Federal law lets a dealership record a phone call when one party to the call consents, and the agent is a party. Thirteen states are best treated as requiring every party’s consent for phone calls. You rarely know which state a caller is in, so the working rule is to announce recording at the start of every inbound and outbound call.
The Federal Rule Is One-Party Consent
This page is general information, not legal advice. It was checked against the linked sources in October 2026; confirm how it applies to your store with your counsel. It is part of the Dealership BDC Guide.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), it is not unlawful for a private person to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication “where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent,” unless the interception is for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act (18 U.S.C. § 2511, Cornell Legal Information Institute). Your agent is on the call and consents, so the test is met.
That is only the floor. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), whose state-by-state recording guide is the main source here, says: “Federal law requires the consent of at least one party” (RCFP, Introduction to the Reporter’s Recording Guide). States may ask for more.
Thirteen States to Treat as All-Party for Phone Calls
RCFP lists 11 states that require the consent of all parties, and adds that Connecticut, Nevada and Oregon (and Missouri, in limited circumstances) require all-party consent for either phone calls or in-person conversations, but not both. For phone calls, the two that matter from that group are Connecticut and Nevada, which makes a conservative list of 13. State names link to sources.
| State | Statute | What to know |
|---|---|---|
| California | Cal. Penal Code §§ 632(a), 632.7(a) | All parties for a “confidential communication” (§ 632). A separate all-party rule for any call involving a cellular or cordless phone has no “confidential” qualifier (§ 632.7). |
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d | Split. The criminal law needs one party’s consent (§§ 53a-187, 53a-189). The civil statute bars recording a private telephone call unless all parties consent, a verbal notification is recorded at the beginning, or a tone repeats about every 15 seconds. |
| Delaware | Del. Code tit. 11, §§ 1335(a)(4), 2402(c)(4) | Two statutes conflict: the privacy statute requires all-party consent, the wiretap statute allows one-party. RCFP recommends following the stricter one. |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(d) | All parties. |
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/14-1, 5/14-2 | All parties for a “private conversation” (one a participant reasonably intended to be private). RCFP’s page is dated May 2020; confirm the current text. |
| Maryland | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402(c)(3) | All parties; a felony. |
| Massachusetts | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(C) | All parties; a felony. The statute targets secret recording, so a recording all parties know about does not need affirmative consent. |
| Michigan | Eavesdropping statute; Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982) | Unsettled. The statute reads as all-party, but Sullivan held a participant may record without the others’ consent. The Michigan Supreme Court has not decided the question. Treat as all-party. |
| Montana | Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213(1)(c) | Unlawful to record “without the knowledge of all parties”; exception where one party gives warning. |
| Nevada | Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620 | All parties for telephone calls, under case law reading the statute: Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998). |
| New Hampshire | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:2 | All parties. |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 5703, 5704(4) | All parties; a felony. Courts recognize implied consent where a party knew or should have known of the recording. |
| Washington | Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(1), (3) | All parties. An announcement to all parties counts as consent if the announcement is itself recorded. |
Two states that are often mislabeled
Oregon appears on many “two-party” lists, but for telephone calls it is one-party consent under Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540; its all-party rule was for in-person conversations (RCFP, Oregon). Vermont has no statute on recording phone calls, and RCFP says federal one-party law governs (RCFP, Vermont).
Interstate Calls: Assume the Stricter State Applies
Customers move and keep their cell numbers. RCFP says courts disagree about which state’s law governs an interstate call, advises callers to “err on the side of caution and assume that the stricter state law will apply,” and notes that an aggrieved party may be able to sue in either state.
In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal.4th 95 (Cal. 2006), a brokerage office in Georgia, a one-party state, recorded calls with clients in California. The California Supreme Court applied California law, holding that failing to do so “would impair California’s interest in protecting the degree of privacy afforded to California residents.” It let a claim for an injunction go forward but declined to impose damages or restitution for the past recordings, so it is authority on which law applies, not a damages award (Kearney opinion, Harvard Caselaw Access Project).
What California puts at stake
Violating § 632(a) or § 632.7(a) carries a fine of up to $2,500 per violation, up to a year in jail or prison, or both, and up to $10,000 for a repeat offender (Cal. Penal Code § 632, § 632.7). Separately, § 637.2 lets any person injured by a violation sue for the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages. Actual damages are not a prerequisite (Cal. Penal Code § 637.2).
Is “This Call May Be Recorded” Enough?
Three sources speak to it directly. In California, Kearney says the rule requires “only that the business inform its clients or customers, at the outset of the call, of the company’s policy of recording such calls.” In Washington, the statute treats an announcement to all parties as consent, provided the announcement is itself recorded (RCW 9.73.030(3)). In Connecticut, the civil statute accepts a verbal notification recorded at the beginning of the call (§ 52-570d(a)(2)).
Those sources support one practice: notify at the outset, on the recording. They do not establish that an announcement satisfies every all-party state. It is widely used and the right default, not proof of “legal everywhere.”
The common gap is outbound. The message on your phone tree plays only to people who call you. An agent dialing out has to say it.
What to Do in Practice
- Announce on every inbound path. Main line, service line, each tracking number, after-hours and overflow routes. Call each one.
- Announce on every outbound call. Put it in the first sentence so it lands on the recording: “Hi, this is Dana at Main Street Motors on a recorded line.”
- Do not sort by area code. A number tells you where it was issued, not where the customer is standing. Use one rule for every call.
- Cover every tool that records. CRM click-to-call, softphones and any AI voice agent all create recordings. Our comparison of AI and human BDC agents covers the separate rules for artificial voices.
Recording consent is separate from telemarketing consent. Calling hours, do-not-call lists and opt-outs are in our article on TCPA rules for dealer outreach, and the rest is in the dealership compliance library.
Recordings Are Customer Data
A recorded sales call can hold a name, a cell number, a trade payoff and sometimes a conversation about credit. The FTC says dealers who finance, or facilitate the financing of, vehicles for consumers are financial institutions under the Safeguards Rule (FTC, Automobile Dealers and the Safeguards Rule FAQ). To the extent a recording holds customer information, the controls that cover the CRM cover the recording: access limited to authorized users who need it for their duties (16 CFR 314.4(c)(1)), and encryption in transit over external networks and at rest (314.4(c)(3)) (16 CFR Part 314, eCFR).
The store should know where the files are stored, who can play them, how long they are kept and how they are deleted. Our page on the FTC Safeguards Rule and dealership marketing covers the wider program.
What to Know About Your Outside Call Center
If a vendor answers or places calls for you, it is making the recordings. A vendor permitted access to customer information through its services is a “service provider” under 16 CFR 314.2, and 16 CFR 314.4(f) has the dealer select capable providers, require safeguards by contract and assess them periodically. Ask any outside phone room:
- What does a caller hear before an agent picks up, on each of my numbers?
- What do your agents say at the start of an outbound call?
- Where are recordings stored, are they encrypted, and who on your side can listen?
- How long do you keep them, can I download them, and what happens to them when the contract ends?
Get the answers in the agreement. The contract terms worth getting in writing and how to give a vendor CRM access safely are covered in their own articles. Pinnacle is one of these vendors. BDC On Demand launches with call recordings, performance metrics and regular reporting, so put the same questions to us.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a dealership record customer calls without telling the customer?
Federal law allows it when one party consents, and the dealership’s agent is a party. Thirteen states are best treated as requiring every party’s consent for phone calls, and you often cannot tell where a caller is, so announce recording on every call.
Does the recording message on our phone tree cover outbound calls?
No. The inbound message plays only to people who call the store. When an agent dials a lead or a service customer, that person has heard nothing, so the agent needs to say the call is recorded in the opening sentence.
Which state’s law applies when the customer is in another state?
Courts disagree, so the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press advises assuming the stricter state’s law applies. In Kearney (2006), the California Supreme Court applied California law to calls recorded by an office in Georgia, a one-party state.
Is Oregon a two-party consent state for phone calls?
No. Oregon is often listed that way, but telephone calls there are one-party consent under Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540. Its all-party rule was for in-person conversations. Vermont has no statute on recording phone calls.
Summary
Federal law requires one party’s consent to record a call; 13 states should be treated as requiring everyone’s, and on interstate calls assume the stricter law applies. Announce recording at the start of every inbound and outbound call, store recordings like the customer data they are, and know how any outside call center announces, stores and returns them. This is general information, not legal advice; confirm it with counsel.
