Michigan Call Recording Laws: The Participant Question

Michigan's eavesdropping law requires the consent of all parties to eavesdrop on a private conversation, but courts disagree on whether that applies to someone who is part of the conversation. A long-standing Court of Appeals decision says participants may record their own calls; the Michigan Supreme Court has never confirmed it.

Because a violation is a felony, the cautious reading treats Michigan as an all-party state. For businesses, that means announcing recordings.

This is general information, not legal advice.

Michigan recording law at a glance

Question	Answer in Michigan
Statute	MCL 750.539c
Non-participants	Need all parties' consent
Participants	Disputed; Sullivan v. Gray says they may record
Applies to	Private conversations, including phone calls
Criminal penalty	Felony: up to 2 years, $2,000, or both
Civil remedy	MCL 750.539h: injunction, actual and punitive damages

What the statute says

MCL 750.539c reads:

"Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both."

Read alone, "who is present" and "all parties" suggest that even a participant needs everyone's consent.

The definitions section changes the picture. MCL 750.539a(2) defines "eavesdrop" as "to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse." The words "of others" suggest the statute is aimed at people recording conversations they are not part of.

The participant split

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP):

• Sullivan v. Gray (Mich. Ct. App. 1982) held that a participant in a private conversation does not need all parties' consent to record it, because a participant cannot eavesdrop on their own conversation.
• A federal district court followed Sullivan in AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas (E.D. Mich. 2021), holding the statute is not violated when a participant records.
• The Michigan Supreme Court, the final word on state law, has not addressed the issue.

Some later decisions and commentators have read the statute more strictly. With a felony on the line and no supreme court ruling, the safe practice is consent from everyone.

What counts as a private conversation

The Michigan Supreme Court held in People v. Stone (2001) that the statute covers only "private conversations," meaning those where a party has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Conversations in public places, such as parks and sidewalks, are generally outside it. Most business phone calls about accounts, health, money or employment will be private.

Phone calls and electronic messages

The RCFP notes that the eavesdropping law applies to private conversations over the telephone. Separately, MCL 750.540 makes it a felony to make an unauthorized connection with a phone line or to read or copy messages from a telephone line, computer network or other electronic medium accessed without authorization, which covers intercepting texts and email.

Hidden devices in private places

MCL 750.539d makes it a felony to install or use a device to observe, record sounds or images, or eavesdrop on a person in a private place without the consent of the person entitled to privacy there. A "private place" excludes areas open to the public or a substantial group of the public, such as a hotel lobby.

Penalties

Violation	Statute	Penalty
Eavesdropping on a private conversation	750.539c	Felony; up to 2 years, $2,000, or both
Divulging illegally obtained information	750.539e	Felony; RCFP: up to 2 years, $2,000
Device in a private place	750.539d	Felony
Unauthorized connection or copying messages	750.540	Felony

Civil liability

MCL 750.539h gives parties to an illegally eavesdropped conversation civil remedies, including an injunction and actual and punitive damages, according to the RCFP.

Calls between Michigan and neighboring states

Neighbor	Rule for phone calls
Ohio	One-party
Indiana	One-party
Wisconsin	One-party
Illinois (across Lake Michigan)	All-party for private conversations

Michigan's neighbors are one-party states, but the Michigan participant's protection applies when they are on the call. An Ohio or Indiana company recording calls with Michigan customers inherits Michigan's uncertainty. Read interstate call recording consent and see the state-by-state table.

Three Michigan scenarios

A Grand Rapids furniture supplier records sales calls after a greeting notice. Everyone consents by continuing after the notice, so the split does not matter.

A Detroit employee secretly records a phone call with a manager about a dispute. Under Sullivan v. Gray, a participant's recording may be lawful. The Michigan Supreme Court has not confirmed that, and employer policies can separately prohibit it.

An Ann Arbor landlord leaves a recorder running in a unit during a tenant's private meeting. The landlord is not a party. That is eavesdropping under 750.539c and a device in a private place under 750.539d, both felonies.

What this means for Michigan businesses

Auto industry and suppliers

Supplier calls about specifications, pricing and delivery often get recorded. Announce recordings so every party has consented, regardless of how the participant question is resolved.

Healthcare and insurance

Recordings with health or financial details need access controls and a retention schedule.

Employees

Have staff sign a recording and monitoring policy, and decide whether employees may record calls on their own devices.

Why the participant question stays open

The Michigan Supreme Court decides state-law questions finally, and it has not taken up Sullivan v. Gray. Lower courts and federal courts have followed Sullivan, but a different panel or a future supreme court decision could read "any person who is present" more strictly. Businesses should not build their recording practice on an unsettled reading of a felony statute. A notice at the start of each call makes the question irrelevant.

Michigan recording checklist

• Recording notice before conversation on recorded inbound calls
• Disclosure at the start of outbound recorded calls
• No reliance on Sullivan v. Gray for secret business recordings
• Signed employee recording and monitoring policy
• No recording devices in private places
• Callers who object are not recorded
• Access controls and retention schedule

Wording is in call recording disclosure scripts.

Recording calls in Michigan with Callata

Callata takes the participant question off the table by announcing recordings. With recording turned on, both sides hear "This call may be recorded." as the call connects, on inbound and outbound calls. Recordings are transcribed and summarized with sentiment and action items on the contact's history. Callata's terms keep consent-law compliance with you. It costs $99 a month for a team of up to five, plus $20 a month for each person beyond that. Sign up.