Is it legal to record phone calls in Florida?
Only with everyone’s consent. Florida is an all-party consent state: every participant in a phone call must consent to being recorded. The standard mechanism is a clear announcement — a party who stays on the line after hearing “this call may be recorded” is generally treated as having consented.
What Florida law says
Florida is one of roughly a dozen US states that require all parties’ consent to record a phone call. Recording without consent can carry criminal penalties and civil liability, so the practice to adopt is simple: announce the recording at the start of every call, or use a tool that announces it for you.
Florida requires the prior consent of every party before intercepting or recording any wire, oral, or electronic communication. Section 934.03 makes nonconsensual interception a third-degree felony, and section 934.06 bars illegally intercepted communications from being used as evidence in virtually any proceeding. Being a participant on the call provides no exemption — the Florida Supreme Court has held that a party who secretly records without everyone's consent commits an unlawful interception.
"Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to: (a) Intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication." — Fla. Stat. § 934.03(1)(a). Lawful recording requires all-party consent: "It is lawful under this section … for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception." — Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(d).
Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) permits interception when one party consents — a lower bar than Florida's all-party requirement. Florida's Security of Communications Act is deliberately stricter: Shevin v. Sunbeam Television Corp. affirmed the legislature's policy that each party's privacy in a conversation outweighs a recorder's convenience. A recording lawful under federal one-party principles can still be a Florida felony, trigger civil damages, and be excluded from evidence under section 934.06. Businesses operating nationally must follow the strictest state on the line.
Florida is a strict all-party consent state. The only lawful path for private citizens is section 934.03(2)(d): every person on the call or in the conversation must give prior consent before any interception occurs. Consent can be express or, in business settings, implied from a clear recording announcement at the outset followed by the other person's decision to continue — but silence or staying on the line after notice is the safer compliance model for companies. Critically, Florida does not follow the federal one-party rule for participants: in State v. Tsavaris the Supreme Court held that a person on the call who secretly records without the other parties' consent has committed an unlawful interception, and Shevin v. Sunbeam Television Corp. upheld the all-party requirement against First Amendment challenges from news organizations. The statute covers wire calls, in-person oral communications, emails, and other electronic communications — O'Brien v. O'Brien held spyware that copies emails during transmission is an illegal interception. After McDade v. State, the legislature added a narrow exception allowing minors under 18 to record evidence of sexual abuse or physical violence, but that exception is tightly cabined and does not create a general self-help recording right for adults.
| Consent rule for phone calls | All-party consent |
| Recording calls you're part of | Only with every participant’s consent — announce the recording. |
| Calls with people in other states | The stricter state's rule may apply — when in doubt, disclose. |
What breaking the law costs in Florida
Violating section 934.03 is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000 per offense. A first offense involving an oral communication intercepted for other than commercial purposes may be charged as a misdemeanor under section 934.03(4)(a).
Yes — section 934.10 gives any person whose communication was intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of the Act a private cause of action for actual damages (not less than $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater) plus punitive damages, attorney's fees, and litigation costs. Illegally intercepted wire and oral communications are inadmissible as evidence under section 934.06 in any trial, hearing, or proceeding before any court, agency, or authority.
Exceptions worth knowing
- All-party consent: interception is lawful when every party to the communication has given prior consent (§ 934.03(2)(d))
- Law enforcement or a person acting under an officer's direction may intercept when one party consents and the purpose is to obtain evidence of a criminal act (§ 934.03(2)(c))
- Minors under 18 may record oral communications to capture evidence of sexual abuse or physical violence against them (§ 934.03(2)(k), added after McDade)
- Parents or legal guardians may record on behalf of a minor under the same conditions (§ 934.03(2)(l))
- A person subject to an injunction for protection may record communications received in violation of that injunction (§ 934.03(2)(m))
- Telephone company employees and equipment operating in the ordinary course of business (§ 934.03(2)(a))
How Florida courts have ruled
Statutes set the rule; cases show how it plays out when a recording ends up in front of a judge. These are real, decided cases under Florida law.
What happened: A child stepdaughter secretly recorded conversations in her stepfather's bedroom about sexual abuse. The defense argued the recordings were illegal interceptions under chapter 934 and should be suppressed; the Second District had held the circumstances fell outside the statute.
The ruling: The Supreme Court reversed, holding the recordings were unlawful interceptions made without all parties' consent and were inadmissible under the statutory exclusionary rule — even in a prosecution for child sexual abuse.
What happened: A physician secretly recorded telephone conversations with patients and employees using a device connected to his office phone system, then used the tapes in administrative and court proceedings.
The ruling: The court held that a party to a conversation who records without all other parties' consent has committed an unlawful interception under section 934.03, rejecting the argument that 'intercept' applies only to third-party eavesdroppers.
What happened: Sunbeam Television and the Miami Herald challenged the constitutionality of Florida's all-party consent requirement, arguing it unconstitutionally restricted investigative reporters from secretly recording sources.
The ruling: The court upheld section 934.03(2)(d), holding the legislature's policy choice to protect each party's expectation of privacy from interception by another party does not violate the First Amendment.
What happened: An extortion victim secretly recorded a conversation with the defendants in his own home to corroborate threats. The State sought to introduce the recording at the extortion trial.
The ruling: The court affirmed suppression, holding the recording was an illegal interception without all-party consent and section 934.06 bars its use as evidence — even when the victim could testify to the threats without the tape.
What happened: During a divorce, the wife installed spyware on the husband's computer that contemporaneously copied his emails and instant messages with another woman during transmission.
The ruling: The court held the spyware captured illegal interceptions of electronic communications under section 934.03, and the trial court properly excluded the emails from the divorce proceeding.
Personal calls vs. business calls in Florida
Recording personal calls
Secretly recording your own phone calls, face-to-face conversations, or a partner's emails in Florida is generally a third-degree felony, even when you have sympathetic reasons. State v. Tsavaris eliminates the 'I'm on the call so it's fine' defense that works in one-party states, and State v. Walls shows even an extortion victim cannot use a secret recording in court. If you need a usable recording, announce at the start that you are recording and let the other person's decision to continue serve as consent. The main statutory carve-out after McDade allows minors under 18 to record evidence of sexual abuse or physical violence — a narrow protection that does not extend to adults documenting ordinary disputes, custody fights, or workplace harassment. An illegal recording can cost you criminal exposure, civil damages under section 934.10, and the recording itself will be inadmissible under section 934.06.
Recording business calls
Every Florida business call — inbound, outbound, and internal — should open with a recording disclosure. The standard 'this call may be recorded for quality assurance' line, followed by the caller's decision to stay on the line, is how companies obtain the all-party consent section 934.03(2)(d) requires. That applies to call centers, sales teams, telehealth, and any outbound dialer that might reach a Floridian. Out-of-state companies get no pass: if anyone on the call is in Florida, Florida's all-party rule governs regardless of the recorder's home state. Employers should also train managers that secretly monitoring employee calls without disclosure violates the same statute. Document consent policies in writing, and never repurpose call recordings for purposes beyond what was disclosed.
Calls that cross state lines
Florida courts have not issued a definitive interstate-choice-of-law decision comparable to California's Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, but the practical rule is identical: if any participant is in Florida, obtain all-party consent before recording. A business in a one-party state that records calls with Florida customers or employees without all-party consent risks third-degree felony charges, civil suits under section 934.10, and suppression of the recording in any Florida proceeding. Federal one-party consent under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) does not shield a recorder from Florida liability.
The safe way to record in Florida
Whatever the local rule, one habit covers every situation: say the call is being recorded at the start. Consent is then on the recording itself, and cross-border calls stop being a legal puzzle. Callmark can play "This call may be recorded" automatically on your calls, so the disclosure never depends on your memory.
For the full national picture — every all-party state, cross-border rules, and consent mechanics — see our state-by-state consent guide.
Sources and further reading
Statutes, court opinions, and reference guides cited on this page. Laws change — verify current text before relying on it for anything consequential.
- Fla. Stat. § 934.03 (official text, Florida Legislature)
- Fla. Stat. § 934.06 — evidence exclusion (official text)
- Fla. Stat. § 934.10 — civil remedies (official text)
- McDade v. State, 154 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 2014) — Justia
- State v. Tsavaris, 394 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981) — Justia
- Shevin v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 351 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1977) — Justia
- O'Brien v. O'Brien, 899 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) — FindLaw
- Reporters Committee — Florida recording guide
Common questions
Only if everyone on the call consents. An announcement at the start of the call, followed by the other party staying on the line, is the standard way consent is established in Florida.
Courts have applied different states' laws to interstate calls, and you often can't verify where a mobile number is. The practical rule: assume the strictest state applies and disclose the recording.
In most states, continuing a call after a clear "this call may be recorded" announcement is treated as implied consent — the same mechanism customer-service lines rely on.
No. State v. Tsavaris holds that a party who secretly records without all other parties' consent commits an unlawful interception. Florida does not have a participant exception like many one-party states.
You can record, but you generally cannot use the tape. State v. Walls affirmed that even an extortion victim's secret recording is inadmissible under section 934.06. Your testimony about the threats is still admissible; the recording itself is not.
Treat Florida law as governing whenever a Floridian is on the call. The safe compliance rule nationwide is to obtain all-party consent whenever any participant may be in Florida, regardless of where the recorder is located.
Yes, when done at the outset and the other person chooses to continue. That pattern satisfies section 934.03(2)(d)'s all-party consent requirement for business calls. Notice given after recording has already begun does not cure earlier nonconsensual interception.
No. O'Brien v. O'Brien held that spyware capturing electronic communications during transmission is an illegal interception under section 934.03, with the same criminal and civil consequences as an unlawful phone recording.
Yes, within limits. After McDade v. State, the legislature added section 934.03(2)(k), allowing a minor under 18 who is a party to a conversation to record when they have reasonable grounds to believe the recording will capture evidence of sexual abuse or physical violence. Parents and guardians have a parallel exception under subsection (l).
Record responsibly in Florida, automatically.
Built-in disclosure · automatic transcripts and summaries · 200 minutes included
Get Callmark