Is it legal to record phone calls in Michigan?
Only with everyone’s consent. Michigan 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 Michigan law says
Michigan 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. Michigan’s statute reads participant-friendly, but courts have split — treat it as all-party to be safe.
Michigan criminalizes eavesdropping on private conversations without the consent of all parties — but courts have long held that a participant in a conversation is not an 'eavesdropper' under the statute. The Act prohibits using any device to capture 'the private discourse of others' without all-party permission; recording your own conversation is the major judicial exception that makes Michigan functionally different from strict all-party states like Florida or Maryland.
"Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto … is guilty of a felony." — Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c. Eavesdropping is defined as: "to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse." — § 750.539a(2).
Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) permits one-party consent, aligning with Michigan's participant exception in practice. But the federal Act separately prohibits recording a communication 'for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act' — Fisher v. Perron shows a participant recording may still face federal exposure if paired with tortious use. Michigan's narrower definition of eavesdropping as 'the private discourse of others' is more permissive for participants than the federal Act's 'interception' framework.
Michigan's recording law is often mislabeled. The statute text requires all-party consent to eavesdrop, but eavesdropping is defined as capturing 'the private discourse of others' — and in Sullivan v. Gray the Court of Appeals held that a participant recording their own conversation is not eavesdropping because the conversation is not 'of others.' That participant exception has been affirmed repeatedly, including by the Sixth Circuit in Fisher v. Perron (2022). So: if you are on the call or in the conversation, you may generally record without telling the other participants; if you are a third party not involved in the conversation, you need all-party consent. People v. Stone held that a conversation can still be 'private' even when technology makes eavesdropping possible — privacy does not disappear just because someone could theoretically listen in. The conversation must be private (parties reasonably expect freedom from surveillance) and the recorder must be a non-participant using a device without all-party consent to trigger the felony.
| 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 Michigan
Eavesdropping under § 750.539c is a felony punishable by up to two years in state prison and/or a fine of up to $2,000. Using or divulging information obtained through eavesdropping is a separate felony under § 750.539e.
Yes — § 750.539h authorizes civil actions by any person aggrieved by a violation, with injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, and attorney's fees. Illegally obtained recordings may also be excluded from evidence in proceedings where the eavesdropping statute applies.
Exceptions worth knowing
- Participant recording: a party to a private conversation may record without other participants' consent (Sullivan v. Gray; Fisher v. Perron)
- All-party consent: recording with permission of all persons engaged in the discourse is always lawful
- Non-private conversations: the Act only reaches 'private' conversations where parties reasonably expect freedom from surveillance (People v. Stone)
- Law enforcement acting under judicial warrant or statutory authority
How Michigan 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 Michigan law.
What happened: Gray tape-recorded a telephone conversation he participated in without the consent of the other participants. Sullivan sued under the eavesdropping statute.
The ruling: The court dismissed the suit, holding the statute prohibits eavesdropping on 'the private discourse of others' and a participant recording his own conversation is not covered.
What happened: Police used electronic surveillance equipment to capture conversations in a situation where the defendant argued the parties could not reasonably expect privacy because technology made interception possible.
The ruling: The Supreme Court held that a conversation does not lose its 'private' character merely because technology makes eavesdropping possible — the statute specifically protects against device-based intrusion.
What happened: Perron recorded telephone discussions about estate matters with her siblings without informing them. Fisher sued alleging violations of Michigan's eavesdropping statute and the federal Wiretap Act.
The ruling: The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding a participant does not violate Michigan's eavesdropping statute by recording a conversation without other participants' consent.
What happened: Plaintiffs alleged their employer eavesdropped on a private workplace conversation by recording it without the consent of all parties.
The ruling: The court reversed summary judgment for the employer, holding a genuine factual dispute existed over whether defendants eavesdropped on a private conversation without all-party consent — the act a non-participant third party cannot perform lawfully.
What happened: A teachers' union sued Project Veritas over undercover recordings of union meetings. The district court initially held Michigan requires all-party consent even for participant recording.
The ruling: The court reversed its earlier ruling and recognized the Sullivan participant exception, holding the statute is not violated when a conversation is recorded by one of its participants.
Personal calls vs. business calls in Michigan
Recording personal calls
If you are on the call or in the conversation, you can generally record in Michigan without telling the other participants — Sullivan v. Gray and Fisher v. Perron are clear on that. This makes Michigan very different from Florida, Maryland, or Pennsylvania. But you cannot plant a device to capture conversations you are not part of; that requires all-party consent and is a felony. People v. Stone confirms that 'private' conversations remain protected even when technology makes interception possible. Your recording may still be excluded from court for other reasons (hearsay, authentication), and the federal Wiretap Act can impose liability if you record 'for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act.'
Recording business calls
Michigan businesses can record customer calls they participate in without all-party consent, but best practice is still to disclose recording — many customers expect it, and multi-state operations must comply with stricter states on the line. Employers cannot have managers or third parties secretly record employee conversations they are not part of (Bowens v. ARY). For quality assurance, the standard 'this call may be recorded' announcement is still advisable for customer trust and interstate compliance. If your call center serves residents of all-party states, follow the strictest rule on each call.
Calls that cross state lines
When a Michigan resident is on a call with someone in an all-party state, the stricter state's law should govern. A Michigan participant who secretly records may be legal under Sullivan but still violate Florida, Maryland, or California law. Conversely, a caller from a one-party state recording a Michigan resident is generally legal under Michigan's participant exception if the recorder is on the call — but may violate the other state's law. Default to all-party consent on any interstate call to avoid the worst exposure.
The safe way to record in Michigan
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.
- Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c (official text, Michigan Legislature)
- Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539a — definitions (official text)
- Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539h — civil remedies (official text)
- Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982) — Justia
- Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 573 (6th Cir. 2022) — Justia
- People v. Stone, 463 Mich. 558 (2001)
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 Michigan.
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.
Both, depending on who records. Third-party eavesdropping requires all-party consent, but a participant may record their own conversation without others' consent under Sullivan v. Gray. Michigan is not a strict all-party state like Florida or Maryland.
Generally yes, if you are a participant. Sullivan v. Gray and Fisher v. Perron hold that participant recording is not eavesdropping under § 750.539c.
No, not without all-party consent. The statute prohibits using a device to capture 'the private discourse of others' without permission from everyone in the conversation.
A conversation is private when the parties reasonably expect it to be free from surveillance. People v. Stone held that technological possibility of interception does not automatically defeat privacy.
A felony punishable by up to two years in prison and/or a $2,000 fine under § 750.539c, plus potential civil liability under § 750.539h including punitive damages and attorney's fees.
Record responsibly in Michigan, automatically.
Built-in disclosure · automatic transcripts and summaries · 200 minutes included
Get Callmark