California call recording law

Is California a one-party consent state?

All-party consent

No. California is an all-party consent state. Recording a confidential call requires the consent of all parties (Penal Code § 632), and a call involving a cell or cordless phone may not be recorded without the consent of all parties even when it is not confidential (Penal Code § 632.7).

Last checked October 13, 2026 · 33 quoted facts from official pages

California at a glance

Phone calls: All-party consent
The law: Cal. Penal Code § 632 (confidential communications) (official source, opens in a new tab)
In-person conversations: The same rule (see below)
Criminal penalty: Under §§ 632 and 632.7: a fine of up to $2,500 (per violation under § 632), or up to one year in county jail or state prison, or both; up to $10,000 for a person previously convicted.
Lawsuits: A person injured by a violation may sue for the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, and may also ask the court to stop the violation.
Calls across state lines: An official source addresses them (see below)
Last checked: October 13, 2026

The law

The official pages this page relies on.

Penalties

As the statutes and courts state them.

Criminal: Under §§ 632 and 632.7: a fine of up to $2,500 (per violation under § 632), or up to one year in county jail or state prison, or both; up to $10,000 for a person previously convicted. Section 631 (wiretapping) carries the same $2,500 / $10,000 fine levels.
Civil (lawsuits): A person injured by a violation may sue for the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, and may also ask the court to stop the violation. Actual damages need not be shown (§ 637.2).

In-person conversations

Section 632 applies the same rule to conversations held in person and by telephone. It protects “confidential” communications and leaves out conversations where the parties may reasonably expect to be overheard or recorded.

Calls across state lines

The California Supreme Court applied § 632 to calls between the Georgia branch of a national brokerage firm and the firm’s California clients (Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 2006, as described by the court in Smith v. LoanMe, 2021). Section 631 also covers communications sent from or received at any place in California.

What this means for a business that records calls

Businesses count as a “person” under § 632. Section 632.7 binds the parties to a call, not only outside eavesdroppers (Smith v. LoanMe, 2021). The court said a party can avoid liability by taking reasonable precautions, such as obtaining the consent to record that the statute requires.

Notices and warnings: In Smith v. LoanMe (2021), a lender sounded a beep three seconds into a call and did not tell the caller orally that it was recorded. The trial court found the tone gave adequate notice; the California Supreme Court did not decide that question and sent it back to the Court of Appeal.

Callers can be in any state. The state-by-state table compares every state's rule, and the disclosure generator writes a plain notice sentence such as “This call may be recorded.” Whether a notice is enough under California's law is a question for a lawyer licensed in California.

Recording notices on CallFlux numbers

CallFlux plays a recording notice to callers on every tracking number that records, before the call connects.

How CallFlux call tracking works

What the official sources say

Each line is a short quote from the official page it links to, with the date we read it.

Section 632 prohibits recording a confidential communication without the consent of all parties.
“without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Section 632 applies the same rule to in-person and telephone conversations.
“whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
A confidential communication is one where a party reasonably desires it confined to the parties.
“any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Communications where the parties may reasonably expect to be overheard or recorded are excluded from 'confidential communication'.
“in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Under Flanagan v. Flanagan (2002), as restated by the California Supreme Court in Smith v. LoanMe, § 632 protects conversations where a party has an objectively reasonable expectation of not being recorded.
“an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded”
Source: www4.courts.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Businesses are a 'person' covered by § 632.
““person” means an individual, business association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
The § 632 fine is up to $2,500 per violation.
“shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Imprisonment under § 632 can be up to one year in county jail, or state prison, or both fine and imprisonment.
“or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026

Show 25 more facts

A person previously convicted faces a fine of up to $10,000 per violation under § 632.
“fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Section 632.7 requires the consent of all parties to record covered calls.
“without the consent of all of the parties to a communication, intercepts or receives and intentionally records”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Section 632.7 covers calls involving cellular or cordless phones, including cell-to-landline calls.
“a communication transmitted between two cellular radio telephones, a cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone, two cordless telephones”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Section 632.7 penalties: fine up to $2,500, or up to one year in county jail or state prison, or both.
“shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Under § 632.7, a person previously convicted faces a fine of up to $10,000 and up to one year in county jail (or state prison).
“the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Under § 631, a person previously convicted faces a fine of up to $10,000.
“the offense is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000)”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Section 632.7's prohibition applies to all covered communications, not just confidential ones (Flanagan, quoted in Smith v. LoanMe).
“This prohibition applies to all communications, not just confidential communications.”
Source: www4.courts.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
The California Supreme Court held that § 632.7 binds the parties to a call, not only outside eavesdroppers.
“section 632.7 prohibits parties as well as nonparties from intentionally recording a communication transmitted between a cellular or cordless phone and another device”
Source: www4.courts.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Kearney (as quoted in Smith v. LoanMe) states that a party may not record a phone call without the knowledge of all other parties.
“unlawful under California law for a party to a telephone conversation to record the conversation without the knowledge of all other parties”
Source: www4.courts.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Kearney applied § 632 to calls between an out-of-state (Georgia) branch and California clients.
“section 632 applied prospectively to phone calls between the Georgia branch of a national brokerage firm and the firm’s California clients”
Source: www4.courts.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
In Kearney, the California Supreme Court said an employee in another state who answers a call could simply ask where the caller is calling from (as quoted in Smith v. LoanMe).
“there would appear to be no reason why an [employee of the defendant], when answering a call, could not simply inquire where the client is calling from”
Source: www4.courts.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Section 631 also reaches communications being sent from or received at any place within California.
“or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Section 631 prohibits learning the contents of a communication in transit without the consent of all parties.
“without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Section 631 carries a fine of up to $2,500, rising to $10,000 for a person previously convicted.
“is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
In Smith v. LoanMe, the business sounded a beep three seconds into the call.
“Three seconds into the call, LoanMe caused a “beep” tone to sound.”
Source: www4.courts.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
The representative did not orally advise the caller that the call was recorded.
“The LoanMe representative on the call did not orally advise plaintiff that the call was being recorded.”
Source: www4.courts.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
The trial court found the beep gave adequate notice.
“the trial court agreed with LoanMe that the tone gave Smith adequate notice that the call was being recorded”
Source: www4.courts.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
The beep-tone notice argument had not been addressed on appeal when the case reached the Supreme Court.
“The Court of Appeal did not address LoanMe’s additional contentions that its activation of a beep tone gave Smith notice”
Source: www4.courts.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
The Supreme Court did not decide the beep-tone question and sent it back to the Court of Appeal.
“remand the cause to that court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion, including consideration of these arguments as may be appropriate”
Source: www4.courts.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
The court said a party can avoid liability by obtaining the consent the statute requires.
“a party can avoid liability under the statute by taking reasonable precautions, such as obtaining the consent to record the statute requires”
Source: www4.courts.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
A person injured by a violation may sue for the greater of statutory or treble actual damages.
“may bring an action against the person who committed the violation for the greater of the following amounts”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Statutory damages are $5,000 per violation.
“Five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation.”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
The alternative measure is three times actual damages.
“Three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff.”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
A plaintiff need not show actual damages.
“It is not a necessary prerequisite to an action pursuant to this section that the plaintiff has suffered, or be threatened with, actual damages.”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
An injunction may be sought in the same action.
“bring an action to enjoin and restrain any violation of this chapter, and may in the same action seek damages”
Source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026

California call recording questions