decision on the question.
  • Law enforcement. Court-authorized intercepts are governed by a separate framework and are outside the scope of this page.
  • Cross-border calls. Where any participant is in an all-party state, treat the stricter rule as the safer default. See cross-border calls.

Penalties and remedies

Criminal: Felony; up to 2 years or $2,000.

Civil: Yes — § 750.539h provides a civil action.

Evidence: a recording made in violation of the Michigan statute is generally inadmissible in Michigan proceedings. Federal § 2515 separately bars use of unlawfully intercepted communications in federal proceedings.

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 Michigan

Frequently asked questions

Is Michigan a one-party consent state?

It is contested. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c reads as all-party, but Michigan courts (Sullivan v. Gray) have held that a participant may record their own conversation. Many lawyers treat Michigan as one-party for participants, but notice is the safer practice.

Can I record a phone call in Michigan without the other person knowing?

Probably, if you are a participant, under the Sullivan v. Gray participant exception. Because the statute itself is worded more broadly, announcing the recording is the safer practice.

Does the same rule apply to in-person conversations in Michigan?

Contested — see Sullivan v. Gray.

What is the penalty for illegally recording a call in Michigan?

Criminal: Felony; up to 2 years or $2,000. Civil: Yes — § 750.539h provides a civil action.

Can a phone recording be used as evidence in Michigan?

A recording made in violation of Michigan law is generally inadmissible in Michigan proceedings, and federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2515) bars unlawfully intercepted communications in federal proceedings. A lawfully made recording can be admissible, but it must still be authenticated and relevant — ask a lawyer before relying on one.

What if the other person on the call is in a different state?

When a call crosses state lines, courts may apply the stricter state’s law. If anyone on the call is in an all-party consent state such as California, Florida or Illinois, get everyone’s consent before recording. See cross-border calls.