Recording restaurant phone calls: consent laws by state

Federal law lets a restaurant record its own phone calls, because the restaurant is a party to them. In the 13 states below, a statute or court ruling asks for more: every person on the call must agree, or at least be told. Delaware's two statutes conflict. The plain course is a short recorded notice at the start of every recorded call, before the guest orders. This is not legal advice.

This page covers phone calls, state by state. For AI disclosure at the drive-thru speaker, see our drive-thru disclosure guide. For bot-disclosure, voiceprint and hiring rules, see our register of AI rules for restaurants.

What does federal law allow?

The federal wiretap law, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d), says it is not unlawful to record a call "where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent", unless the recording is made to commit a crime or tort. State laws can be stricter, and the stricter law is the one to plan around.

Which states need everyone's consent?

Each row quotes the state's own statute, except Illinois, where we quote the state appeals court's summary of it. The last column says what the law or a court says about a notice.

State and statute	What it says	What it says about a notice
California, Penal Code 632(a) and 632.7	Recording a "confidential communication" needs "the consent of all parties". Section 632.7 covers calls from cell and cordless phones and needs "the consent of all of the parties"	The state Supreme Court held in 2006 that a business that "adequately advises all parties" at the outset "would not violate" section 632
Connecticut, Gen. Stat. 52-570d(a)	Recording a phone call needs "consent of all parties", given in writing or at the start of the recording	Also lawful after "verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning", or with a warning tone about every fifteen seconds
Delaware, 11 Del. C. 1335(a)(4) and 2402(c)(4)	Section 1335 bars intercepting a phone message "without the consent of all parties". Section 2402 makes it lawful where "one of the parties" consents	The two sections point different ways; ask counsel
Florida, Stat. 934.03(2)(d)	Lawful "when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent"	The section sets no notice wording
Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a), as summarized in People v. Brindley (August 2017)	Recording a private conversation "in a surreptitious manner" without "the consent of all of the parties"	The offense is secret recording; ask whether a notice settles it
Maryland, Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402(c)(3)	Lawful where the person is a party and "all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent". A violation is a felony with up to 5 years or a $10,000 fine	The section sets no notice wording
Massachusetts, G.L. c. 272, section 99 B(4)	An interception means to "secretly hear, secretly record" a call, unless all parties gave "prior authority"	The definition turns on secrecy
Michigan, MCL 750.539c	Eavesdropping on a private conversation "without the consent of all parties thereto" is a felony	Section 750.539a defines eavesdropping as the "private discourse of others"; ask counsel whether a party to the call is covered
Montana, MCA 45-8-213(1)(c)	Recording with "a hidden electronic or mechanical device" without "the knowledge of all parties"	Does not apply to "persons given warning". "If one person provides the warning, either party may record"
Nevada, NRS 200.620	The text requires one party's prior consent plus an emergency and a court's approval	In Lane v. Allstate (December 1998), the state Supreme Court read it to bar taping calls "with the consent of only one party"
New Hampshire, RSA 570-A:2, I	Intercepting a telecommunication "without the consent of all parties" is a class B felony	The section sets no notice wording
Pennsylvania, 18 Pa.C.S. 5704(4)	Lawful "where all parties to the communication have given prior consent"	Section 5704(15) lets a business doing telephone customer service record with one party's consent, for "training, quality control or monitoring" only, and destroy the recording within one year unless another law says otherwise
Washington, RCW 9.73.030	Recording a private phone call needs "the consent of all the participants"	Consent counts as given when one party announces the recording "in any reasonably effective manner", and the announcement "shall also be recorded"

Oregon splits the rule. ORS 165.540(1) needs one participant's consent for a phone call. For a conversation in person, every participant must be "specifically informed", which matters for recording at a counter or a drive-thru speaker.

Does "this call may be recorded" count?

In four of these states, a statute or court says a notice can do the job. California's Supreme Court, in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (July 2006), said a business can comply by telling the caller "at the outset" that the call is recorded. Connecticut and Washington want the notice itself on the recording. Montana exempts callers "given warning".

Kearney also held that California law applied to a Georgia firm's calls with its California clients. A guest calling from California may bring California's rule with them, so one notice on every call is simpler than sorting callers by area code.

Put the notice first, in the greeting, before the caller gives a name, card or order. For example: "Thanks for calling [restaurant]. This call is recorded so we get your order right." Our phone script guide covers the rest of the greeting.

What do AI phone agents add?

An AI agent has to process what the caller says. Ask whether it keeps audio, a transcript, or both, and who else can reach them. A vendor that handles the call can raise a second question in California: whether it is a third party listening in under Penal Code 631, which also needs "the consent of all parties".

In Ambriz v. Google, a federal judge in California let a suit over Google's contact-center AI go forward in February 2025. The callers said Google transcribed and analyzed their calls to other businesses without telling them. The judge applied a "capability" test: a software vendor that can use call data for its own purposes, such as improving its models, can count as a third party whether or not it did. The order notes that courts are split, and it ruled only on the complaint's allegations. Penal Code 637.2 lets a person bring a suit for $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, whichever is more.

Voiceprints and "are you a robot?" rules are separate laws. Our AI rules register covers them, and our vendor question list covers data and contracts.

How do you set up recording on your phone line?

1. List everything that records or transcribes calls: the phone system, an AI agent, call-tracking numbers from marketing, voicemail.
2. Put the notice at the start of the greeting on every path: day, after hours, overflow and transfers.
3. Make sure the notice itself is on the recording.
4. Decide who can play recordings, how long you keep them and how you delete them.
5. Keep card numbers off recordings. Our phone payment guide covers card handling.
6. Place test calls on each path and listen to the saved file from the first second.

What should you ask counsel?

1. Which states' laws reach our calls, counting where our stores are and where callers ring from?
2. Does our notice wording give consent under each of those laws?
3. Does our AI or phone vendor count as a third party, and does its right to use call data change that?
4. Do we need a separate notice when a call moves from the AI to a staff member?
5. How long may we keep recordings and transcripts, and for what uses?
6. Does anything in our system build a voiceprint?

Where does Maple fit?

Maple sells AI phone answering: the Voice plan covers answering, FAQs and call transfer, and Pro adds ordering and reservations. Put the questions above to any phone vendor, Maple included, and have counsel approve the greeting before you switch your number over. Our product page lists what to test before launch.

Published by Maple, which sells AI phone answering and ordering. This AI-assisted guide combines the text of 18 U.S.C. 2511 and state statutes, and opinions from the California, Nevada and Illinois courts and a federal court in California, with an original table, setup list and question list. It is not legal advice, does not cover every state's recording rules, and does not say how any phone vendor, Maple included, handles recordings.