Tennessee: Call and Conversation Recording Consent Requirements
The short answer
Tennessee is a one-party-consent state. If you are part of a call or conversation—or one participant consents—you may record it, because the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act makes interception lawful 'where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties ... has given prior consent' (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601(b)(5)), unless you record for a criminal or tortious purpose. Recording a communication you are not part of, without any party's consent, is a Class D felony (§ 39-13-602). Tennessee repealed its statutory civil-damages action for unlawful recording in 2024, so the remaining statutory consequences are criminal charges plus suppression of the recording as evidence.
Ask Ezel about your situation
This is the general rule in Tennessee. Ezel applies current Tennessee law to your specific facts and answers with citations to the statutes.
| Governing law and covered recording | Tennessee's rule is the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act of 1994 (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-601 to -604), with defined terms in § 40-6-303. Section 39-13-601(a) makes it an offense to intentionally intercept 'any wire, oral, or electronic communication,' but § 39-13-601(b)(5) exempts a participant or anyone acting with one party's prior consent. A separate section, § 39-13-604, covers recordings of cellular and cordless calls. |
|---|---|
| Whose consent a participant needs | One party. It is lawful for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication 'where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties ... has given prior consent' (§ 39-13-601(b)(5)). So recording a call or conversation you take part in is lawful, and so is recording with any one participant's consent—unless the recording is made for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Privacy, confidentiality, or secrecy trigger | For an in-person conversation, protection turns on privacy: an 'oral communication' is one 'uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying that expectation' (§ 40-6-303). A telephone call is a 'wire communication,' which carries no privacy qualifier and is covered regardless of setting. Either way, the participant rule in § 39-13-601(b)(5) makes one party's consent enough. |
| Telephone, in-person, and electronic coverage | The same one-party rule governs wire (telephone), oral (in-person), and electronic communications (§ 39-13-601). In-person 'oral communication' is protected only when the speaker had a justified expectation of privacy (§ 40-6-303); a phone call is covered without that qualifier. Section 39-13-604 separately reaches a recording of a call between cellular, cordless, and landline phones, again requiring 'the consent of at least one (1) party.' |
| How consent or notice is given | One party's prior consent is required, and a participant supplies it simply by taking part. The statute speaks of a party's 'prior consent' (§ 39-13-601(b)(5)) but prescribes no form—no written consent, spoken warning, script, or audible beep tone. Consent from any single participant is enough. |
| Major participant-facing exceptions | The participant exemption is lost if the recording is made 'for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act' (§ 39-13-601(b)(5)), so there is no separate evidence-gathering exception to invoke. The statute also does not restrict a parent or legal guardian who installs software on a computer they own solely to monitor a minor child's internet use, or ordinary business disclosures to vendors (§ 39-13-601(d), added 2024). Providers of communications service acting in the normal course of business are exempt (§ 39-13-601(b)). |
| Criminal classification and penalty | Unlawful interception under § 39-13-601(a) is a Class D felony (§ 39-13-602). A Class D felony carries a prison term of 'not less than two (2) nor more than twelve (12) years' plus a fine of up to $5,000 (§ 40-35-111(b)(4)). That felony exposure—not a misdemeanor—applies to intercepting a communication you are not a party to and have no consent for; a lawful participant recording is not an offense. |
| Civil remedy and evidence effect | Tennessee no longer has a statutory civil action for unlawful recording: 2024 Public Chapter 1045 (effective May 28, 2024) deleted former § 39-13-603, which had allowed damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. What remains statutory is the evidence rule—an intercepted communication and any evidence derived from it may not 'be received in evidence' if disclosing it would violate the Act (§ 40-6-307). A person harmed by an unlawful recording is otherwise left to any available common-law claim. |
| Interstate and federal boundary | Tennessee's one-party rule tracks federal law, which lets a participant, or a person with one party's prior consent, record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). A call reaching an all-party-consent state can trigger that stricter law, so consent from everyone is the prudent baseline for an interstate call. This survey does not decide which state's law governs. |
Compare this rule across all 50 states + DC →
Requirements one by one
Governing law and covered recording
Tennessee's recording rules come from the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act of 1994, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-601 to -604, with the defined terms it borrows sitting in § 40-6-303 (Title 40, Chapter 6, Part 3). Section 39-13-601(a) makes it an offense to "intentionally intercept ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication." The rest of the section is a long list of exceptions, and one of them—§ 39-13-601(b)(5)—is what makes ordinary participant recording lawful.
Whose consent a participant needs
Tennessee requires only one party's consent. It is lawful for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a communication "where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties ... has given prior consent to the interception" (§ 39-13-601(b)(5)). Because you are a party to any call or conversation you take part in, recording it is not unlawful, and one other participant's consent is enough to cover a recording made by someone else. The one built-in limit is purpose: the exemption does not apply if the recording is made "for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act."
Privacy, confidentiality, or secrecy trigger
Privacy matters for in-person talk but not for phone calls. An "oral communication"—the category that covers a face-to-face conversation—is defined as speech "uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying that expectation" (§ 40-6-303). So a conversation shouted in a public place may not be a protected "oral communication" at all. A telephone call, by contrast, is a "wire communication," defined without any privacy qualifier, so it is covered whatever the setting. In every case, the one-party rule still resolves who may record.
Telephone, in-person, and electronic coverage
The one-party rule reaches wire (telephone), oral (in-person), and electronic communications alike (§ 39-13-601). The practical difference is the privacy trigger above: a phone call is covered outright, while an in-person conversation is covered only when the speaker had a justified expectation of privacy. Tennessee also has a dedicated cellular and cordless provision, § 39-13-604, which makes it an offense to record a call "between two (2) cellular radio telephones, a cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone, or a cordless telephone and a cellular radio telephone" "without the consent of at least one (1) party"—the same one-party standard, spelled out for wireless calls.
Criminal classification and penalty
Unlawful interception is not a minor offense in Tennessee. A violation of § 39-13-601(a) "commits a Class D felony" (§ 39-13-602), and a Class D felony carries a prison term of "not less than two (2) nor more than twelve (12) years," plus a fine of up to $5,000 (§ 40-35-111(b)(4)). This applies to someone who records a communication they are not part of and have no consent for; a lawful participant recording is not a crime at all.
Civil remedy and evidence effect
This is where Tennessee recently changed. Until 2024 the Act contained § 39-13-603, a civil action letting an aggrieved person recover damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. 2024 Public Chapter 1045 deleted § 39-13-603 in its entirety, effective when it became law on May 28, 2024. There is no longer a statutory damages remedy for an unlawful recording in Tennessee; a person harmed by one is left to whatever common-law claim may fit the facts. The statutory evidence rule survives: an intercepted communication and any evidence derived from it "may [not] be received in evidence" in a Tennessee proceeding if disclosing it would violate the Act (§ 40-6-307).
What trips people up
Recording your own call is fine; recording other people's is a felony. The line is party status and consent. If you are on the call or conversation, or one participant agreed, you are inside the § 39-13-601(b)(5) exemption. Record a communication you are not part of, without any party's consent, and you face a Class D felony—two to twelve years (§§ 39-13-602, 40-35-111(b)(4)).
A bad reason cancels the exemption. Even a participant loses protection if the recording is made "for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act" (§ 39-13-601(b)(5)). Recording to blackmail or defraud someone is not lawful just because you were on the call.
The civil-damages route is gone as of 2024. Older guides still describe a Tennessee wiretap lawsuit for statutory damages and attorney's fees. That provision (former § 39-13-603) was repealed in 2024 (2024 Public Chapter 1045), so it no longer exists—though the recording can still be kept out of evidence under § 40-6-307 and the person can still be prosecuted.
Common questions
Do I have to tell the other person I am recording our Tennessee phone call? No. As a party to the call you may record it without announcing it or getting anyone's permission, because your own recording is not an unlawful interception.
Is recording an in-person conversation the same as recording a phone call here? Almost. A phone call is always covered, but an in-person conversation counts as a protected "oral communication" only when the speaker had a justified expectation of privacy (§ 40-6-303). The one-party consent rule applies in both situations.
Can I sue someone in Tennessee for recording me illegally? Not under the wiretap statute anymore—Tennessee repealed its civil-damages provision in 2024. The person can still be criminally prosecuted, and the recording can be excluded from evidence, but any lawsuit would have to rest on a separate common-law theory.
Statutes and sources
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601 — prohibited interception and the participant/one-party exception in subsection (b)(5). https://unicourt.github.io/cic-code-tn/transforms/tn/octn/r75/gov.tn.tca.title.39.html (accessed 2026-07-20)
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-602 — unlawful interception is a Class D felony. https://unicourt.github.io/cic-code-tn/transforms/tn/octn/r75/gov.tn.tca.title.39.html (accessed 2026-07-20)
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-604 — cellular and cordless calls, one-party consent. https://unicourt.github.io/cic-code-tn/transforms/tn/octn/r75/gov.tn.tca.title.39.html (accessed 2026-07-20)
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-303 — definitions of "oral communication" (privacy trigger) and "wire communication." https://unicourt.github.io/cic-code-tn/transforms/tn/octn/r75/gov.tn.tca.title.40.html (accessed 2026-07-20)
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(b)(4) — Class D felony term and fine. https://unicourt.github.io/cic-code-tn/transforms/tn/octn/r75/gov.tn.tca.title.40.html (accessed 2026-07-20)
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-307 — exclusion of unlawfully intercepted communications from evidence. https://unicourt.github.io/cic-code-tn/transforms/tn/octn/r75/gov.tn.tca.title.40.html (accessed 2026-07-20)
- 2024 Tenn. Pub. Ch. 1045 (SB 2221) — deleted the § 39-13-603 civil action and rewrote § 39-13-601(d), effective May 28, 2024. https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/113/pub/pc1045.pdf (accessed 2026-07-20)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) — federal private-participant consent rule. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section2511&num=0&edition=prelim (accessed 2026-07-20)
Source links
Every statute quoted above, linked, with the date we checked it.
Get the answer for your situation
You just read how Tennessee handles this in general. Ezel applies current Tennessee law to your facts and answers your specific question, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.