CallataGuides

Missouri Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent

Missouri lets a party to a call record it, or consent to it, under Mo. Rev. Stat. 542.402. Class E felony penalties and $10,000 minimum civil damages.

Missouri is a one-party consent state for phone calls: you may record a call you are a party to, or one where a participant has consented, as long as the recording is not for a criminal or tortious purpose. Intercepting a call without any party's consent is a class E felony, and the person recorded can sue for at least $10,000.

That $10,000 civil floor is ten times the minimum in many other one-party states. For businesses, recording your own calls is lawful, but third-party monitoring needs care.

This is general information, not legal advice.

Missouri recording law at a glance

Question Answer in Missouri
Consent rule for phone calls One party
Main statute Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402
Can a participant record without telling others? Yes, unless for a criminal or tortious purpose
Criminal penalty Class E felony
Civil damages At least $100/day or $10,000, whichever is greater (§ 542.418)
Punitive damages On a showing of willful or intentional violation

What the statute says

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402.1 makes a person guilty of a class E felony if they knowingly intercept, try to intercept, or procure someone else to intercept any wire communication, or knowingly use a device to intercept oral communications in certain ways, or disclose or use the contents of a communication knowing it was illegally intercepted.

Section 542.402.2(3) provides the exception: it is not unlawful for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire communication where the person is a party to it or one of the parties has given prior consent, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act.

What counts as a "wire communication"

Missouri defines wire communication (§ 542.400) as one made wholly or partly through wire, cable or similar connection between origin and reception. According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP):

  • Lee v. Lee (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) applied the law to a call between a cellphone and a landline.
  • State v. King (Mo. Ct. App. 1994) held radio signals from a cordless phone, before they reach the phone line, were not wire communications.
  • Courts have not decided whether calls or texts entirely between two wireless devices are covered.

Treat all business calls as covered. Modern cellular and VoIP calls pass through wired networks for most of their route.

In-person conversations

The RCFP notes that Missouri's statute addresses oral communications only when the recording device is attached to a wire or transmits by radio, and that there is little case law on in-person recording. Its advice is to be cautious and get consent before recording private in-person conversations. Federal law, which is one-party, also applies.

Penalties

Violation Statute Penalty
Intercepting a wire communication § 542.402.1 Class E felony; RCFP: up to 4 years, $10,000
Disclosing or using illegally intercepted contents § 542.402.1 Class E felony

Civil liability

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.418.2 gives any person whose wire communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of the law a civil cause of action against anyone who intercepted, disclosed or used it, or procured someone else to. They can recover:

  1. Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater
  2. Punitive damages on a showing of a willful or intentional violation
  3. Attorney's fees and costs

Section 542.418.1 also bars the contents of wire communications from being received in evidence in civil or administrative proceedings, except in actions under that section. That provision is aimed at illegally intercepted material; recordings made lawfully by a party are a different question that a lawyer should assess before litigation.

Calls between Missouri and neighboring states

Neighbor Rule for phone calls
Illinois All-party for private conversations
Iowa One-party
Nebraska One-party
Kansas One-party
Oklahoma One-party
Arkansas One-party
Tennessee One-party
Kentucky One-party

St. Louis sits on the Illinois border, and the metro area's businesses call Illinois customers daily. Illinois makes it a felony to secretly record a private conversation without all parties' consent. Kansas City straddles Kansas, which is one-party. Read interstate call recording consent and see the state-by-state table.

Three Missouri scenarios

A St. Louis financial advisor records client calls with a greeting notice. The advisor is a party, and Illinois clients across the river hear the notice too, so the recording is not secret under Illinois law.

A Springfield business owner records an employee's calls with customers by tapping the line without the employee or customer knowing. The owner is not a party and no one consented. That is a class E felony, and each person recorded could seek at least $10,000.

A Kansas City sales rep records a call with a prospect to prove what price was quoted. Lawful in Missouri and Kansas, since the rep is a party and the purpose is documentation, not a crime or tort.

What this means for Missouri businesses

Monitoring and quality assurance

Silent monitoring is lawful when a participant consents. Document employee consent in a signed policy, so the business's monitoring falls within § 542.402.2(3).

Healthcare and financial services

Recordings of health and financial calls need access controls and a retention schedule.

Multi-state customer bases

Announce recordings so you do not have to track which callers are in Illinois or other all-party states.

Kansas City and the state line

The Kansas City metro sits in two states, and both Missouri and Kansas follow one-party consent for calls. Businesses there can record their own calls under either state's law. The exposure comes from customers outside the metro: national customers in all-party states, and Illinois residents across the river from St. Louis. Because Missouri's civil floor is $10,000 per claimant, it is also worth auditing any tool that records calls your staff are not on, such as call-center software that captures transfers after your agent drops off.

Missouri recording checklist

  • Recording notice at the start of recorded inbound calls
  • Spoken notice on outbound recorded calls, especially to Illinois
  • Signed employee recording and monitoring policy
  • No interception of calls you are not party to
  • Recordings made for legitimate business purposes only
  • Callers who object are not recorded
  • Access controls and retention schedule

Wording is in call recording disclosure scripts.

Recording calls in Missouri with Callata

With recording turned on, Callata plays "This call may be recorded." to both sides as the call connects, inbound and outbound, so callers in Illinois are informed. Recordings are transcribed and summarized with sentiment and action items on the contact's history. Callata's terms keep consent-law compliance with you. Recording is included in Callata Office, which is $99 a month for up to five users and $20 a month for each additional user. Sign up.

Frequently asked questions

Is Missouri a one-party consent state?

Yes, for phone calls. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402.2(3) lets a person record a wire communication they are a party to, or that one party consented to, unless the recording is for a criminal or tortious purpose.

What is the penalty for illegal wiretapping in Missouri?

Unlawful interception under § 542.402.1 is a class E felony. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press lists up to four years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

How much can I be sued for in Missouri?

Under § 542.418, a person whose wire communication was illegally intercepted can recover actual damages, but not less than $100 a day or $10,000, whichever is greater, plus punitive damages for willful or intentional violations and attorney's fees.

Are cellphone calls covered by Missouri's wiretap law?

A Missouri appellate court applied the law to a call between a cellphone and a landline in Lee v. Lee (1998). Courts have not settled whether calls between two wireless devices are 'wire communications.'