Massachusetts Call Recording Laws: No Secret Recording

Massachusetts prohibits secretly recording a phone call or conversation unless every party has given prior authority. Its wiretap statute, G.L. c. 272, § 99, is one of the strictest in the country: interception can bring up to five years in state prison, and the person recorded can sue for at least $1,000 plus punitive damages.

The key word is "secretly." When everyone knows a call is being recorded, it is not a secret recording. For businesses, that makes a clear announcement the center of compliance.

This is general information, not legal advice.

Massachusetts recording law at a glance

Question	Answer in Massachusetts
Consent rule	All parties must know or authorize; no secret recording
Main statute	G.L. c. 272, § 99
Applies in public places?	Generally yes, for secret recording (with a First Circuit exception for police in public)
Criminal penalty	Up to $10,000; up to 5 years in prison or 2.5 years in jail; or both
Civil damages	At least $100/day or $1,000, plus punitive damages and fees (§ 99(Q))
Text messages	Covered (Commonwealth v. Moody, 2013)

What the statute says

Section 99(B)(4) defines "interception" as:

"to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device by any person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication"

Section 99(C)(1) then punishes anyone who willfully commits, attempts or procures an interception of any wire or oral communication with a fine of not more than $10,000, imprisonment in state prison for not more than five years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and a half years, or both.

The statute's preamble explains it was written to fight organized crime and to protect citizens from the "uncontrolled development and unrestricted use of modern electronic surveillance devices." Courts apply it broadly to private parties.

Secret, not just unconsented

Because the definition turns on "secretly," Massachusetts courts look at whether the people recorded knew. According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), the Supreme Judicial Court said in Curtatone v. Barstool Sports, Inc. (2021) that affirmative consent is not necessary when all parties are aware of the recording. A recording announced at the start of a call is not secret.

No privacy expectation required

Unlike many states, Massachusetts does not limit its law to private conversations. The RCFP notes an appellate court held in Commonwealth v. Manzelli (2007) that the rule applies in public as well, while the First Circuit held in Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins (2020) that the statute cannot constitutionally bar secret recording of police officers performing duties in public. For businesses, the takeaway is simple: do not record anyone without them knowing.

What makes a recording "secret"

Massachusetts cases focus on actual knowledge. A recording can be non-secret because:

• an automated announcement told everyone at the start of the call;
• the person recording said so out loud before the conversation;
• a visible recording device was in plain view during an in-person meeting; or
• the other party had clearly been told in advance, for example in a scheduled interview where recording was agreed.

A line buried in a privacy policy, a website footer or an email signature is unlikely to give a caller actual knowledge. Neither is a notice played only after the conversation is underway. Put the notice where every participant will hear it: the first seconds of the call.

Phone calls and texts

Section 99 covers wire communications, which include phone calls. The RCFP notes that in Commonwealth v. Moody (2013), the Supreme Judicial Court applied the statute to cellphone calls and text messages.

Even a poor-quality recording counts if some words are audible (Commonwealth v. Wright, 2004, per the RCFP).

Penalties

Violation	Statute	Penalty
Interception	§ 99(C)(1)	Up to $10,000; up to 5 years prison or 2.5 years jail; or both
Disclosing or using contents known to be illegally obtained	§ 99(C)(3)	RCFP: up to $5,000 and 2 years
Installing an intercepting device	§ 99(C)(1)	Proof of installation is prima facie evidence of a violation

Civil liability

Section 99(Q) gives any aggrieved person whose wire or oral communications were intercepted, disclosed or used without authorization a civil cause of action. They can recover:

1. Actual damages, but not less than $100 per day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher
2. Punitive damages
3. A reasonable attorney's fee and litigation disbursements

The office intercom exemption

Section 99(D)(1)(b) allows persons to possess and use "an office intercommunication system which is used in the ordinary course of their business." That covers internal intercoms, not recording calls with customers.

Calls between Massachusetts and neighboring states

Neighbor	Rule for phone calls
New Hampshire	All-party
Vermont	No statute; one-party in practice
New York	One-party
Connecticut	All-party or notice for phone calls (civil)
Rhode Island	One-party

New England is mixed. A Boston business calling Rhode Island or New York customers deals with one-party states, but the Massachusetts participant is protected regardless. Out-of-state companies calling Massachusetts residents should not record secretly. Read interstate call recording consent and see the state-by-state table.

Three Massachusetts scenarios

A Boston software company announces "This call is recorded" on support calls. Everyone knows, so nothing is secret. Under Curtatone, no separate yes is required.

A Worcester landlord secretly records a phone argument with a tenant on a cellphone app. The tenant did not know. That is an interception under § 99, a crime, and the tenant could recover at least $1,000 plus punitive damages.

A New York firm records sales calls to Massachusetts prospects without notice. New York is one-party, but the Massachusetts prospect's call was secretly recorded. The firm should announce recordings.

Out-of-state companies and Massachusetts callers

Companies outside Massachusetts sometimes overlook § 99. Any business that records calls with Massachusetts residents, wherever the business is located, should make sure recording is never secret. A greeting notice on inbound calls and a spoken disclosure on outbound calls are the simplest protection, and the same steps satisfy the other all-party states.

Massachusetts recording checklist

• Recording announcement before conversation on recorded inbound calls
• Disclosure in the opening line of outbound recorded calls
• No silent auto-record apps on staff phones
• Written employee notice and acknowledgment of recording
• Participants added later are told
• Callers who object are not recorded
• Access controls and retention schedule

Wording is in call recording disclosure scripts.

Recording calls in Massachusetts with Callata

Callata never records silently. When recording is turned on, both sides hear "This call may be recorded." as the call connects, inbound and outbound. Recordings are transcribed and summarized with sentiment and action items, saved to the contact's history. Callata's terms keep consent-law compliance with you. Pricing starts at $99 a month for five users, and each user after that adds $20 a month. Sign up.