Texas: Call and Conversation Recording Consent Requirements
The short answer
Texas is a one-party-consent state. Under Penal Code § 16.02 it is a felony to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, but a person who is a party to the communication — or a nonparticipant who has one party's prior consent — has a defense, so you may record your own call or conversation without telling the others. That defense is lost if the recording is made to commit an unlawful act. In-person speech is protected only when the speaker has a justified expectation that it will not be intercepted; telephone calls are covered regardless. Unlawful interception is a second-degree felony (2–20 years and a fine up to $10,000), and a party to the communication can sue for $10,000 per occurrence plus actual and punitive damages and attorney's fees.
Ask Ezel about your situation
This is the general rule in Texas. Ezel applies current Texas law to your specific facts and answers with citations to the statutes.
| Governing law and covered recording | Texas Penal Code § 16.02 (Title 4, ch. 16) makes it an offense to intentionally intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, or to disclose or use the contents of a communication the person knows was unlawfully intercepted. 'Intercept' means the aural or other acquisition of a communication's contents through an interception device (Code Crim. Proc. art. 18A.001). A parallel civil statute, Civil Practice & Remedies Code ch. 123, lets a party sue over an interception. The scheme targets nonconsensual interception; an ordinary participant is protected by the party/one-party defense below. |
|---|---|
| Whose consent a participant needs | One-party consent. Section 16.02(c)(4) makes it an affirmative defense that a person not acting under color of law intercepts a communication if '(A) the person is a party to the communication; or (B) one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing an unlawful act.' So a participant may record their own call or conversation without notifying anyone, and a nonparticipant may record with any one party's consent — but never to commit an unlawful act. |
| Privacy, confidentiality, or secrecy trigger | The trigger depends on the medium. An 'oral communication' (in-person speech) is protected only when 'uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying that expectation' (art. 18A.001) — a justified, reasonable expectation of privacy. A 'wire communication' (telephone audio carried through carrier facilities) has no such expectation qualifier and is protected regardless. Because Texas is one-party, a participant may record either way; the privacy trigger matters mainly to whether a nonparticipant's interception of in-person speech is unlawful. |
| Telephone, in-person, and electronic coverage | The one-party rule is the same for telephone calls and face-to-face speech. A 'wire communication' is an aural transfer made 'wholly or partly' through carrier wire, cable, or similar facilities (art. 18A.001), which reaches landline and cellular telephone calls; in-person talk is an 'oral communication'; and messages carried by an electronic system are 'electronic communications' — all three are covered by § 16.02. Stored messages and texts are handled by separate stored-communication provisions (Penal Code § 16.04) and are outside this audio question. |
| How consent or notice is given | The statute prescribes no form of consent or notice. A participant needs no announcement, tone, script, or written consent — being a party to the communication is itself the defense under § 16.02(c)(4)(A). A nonparticipant needs the prior consent of one party, but the statute does not dictate how that consent is expressed. Do not read an announcement or beep-tone requirement into Texas law; there is none for a participant recording. |
| Major participant-facing exceptions | The party/one-party defense in § 16.02(c)(4) is itself the main allowance for ordinary people, and its key limit is that a one-party recording made 'for the purpose of committing an unlawful act' loses the defense. Section 16.02 also exempts communication common carriers and providers acting in the ordinary course of business and interceptions authorized by a court order under Chapter 18A. Law-enforcement and judicially authorized interceptions are outside an ordinary participant's scope. |
| Criminal classification and penalty | Unlawful interception, disclosure, or use under § 16.02 is a felony of the second degree (§ 16.02(f)). A second-degree felony is punishable by imprisonment for 2 to 20 years and, in addition, a fine not to exceed $10,000 (Penal Code § 12.33). The narrower offenses of manufacturing or selling an interception device (subsection (d)) and obstructing an authorized interception (subsection (g)) are state jail felonies. |
| Civil remedy and evidence effect | Civil: under Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 123.002, a party to a communication may sue a person who intercepts it, or who uses or divulges the contents knowing it was unlawfully obtained. A successful plaintiff recovers an injunction, statutory damages of $10,000 for each occurrence, all actual damages in excess of $10,000, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs (§ 123.004). Evidence: these provisions contain no statutory suppression rule aimed at a participant's own recording, which is lawful under the § 16.02(c)(4) party defense; an unlawful interception instead exposes the interceptor to the § 123.004 civil damages and second-degree-felony liability. |
| Interstate and federal boundary | Federal law permits a private party (or a nonparticipant with one party's consent) to record unless the purpose is a criminal or tortious act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); Texas's one-party rule aligns with that floor, with its own 'unlawful act' limit. For a purely Texas call the two rules agree. But if another participant is in an all-party-consent state, that state's stricter rule may apply, and this survey does not decide which state's law governs an interstate call — obtaining every participant's consent is the prudent baseline when jurisdictions may differ. |
Compare this rule across all 50 states + DC →
Requirements one by one
Governing law and covered recording
Texas's rule is criminal: Penal Code § 16.02, in Title 4, chapter 16
("Criminal Instruments, Interception of Wire or Oral Communication, and
Installation of Tracking Device"). It makes it an offense to intentionally
intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, or to disclose or use
the contents of a communication the person knows was unlawfully intercepted.
"Intercept" means acquiring a communication's contents through an interception
device.
A separate civil statute, Civil Practice & Remedies Code chapter 123, lets a
party to a communication sue over an interception. The scheme is aimed at
nonconsensual interception — an ordinary participant recording their own
conversation is protected by the party defense described next.
Whose consent a participant needs
Texas is a one-party-consent state. Section 16.02(c)(4) gives an affirmative
defense to a person "not acting under color of law" who intercepts a
communication if "the person is a party to the communication" or "one of the
parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception,
unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing an
unlawful act."
So if you are part of the call or conversation, you may record it without
telling anyone else. A nonparticipant may record with the prior consent of any
one party. The defense disappears if the recording is made to commit an unlawful
act.
Privacy, confidentiality, or secrecy trigger
Whether a communication is protected depends on the medium. An oral
communication — in-person speech — is protected only when it is "uttered by a
person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to
interception under circumstances justifying that expectation," i.e. a justified,
reasonable expectation of privacy. A wire communication (telephone audio
carried through a carrier's facilities) carries no such expectation qualifier and
is covered regardless.
Because Texas is a one-party state, a participant may record either way. The
privacy trigger matters mainly to whether an outsider's interception of
in-person speech is unlawful.
Telephone, in-person, and electronic coverage
The one-party rule is the same across media. A "wire communication" is an aural
transfer made "wholly or partly" through carrier wire, cable, or similar
facilities, which reaches both landline and cellular telephone calls; in-person
talk is an "oral communication"; and audio carried by an electronic system is an
"electronic communication." All three fall under § 16.02. Stored messages and
text content are handled by separate stored-communication provisions (Penal Code
§ 16.04) and are outside this audio question.
How consent or notice is given
The statute prescribes no form of consent or notice. A participant needs no
announcement, tone, script, or written consent — being a party to the
communication is itself the defense. A nonparticipant needs one party's prior
consent, but the statute does not dictate how that consent is given. There is no
beep-tone or announcement requirement to read into Texas law.
Major participant-facing exceptions
For ordinary people, the party/one-party defense is the allowance, and its
main limit is the "unlawful act" clause: a one-party recording made "for the
purpose of committing an unlawful act" loses the defense. Section 16.02 also
exempts communication common carriers and service providers acting in the
ordinary course of business and interceptions authorized by court order under
Chapter 18A. Judicially authorized and law-enforcement interceptions are not
available to an ordinary participant.
Criminal classification and penalty
Unlawful interception, disclosure, or use under § 16.02 is a felony of the
second degree (§ 16.02(f)). Under Penal Code § 12.33, a second-degree felony is
punishable by imprisonment for 2 to 20 years and, in addition, a fine up to
$10,000. The narrower crimes of making or selling an interception device
(subsection (d)) and obstructing an authorized interception (subsection (g)) are
state jail felonies.
Civil remedy and evidence effect
Chapter 123 gives a strong civil claim. Under § 123.002, a party to a
communication may sue a person who intercepts it, or who uses or divulges the
contents knowing it was unlawfully obtained. A successful plaintiff recovers,
under § 123.004, an injunction, statutory damages of $10,000 for each
occurrence, all actual damages in excess of $10,000, punitive damages, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
On evidence, these provisions contain no suppression rule aimed at a
participant's own recording — which is lawful under the § 16.02(c)(4) party
defense. It is an unlawful interception that carries consequences: the civil
damages above and second-degree-felony liability.
Interstate and federal boundary
Federal law permits a private party, or a nonparticipant with one party's
consent, to record unless the purpose is a criminal or tortious act (18 U.S.C.
§ 2511(2)(d)). Texas's one-party rule matches that floor, with its own "unlawful
act" limit, so for a purely Texas call the two agree. If another participant is
in an all-party-consent state, that stricter rule may apply, and no row here
decides which state's law governs an interstate call — get every participant's
consent when jurisdictions may differ.
What trips people up
"For the purpose of committing an unlawful act" can erase the defense. The
one-party rule protects an ordinary recording, but a recording made to further a
crime or an unlawful act loses the § 16.02(c)(4) protection. The lawful purpose
matters, not just that you were on the call.
In-person speech and telephone calls are treated differently at the edges.
A telephone call is a "wire communication" protected without any privacy
showing, but in-person speech is an "oral communication" protected only where the
speaker had a justified expectation against interception. This rarely limits a
participant (who has the party defense) but matters for an outsider's recording.
The civil exposure is large and separate from the crime. Even without a
criminal charge, a party to the communication can sue for $10,000 per occurrence
plus actual and punitive damages and attorney's fees under chapter 123.
Common questions
Do I have to tell the other person I'm recording our call? No. As a
participant you have the § 16.02(c)(4) defense and need no consent from or notice
to the other party — provided the recording is not made to commit an unlawful
act.
Can a friend record my call for me if I say it's okay? Yes. A nonparticipant
may intercept with the prior consent of one party to the communication, subject
to the same "unlawful act" limit.
Can I be sued even though Texas is one-party? Yes — but for an unlawful
interception. A lawful participant recording is protected; intercepting a
communication you are not part of (without a party's consent) exposes you to
$10,000-per-occurrence civil damages under chapter 123 and to felony liability.
Statutes and sources
- Tex. Penal Code § 16.02 — unlawful interception, use, or disclosure of wire,
oral, or electronic communications; party/one-party affirmative defense;
second-degree-felony level.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.16.htm (accessed 2026-07-20) - Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 18A.001 — definitions of "oral communication"
(justified expectation against interception) and "wire communication."
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.18A.htm (accessed 2026-07-20) - Tex. Penal Code § 12.33 — second-degree-felony punishment (2–20 years; fine up
to $10,000).
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.12.htm (accessed 2026-07-20) - Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.002 — civil cause of action for a party to a
communication.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.123.htm (accessed 2026-07-20) - Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.004 — damages: injunction, $10,000 per
occurrence, actual and punitive damages, attorney's fees.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.123.htm (accessed 2026-07-20) - 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) — federal one-party participant-consent rule and its
criminal/tortious-purpose limit.
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 Texas handles this in general. Ezel applies current Texas law to your facts and answers your specific question, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.