Is it legal to record phone calls in Illinois?
Only with everyone’s consent. Illinois 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 Illinois law says
Illinois 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. Illinois’ eavesdropping statute requires all parties’ consent for private conversations.
Illinois makes it a felony to use a device to surreptitiously record any private conversation, including a phone call, without the consent of all parties. A conversation is private only when at least one party intended it to be private under circumstances that reasonably justify that expectation. The law was completely rewritten in December 2014 after the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the old version, which had banned nearly all recording regardless of privacy. Recording that is not surreptitious, or of a conversation with no reasonable expectation of privacy, is not eavesdropping under the current statute.
"A person commits eavesdropping when he or she knowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device to hear or record all or any part of any conversation or intercept, retain, or acquire the contents of an electronic communication unless he or she does so (A) with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation or electronic communication or (B) in accordance with Article 108A of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963." — 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1)(A)
Federal one-party consent under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) does not preempt Illinois's all-party rule for surreptitious recordings of private conversations. Since the 2014 rewrite, Illinois requires all-party consent only for surreptitious recordings of genuinely private conversations — openly announced recordings are lawful.
Illinois is an all-party consent state, but only for conversations that are both recorded surreptitiously and genuinely private. The statute defines surreptitious as obtained or made by stealth or deception, or executed through secrecy or concealment, and a private conversation as one where a party intended privacy under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation. That means two independent escape hatches: an openly announced recording is not surreptitious, and a conversation held in circumstances where privacy is not reasonable is not protected. In practice, a clear announcement that the call is being recorded, followed by the other person continuing to talk, both defeats the surreptitious element and undermines any reasonable expectation of privacy. Before December 2014, none of this was true. The old statute criminalized recording any conversation without all-party consent even in public, until the Illinois Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutionally overbroad in People v. Clark and People v. Melongo. Many websites still describe the pre-2014 law, so treat older summaries of Illinois law with caution.
| 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 Illinois
Eavesdropping is a Class 4 felony for a first offense and a Class 3 felony for a second or subsequent offense. Surreptitiously recording a law enforcement officer, State's Attorney, Assistant State's Attorney, the Attorney General, an Assistant Attorney General, or a judge while performing official duties is punished more harshly: Class 3 felony for a first offense and Class 2 felony for repeat offenses (720 ILCS 5/14-4).
Yes. Under 720 ILCS 5/14-6, any party to a recorded conversation can sue the eavesdropper for an injunction, all actual damages, and punitive damages. Separately, 720 ILCS 5/14-5 makes evidence obtained in violation of the Act inadmissible in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding, unless all parties consent to its admission or it is used to prosecute the eavesdropping itself.
Exceptions worth knowing
- Fear-of-crime exception: a party to a conversation may record it if they reasonably suspect another party is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a crime against them or their household, and the recording may produce evidence (720 ILCS 5/14-3(i)).
- Business quality-control exception: companies doing marketing, opinion research, or telephone solicitation may record calls for quality control or employee training with the consent of at least one party (720 ILCS 5/14-3(j)).
- Recording police and other officials performing public duties in public places, where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, is expressly permitted.
- Emergency communications made in the normal course of operations by law enforcement and emergency services agencies.
- Conversations with no reasonable expectation of privacy (for example, a loud argument in public) are not 'private conversations' and fall outside the Act entirely.
How Illinois 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 Illinois law.
What happened: Annabel Melongo recorded phone conversations with an employee of the Cook County Court Reporter's office about correcting a court transcript, posted the recordings on her website, and was prosecuted for both eavesdropping and divulging the recordings.
The ruling: The court struck down both the recording and publishing provisions of the old eavesdropping statute as facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because they criminalized recording and disclosing conversations regardless of any privacy interest.
What happened: During a child-support case, DeForest Clark recorded a conversation with the opposing attorney and a courtroom conversation with the judge and attorney without their consent, and was indicted under the old eavesdropping statute.
The ruling: The court held the statute unconstitutionally overbroad because it criminalized recording conversations that were not private at all, such as public interactions and open court proceedings, burdening far more speech than needed to protect conversational privacy.
What happened: The ACLU planned a police accountability program that would openly audio-record on-duty officers in public and sued to stop the Cook County State's Attorney from prosecuting participants under the old eavesdropping act.
The ruling: The Seventh Circuit held that audio recording is protected by the First Amendment and ordered a preliminary injunction barring prosecution of the ACLU for openly recording police performing public duties; a permanent injunction followed in 2013.
Personal calls vs. business calls in Illinois
Recording personal calls
For personal calls, the safe path in Illinois is simple: tell the other person you are recording. If your ex, landlord, or a harassing caller keeps talking after a clear announcement, the recording is not surreptitious and their expectation of privacy is gone. Secretly recording a private phone call, even one you are part of, remains a Class 4 felony, so quietly taping a custody dispute call with a co-parent is exactly the conduct the statute still criminalizes. The fear-of-crime exception in 14-3(i) can cover secretly recording someone you reasonably suspect is committing or about to commit a crime against you, such as documented threats or extortion, but it requires a reasonable suspicion at the time, not just a hunch. Remember that an illegal recording is both a felony and inadmissible in court, so it usually cannot help you even if it captures something important.
Recording business calls
Businesses recording customer calls into or out of Illinois should use a recorded-line announcement at the start of every call; continued participation after the announcement defeats both the surreptitious and privacy elements of the offense. Telemarketing, opinion research, and solicitation firms also have a specific quality-control exemption in 14-3(j) allowing recording for training and quality purposes with one party's consent, but the announcement remains the standard, defensible practice. Employers monitoring employee calls should disclose recording in written policy and on the line itself, since employees can otherwise argue a reasonable expectation of privacy. Companies headquartered elsewhere should not assume their home state's one-party rule travels with them: recording an Illinois participant without notice creates felony and civil exposure under Illinois law.
Calls that cross state lines
Illinois courts have not produced a leading published decision on which state's recording law governs an interstate call, so there is no Illinois equivalent of California's Kearney rule. The practical rule is to comply with the strictest state on the line: if anyone on the call is in Illinois, get all-party consent or announce the recording. Federal law's one-party rule (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)) does not shield a recorder from Illinois criminal or civil liability.
The safe way to record in Illinois
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.
- 720 ILCS 5/14-2 (official text, ILGA)
- 720 ILCS 5/14-1 definitions (official text, ILGA)
- 720 ILCS 5/14-3 exemptions (official text, ILGA)
- 720 ILCS 5/14-4 sentencing (official text, ILGA)
- 720 ILCS 5/14-5 evidence exclusion (official text, ILGA)
- 720 ILCS 5/14-6 civil remedies (official text, ILGA)
- People v. Melongo, 2014 IL 114852 (opinion)
- People v. Clark, 2014 IL 115776 (opinion)
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 Illinois.
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.
Yes, the old version. In March 2014 the Illinois Supreme Court held the prior eavesdropping act facially unconstitutional in People v. Clark and People v. Melongo because it banned recording even where no one had any privacy interest. The General Assembly rewrote the law in December 2014. The current statute is valid and enforced, but it only reaches surreptitious recording of conversations with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Generally no. If the call qualifies as a private conversation, secretly recording it without every participant's consent is a Class 4 felony even though you are on the call. The main exception is 14-3(i): you may record if you reasonably suspect the other party is committing, about to commit, or has committed a crime against you or your household.
Yes, as a practical matter. An announced recording is not surreptitious, which is a required element of the offense, and a person who keeps talking after being told they are recorded cannot reasonably claim they expected the conversation to stay private. This is how call centers lawfully record calls with Illinois residents.
Yes. Both the Seventh Circuit's Alvarez injunction and the current statute protect openly recording law enforcement officers performing public duties in public places where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Note, however, that surreptitiously recording an officer, prosecutor, or judge performing official duties carries enhanced felony penalties.
Almost never. Under 720 ILCS 5/14-5, evidence obtained in violation of the eavesdropping act is inadmissible in any civil or criminal trial or administrative proceeding, unless all parties to the conversation consent to its admission or it is being used to prosecute the illegal recording itself.
Record responsibly in Illinois, automatically.
Built-in disclosure · automatic transcripts and summaries · 200 minutes included
Get Callmark