Home Platform Compliance Map Resources Team Contact Request a walkthrough

Resources / One-party consent, state by state

Field guide

One-party consent, state by state.

Which states let a caller record the call, which require everyone on it to agree, and what that means for a dealership in 2026. Every state and DC, in plain language, with the statute behind each one.

Updated July 2026 All 50 states + DC Sourced from statutes and public enforcement records

The rule

One person on the call, or everyone on it.

Every phone call into your store is governed by a recording-consent law. The question each state answers is simple: who has to agree before the call can be recorded?

One-party means one participant is enough. The caller is a participant. If they consent to their own recording, it is legal, and no one else has to know.
All-party means every person on the call must agree before it can be recorded. One missing yes makes the recording unlawful.
Federal law is one-party, set by the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, and it is the minimum everywhere. States can be stricter than federal law. They cannot be looser.

The customer on the phone with your salesperson is always a party to that call. In 37 states and DC, their consent alone makes the recording legal.

Two panels showing the same recorded phone call between a shopper and a salesperson. In a one-party state the shopper's own consent makes it legal. In an all-party state everyone must agree, so the shop runs without recording.

The split

Most of the country is one-party.

Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia follow the one-party rule. Thirteen states require everyone on the call to agree. Two states do not read the way their statutes suggest, and they trip people up.

Michigan reads one-party

The statute says all-party, but Michigan courts recognize a participant exception (Sullivan v. Gray, reaffirmed federally in 2026). A person on the call may lawfully record it.

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c

Nevada reads all-party

The statute says one-party, but the Nevada Supreme Court has been read to require all-party consent for phone calls. The safe reading is all-party.

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620

A donut chart of 51 jurisdictions: 37 states plus DC are one-party, 13 states are all-party.

Find your state

Tap where your rooftops are.

Amber states are one-party. Blue states are all-party. Tap any state for its rule, its enforcement level, and what a mystery shop covers there.

One-party All-party DC is one-party
STATE

Pick a state

Recording rule·
Enforcement·
On the record·
A shop covers·
See the full detail on the map

What it changes

The rule decides one thing: whether the call is on tape.

Consent law governs recording a call. It does not touch a text, an email, or a web form, because those write their own record. So a store can be shopped anywhere. What changes by state is the phone.

In a one-party state, a shop covers voice, text, email, and web form, and the calls are recorded and scored word for word.
In an all-party state, a shop covers text, email, and web form. Voice is excluded, because the call cannot be recorded there.
Either way, remember the other side of it: your customers live under the same rule. In a one-party state, any caller can already be recording your people, legally, today.
Two columns comparing what a mystery shop covers. One-party state: recorded voice, text, email, and web form. All-party state: text, email, and web form, with voice excluded because the call cannot be recorded.

State by state

All 50 states and DC, one table.

The recording rule, what a mystery shop covers, and the enforcement picture in each state. The four marked states carry a wrinkle worth reading in the footnotes. Every state name opens its full profile: the statute, the enforcement record with sources, and what Argus360 shops there.

StateRecording ruleA shop coversEnforcement
AlabamaOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
AlaskaOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
ArizonaOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
ArkansasOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
CaliforniaAll-partyText, email, webActive · CARS Act (SB 766) · in force Oct 1 2026
ColoradoOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
ConnecticutAll-party ‡Text, email, webActive · Manchester City Nissan · $4M · FTC and Connecticut AG
DelawareAll-partyText, email, webNo state dealer action on record
District of ColumbiaOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
FloridaAll-partyText, email, webNo state dealer action on record
GeorgiaOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
HawaiiOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
IdahoOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
IllinoisAll-partyText, email, webActive · Leader Automotive · $20M · Illinois AG
IndianaOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
IowaOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
KansasOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
KentuckyOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
LouisianaOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
MaineOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
MarylandAll-partyText, email, webActive · Lindsay settlement · Maryland AG
MassachusettsAll-partyText, email, webNo state dealer action on record
MichiganOne-party *Voice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
MinnesotaOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
MississippiOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
MissouriOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
MontanaAll-partyText, email, webNo state dealer action on record
NebraskaOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
NevadaAll-party †Text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
New HampshireAll-partyText, email, webNo state dealer action on record
New JerseyOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
New MexicoOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
New YorkOne-partyVoice, text, email, webActive · FAIR Business Practices Act
North CarolinaOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
North DakotaOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
OhioOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
OklahomaOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
OregonAll-party §Text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
PennsylvaniaAll-partyText, email, webNo state dealer action on record
Rhode IslandOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
South CarolinaOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
South DakotaOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
TennesseeOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
TexasOne-partyVoice, text, email, webActive · Asbury (David McDavid) · litigated
UtahOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
VermontOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
VirginiaOne-partyVoice, text, email, webActive · Lindsay dealerships · E.D. Va.
WashingtonAll-partyText, email, webNo state dealer action on record
West VirginiaOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record
WisconsinOne-partyVoice, text, email, webDocumented · Rhinelander Auto Center · refunds
WyomingOne-partyVoice, text, email, webNo state dealer action on record

* Michigan's statute reads all-party, but its courts recognize a participant exception, so a person on the call may record.   † Nevada's statute reads one-party, but its Supreme Court has been read to require all-party consent for calls.   ‡ Connecticut is all-party for telephone recording under its civil statute; its in-person criminal law reads one-party.   § Oregon is one-party for telephone but all-party for in-person conversation; it is classified all-party as the safe reading.

Why it matters now

Enforcement stopped being theoretical.

The federal CARS Rule was vacated in January 2025, and enforcement did not slow down. It moved to FTC Act Section 5 and to the states, and 2026 has been the busiest stretch on record.

March 13, 2026: the FTC sent warning letters to 97 dealer groups nationwide over deceptive pricing, in one day.
April 2026: the FTC and the Maryland AG resolved the Lindsay Auto Group matter with a $3.1M civil penalty to Maryland plus full refunds to consumers charged more than $75M, with executives named personally.
August 19, 2026: the FTC and the Connecticut AG secured a $4 million stipulated final order against Manchester City Nissan and its owners and managers over certification charges, unauthorized add-ons, and inflated government fees. Regulators alleged the store's own data showed the charges.
The penalty stack: state consumer protection statutes carry their own per-violation civil penalties, restitution scales with the number of customers affected, and a store under an FTC order carries federal exposure on every later violation.
The states are moving too: California's CARS Act (SB 766) takes effect October 1, 2026, and New York's FAIR Business Practices Act, effective February 17, 2026, widens dealer exposure beyond deception.

The overlap to watch: states where enforcement is active and a caller can legally record. In New York, Texas, and Virginia, the regulator is awake and the evidence is easy to make.

A chart of enforcement bands. Highest exposure where enforcement is active and calls are recordable: New York, Texas, Virginia. Elevated where enforcement is active without recorded calls: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, plus Wisconsin with documented FTC history. Everywhere else sits at the federal baseline.

What to do with this

Three moves for a principal this quarter.

01

Assume the tape is rolling

In a one-party state, any caller can already be recording your people, legally. Train the floor to speak as if every call is on the record, because it may be.

02

Test your own stores first

Hear what your customers hear before a regulator or a plaintiff's lawyer does. A recorded shop of your own rooftops is the cheapest audit you will ever run.

03

Put it on paper

Map every rooftop to its recording rule and its enforcement exposure, and keep the document current. That is a ten-minute exercise on the Compliance Map.

See your states on the map.

The interactive Compliance Map carries the rule, the statute, and the named enforcement action for every state, and it builds a rooftop exposure report you can keep.

Open the Compliance Map Request a walkthrough

Sources and standing caveat

Consent classifications are compiled from state statutes via Recording Law and Nimitai's 2026 survey. Enforcement matters are drawn from public FTC records: the Lindsay settlement, the Leader Automotive judgment, the Asbury complaint, the Manchester City Nissan settlement (FTC and Connecticut AG, August 19, 2026), and the March 2026 warning letters.

This guide is a general compliance reference, not legal advice. Recording consent and enforcement exposure change, and the dataset behind this page is under counsel review. Before you rely on a classification for a recorded call, confirm the current rule with your attorney.