Maryland call recording law
Is Maryland a one-party consent state?
All-party consent
No. Maryland is an all-party consent state. A person who is a party to a call may record it only when all parties have given prior consent, and a violation is a felony (Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402).
Last checked October 13, 2026 · 14 quoted facts from official pages
Maryland at a glance
- Phone calls
- All-party consent
- In-person conversations
- The same rule (see below)
- Criminal penalty
- Felony: up to 5 years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.
- Lawsuits
- Actual damages but not less than $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher, plus punitive damages and a reasonable attorney's fee and litigation costs.
- Calls across state lines
- An official source addresses them (see below)
- Last checked
- October 13, 2026
The law
- Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402 (interception unlawful; lawful acts) (official source, opens in a new tab)
- Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-401 (definitions) (official source, opens in a new tab)
- Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-410 (civil action) (official source, opens in a new tab)
- Seal v. State, No. 51, Sept. Term 2015 (Md. 2016) (describing Mustafa v. State, 323 Md. 65 (1991)) (official source, opens in a new tab)
- Agnew v. State, No. 9, Sept. Term 2018 (Md.) (official source, opens in a new tab)
Penalties
- Criminal
- Felony: up to 5 years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.
- Civil (lawsuits)
- Actual damages but not less than $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher, plus punitive damages and a reasonable attorney's fee and litigation costs.
In-person conversations
In-person “oral communications” are words spoken to or by any person in private conversation (§ 10-401), and they follow the same all-party rule.
Calls across state lines
Maryland’s highest court refused to admit a phone recording that was made lawfully in the District of Columbia, which requires the consent of only one party, because it was made in a way that is illegal under the Maryland Wiretap Act (Mustafa v. State, 1991, as described in Seal v. State, 2016). That ruling is about evidence in a Maryland court.
What this means for a business that records calls
Maryland’s highest court has called the requirement of consent by all parties for recording a phone call a fundamental part of Maryland law (Seal v. State, 2016).
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 Maryland's law is a question for a lawyer licensed in Maryland.
Recording notices on CallFlux numbers
CallFlux plays a recording notice to callers on every tracking number that records, before the call connects.
What the official sources say
A party may intercept a communication only when all parties have given prior consent (all-party consent).
“where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to the interception”
Source: mgaleg.maryland.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Even with all-party consent, interception for a criminal or tortious purpose is not lawful.
“unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act”
Source: mgaleg.maryland.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Willfully intercepting any wire, oral, or electronic communication is unlawful except as the subtitle provides.
“Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication”
Source: mgaleg.maryland.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
A violation is a felony punishable by up to 5 years, a $10,000 fine, or both.
“is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 5 years”
Source: mgaleg.maryland.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
The alternative or additional penalty is a fine of up to $10,000.
“or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both”
Source: mgaleg.maryland.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
An 'oral communication' (in person) is one spoken in private conversation.
“any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation”
Source: mgaleg.maryland.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
A 'wire communication' is defined by the transmission facilities used, which covers telephone calls.
“any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable”
Source: mgaleg.maryland.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
A person whose communication is unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, or used has a civil cause of action.
“is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this subtitle shall have a civil cause of action”
Source: mgaleg.maryland.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Show 6 more facts
Civil liquidated damages are at least $100 a day or $1,000, whichever is higher.
“not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher”
Source: mgaleg.maryland.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Punitive damages and attorney's fees are recoverable.
“Punitive damages; and (3) A reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.”
Source: mgaleg.maryland.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Maryland's highest court has described all-party consent for private recording of phone calls as long-standing Maryland law (Seal v. State, 2016, quoting Perry v. State, 1999).
“requirement of consent by all parties for the recording of a telephone conversation by a private individual has been a fundamental part of Maryland law”
Source: mdcourts.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
In Mustafa v. State (1991), the court refused to admit a phone recording that was legal where it was made, in the District of Columbia.
“we refused admission of the contents of an electronically recorded telephone conversation, which was recorded legally in the District of Columbia”
Source: mdcourts.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
The recording was refused because it was made in a way illegal under the Maryland Wiretap Act.
“but in a fashion illegal under the Maryland Wiretap Act”
Source: mdcourts.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Agnew v. State (2018) describes Mustafa the same way, noting D.C. requires only single-party consent.
“even though the recording was made in the District of Columbia which only requires single-party consent”
Source: mdcourts.gov (official source, opens in a new tab) · read October 13, 2026
Maryland call recording questions
Is Maryland a one-party consent state?
No. Maryland is an all-party consent state. A person who is a party to a call may record it only when all parties have given prior consent, and a violation is a felony (Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402).
What is the penalty for recording a call illegally in Maryland?
Felony: up to 5 years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.
What does Maryland's law say about lawsuits over recorded calls?
Actual damages but not less than $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher, plus punitive damages and a reasonable attorney's fee and litigation costs.
Does Maryland use the same rule for in-person conversations?
In-person “oral communications” are words spoken to or by any person in private conversation (§ 10-401), and they follow the same all-party rule.
What about calls between Maryland and another state?
Maryland’s highest court refused to admit a phone recording that was made lawfully in the District of Columbia, which requires the consent of only one party, because it was made in a way that is illegal under the Maryland Wiretap Act (Mustafa v. State, 1991, as described in Seal v. State, 2016). That ruling is about evidence in a Maryland court.
What do Maryland's sources say about businesses that record calls?
Maryland’s highest court has called the requirement of consent by all parties for recording a phone call a fundamental part of Maryland law (Seal v. State, 2016).