Washington: Call and Conversation Recording Consent Requirements
The short answer
Washington is an all-party-consent state. Under the Washington Privacy Act, a participant may not record a private telephone communication or a private in-person conversation without first obtaining the consent of every participant, and consent is treated as given if one party announces in any reasonably effective manner that the conversation is about to be recorded — an announcement that must itself be recorded. Narrow exceptions let one party record emergencies, threats, anonymous or repeated or extremely-inconvenient-hour calls, and hostage situations. A violation is a gross misdemeanor, the recording is generally inadmissible, and the injured person can sue for actual or liquidated damages plus attorney's fees.
Ask Ezel about your situation
This is the general rule in Washington. Ezel applies current Washington law to your specific facts and answers with citations to the statutes.
| Governing law and covered recording | Washington Privacy Act, RCW ch. 9.73. RCW 9.73.030(1) makes it unlawful to intercept or record either a 'private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals' or a 'private conversation' by any recording or transmitting device, without first obtaining consent of all participants. It reaches an ordinary participant's own recording, not only a third party tapping a line; the operative acts are intercepting or recording a private communication/conversation without all-party consent. |
|---|---|
| Whose consent a participant needs | All-party consent. A participant must obtain the consent of every participant before recording a private communication or private conversation (RCW 9.73.030(1)). This is an all-party rule, not merely 'two-party': the statute requires consent of 'all the participants' / 'all the persons engaged in the conversation,' which can exceed two people. |
| Privacy, confidentiality, or secrecy trigger | Protection turns on the communication or conversation being 'private.' The statute does not define 'private,' so the trigger is fact- and case-law-dependent: Washington courts ask whether a party had a subjective expectation of privacy that was reasonable under the circumstances. Conversations that are not private (for example, those a speaker should expect to be overheard or recorded) fall outside the all-party requirement, but that line is a case-law question, not a bright-line statutory list. |
| Telephone, in-person, and electronic coverage | The all-party rule is the same for telephone audio and face-to-face speech. RCW 9.73.030(1)(a) covers a private communication transmitted 'by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device ... by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit ... regardless how such device is powered or actuated' (reaching landline, cellular, cordless, and radio audio), and (1)(b) separately covers a private 'conversation' in person. There is no separate section stripping the privacy trigger for a named class of ordinary calls. |
| How consent or notice is given | Consent must be obtained first (prior consent), but the statute supplies a specific safe harbor: where all-party consent is needed, it 'shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties ... in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted' — and if the conversation is recorded, that announcement 'shall also be recorded' (RCW 9.73.030(3)). No particular script, written form, or audible tone is required; an announced-and-recorded notice suffices. |
| Major participant-facing exceptions | One-party consent is enough for conversations RCW 9.73.030(2) lists: those of an emergency nature (reporting a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster); those conveying threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful demands; those occurring anonymously, repeatedly, or at an extremely inconvenient hour; and hostage or barricaded-person communications. Separately, RCW 9.73.030(4) deems bona fide news-gathering employees to have consent if consent is expressly given or the recording device is readily apparent or obvious. Law-enforcement exceptions (RCW 9.73.090) are outside a participant's scope. |
| Criminal classification and penalty | Violating RCW 9.73.030 is a gross misdemeanor (RCW 9.73.080(1)). A Washington gross misdemeanor is punishable by up to 364 days in county jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both (RCW 9A.20.021(2)). |
| Civil remedy and evidence effect | Civil: a person injured in business, person, or reputation may sue for actual damages, including mental pain and suffering, OR liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation up to $1,000, plus a reasonable attorney's fee and costs (RCW 9.73.060). Evidence: information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030 is inadmissible in any civil or criminal case in Washington courts, except with the permission of the person whose rights were violated in a damages action, or in a national-security criminal case (RCW 9.73.050). |
| Interstate and federal boundary | Federal law permits a participant not acting under color of law to record with one-party consent unless the recording is made to commit a criminal or tortious act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) — a permissive floor. Washington's all-party rule is stricter and can still apply to a private Washington conversation even where federal law or a one-party state would allow it. This survey does not decide which state's law governs an interstate call; when Washington may apply, treat all-party consent as the prudent baseline. |
Compare this rule across all 50 states + DC →
Requirements one by one
Governing law and covered recording
Washington's rule lives in the Washington Privacy Act, RCW chapter 9.73. The
core prohibition, RCW 9.73.030(1), makes it unlawful "to intercept, or record"
either a private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio,
or other device between two or more individuals, or a private conversation,
using any recording or transmitting device, "without first obtaining the consent
of all the participants."
The statute reaches an ordinary participant who records their own call or
conversation, not just an outsider secretly tapping a line. It is written around
the acts of intercepting or recording a private communication without the
consent the section requires.
Whose consent a participant needs
Washington requires all-party consent. Every participant must consent before
a private call or conversation is recorded. This is genuinely an all-party rule
rather than a "two-party" label: the statute demands consent of "all the
participants in the communication" and "all the persons engaged in the
conversation," which can be more than two people on a conference call or in a
room.
Privacy, confidentiality, or secrecy trigger
The rule applies only to a private communication or conversation, and the
statute does not define "private." Whether a given conversation is private is a
fact-specific, case-law question: Washington courts ask whether a party had a
subjective expectation of privacy that was reasonable under the circumstances.
Speech a person should expect to be overheard or recorded may fall outside the
all-party requirement, but there is no statutory checklist of non-private
settings — the line is drawn by the courts, not the text.
Telephone, in-person, and electronic coverage
The same all-party rule covers both telephone audio and face-to-face speech.
RCW 9.73.030(1)(a) covers a private communication transmitted "by telephone,
telegraph, radio, or other device ... by any device electronic or otherwise
designed to record and/or transmit ... regardless how such device is powered or
actuated," which reaches landline, cellular, cordless, and radio audio.
Subsection (1)(b) separately covers an in-person private "conversation." No
separate provision removes the privacy trigger for an ordinary class of calls.
How consent or notice is given
Consent must be obtained first, but the statute provides its own method of
proving it. Under RCW 9.73.030(3), where all-party consent is needed, consent
"shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other
parties ... in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or
conversation is about to be recorded" — and if the conversation is recorded,
"that said announcement shall also be recorded."
In practice, a clear spoken announcement that recording is starting, captured on
the recording itself, is treated as consent. The statute prescribes no
particular script, written form, duration, or audible-tone requirement, so none
should be invented from industry practice.
Major participant-facing exceptions
RCW 9.73.030(2) lets one party consent — rather than all — for conversations
that are: of an emergency nature (reporting a fire, medical emergency, crime, or
disaster); conveying threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other
unlawful demands; occurring anonymously, repeatedly, or "at an extremely
inconvenient hour"; or relating to a hostage holder or barricaded person. This
is the practical route for someone recording a threatening or harassing caller.
Separately, RCW 9.73.030(4) deems a bona fide news-gathering employee of a
newspaper, magazine, wire service, or broadcast station to have consent if
consent is expressly given or the recording device is "readily apparent or
obvious to the speakers." Law-enforcement exceptions in RCW 9.73.090 are not
available to an ordinary participant.
Criminal classification and penalty
A violation of RCW 9.73.030 is a gross misdemeanor (RCW 9.73.080(1)). Under
the general sentencing statute, a Washington gross misdemeanor is punishable by
up to 364 days in county jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both
(RCW 9A.20.021(2)).
Civil remedy and evidence effect
The Act gives the injured person a civil claim. RCW 9.73.060 lets a person
whose business, person, or reputation was injured recover actual damages —
including mental pain and suffering — or liquidated damages of $100 for each day
of violation up to $1,000, plus a reasonable attorney's fee and costs.
The recording is also generally unusable as evidence. RCW 9.73.050 makes
information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030 inadmissible in any civil or
criminal case in Washington courts, with narrow carve-outs (the person whose
rights were violated may allow it in a damages action, and a national-security
criminal case is excepted).
Interstate and federal boundary
Federal law sets only a floor. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), a person who is a
party to the communication may record with one-party consent unless the
recording is made to commit a criminal or tortious act. Washington's all-party
rule is stricter and can apply to a private Washington conversation even when
federal law or a one-party state would permit one-participant recording. Because
choice of law for an interstate call is fact-specific, the safe course when
Washington may be involved is to get every participant's consent.
What trips people up
"One-party is fine under federal law" is not the Washington rule. Federal law
and many states allow a participant to record with only their own consent.
Washington does not. For a private Washington conversation, every participant
must consent, subject only to the narrow RCW 9.73.030(2) exceptions.
The announcement has to be on the recording. RCW 9.73.030(3) treats an
announcement as consent, but only if the announcement itself is recorded when
the conversation is recorded. Telling people off-tape that you will record does
not satisfy the safe harbor.
A threatening caller is the main self-help exception. If a call conveys a
threat of extortion, blackmail, or bodily harm, or is anonymous, repeated, or at
an extremely inconvenient hour, RCW 9.73.030(2) lets one party record it. That
is the provision most useful to someone documenting harassment.
Common questions
Can I record a call with a customer-service line or my own business call? The
all-party rule still applies to private communications; a participant should
announce recording on the line (RCW 9.73.030(3)). Regulated customer-service and
business-monitoring regimes are separate and outside this page.
Can I secretly record a threatening voicemail or caller? For a conversation
conveying a threat of bodily harm or other unlawful demand, or an anonymous or
repeated or extremely-inconvenient-hour call, one-party consent is enough under
RCW 9.73.030(2), so recording it is permitted.
If I break the rule, can the recording still be used in my case? Generally
no. RCW 9.73.050 makes an unlawfully obtained recording inadmissible in
Washington civil and criminal courts, apart from the narrow statutory
exceptions.
Statutes and sources
- RCW 9.73.030 — consent of all participants required to intercept or record a
private communication or conversation; one-party and news-media exceptions;
announcement method.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030 (accessed 2026-07-20) - RCW 9.73.050 — inadmissibility of information obtained in violation.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.050 (accessed 2026-07-20) - RCW 9.73.060 — civil action; actual or liquidated damages and attorney's fees.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.060 (accessed 2026-07-20) - RCW 9.73.080 — gross-misdemeanor penalty for violating RCW 9.73.030.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.080 (accessed 2026-07-20) - RCW 9A.20.021 — maximum sentence for a gross misdemeanor (364 days / $5,000).
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.20.021 (accessed 2026-07-20) - 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) — federal one-party participant-consent rule and its
criminal/tortious-purpose limit.
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2024-title18/USCODE-2024-title18-partI-chap119-sec2511 (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 Washington handles this in general. Ezel applies current Washington law to your facts and answers your specific question, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.