Michigan: Call and Conversation Recording Consent Requirements

Requirements one by one

Governing law and covered recording

Michigan's recording rules are in the eavesdropping act, MCL 750.539a through 750.539i. Section 750.539c makes it a felony to "wilfully use[] any device to eavesdrop upon" a private conversation "without the consent of all parties thereto." The key to how that rule actually works is the definition: under § 750.539a(2), to "eavesdrop" is "to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others."

Whose consent a participant needs

On its face, § 750.539c reads like an all-party-consent rule. But the word "others" in the definition of eavesdropping does heavy lifting. Michigan's controlling appellate decisions hold that a person who is part of a conversation is not eavesdropping on it, because they are not recording the discourse "of others." In Sullivan v. Gray, the Court of Appeals held the statute "unambiguously excludes participant recording from the definition of eavesdropping," and Bloom v. Pegasus Investigations reaffirmed that "an eavesdropper must be a third party who is not otherwise involved in the conversation." Under those decisions, a participant may record their own call or conversation without the other people's consent—so Michigan functions as a one-party-consent state for participants.

The important caveat is who has said so. These are Court of Appeals and federal decisions; the Michigan Supreme Court has never ruled on the question and, in 2021, declined a chance to revisit it. Because the highest court has not settled the point, the careful practice—especially before recording someone who has not agreed—is still to treat consent of all parties as the safe rule.

Privacy, confidentiality, or secrecy trigger

The statute only reaches a "private conversation." The Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Stone read that to mean a conversation in which a party has a reasonable expectation of privacy, so recording talk in a public place—a park, a sidewalk, an open counter—does not require anyone's consent. Section 750.539a(1) defines a "private place" in the same spirit: somewhere one "may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance," and not a place open to the public.

Telephone, in-person, and electronic coverage

Section 750.539c applies the same way to a private conversation whether it happens face to face or over the telephone. A different section, § 750.539d, governs installing or using a device to observe, record, or eavesdrop on the sounds or events in a private place, and it requires the consent of every person entitled to privacy there. Using or divulging information a person knows was obtained by illegal eavesdropping is its own felony under § 750.539e.

Major participant-facing exceptions

Section 750.539g lists the carve-outs: a peace officer acting in the line of duty, a communications common-carrier employee, a public utility recording service or complaint calls, and the Department of Corrections monitoring prisoner phones. Separately, § 750.539d(2) says residential security monitoring by, or at the direction of, the home's owner or principal occupant is allowed, unless it is done for a lewd or lascivious purpose. None of these is a general "record any suspected wrongdoing" exception.

Criminal classification and penalty

Each core offense is a felony. Eavesdropping on a private conversation (§ 750.539c), unlawfully recording in a private place (§ 750.539d), and divulging unlawfully obtained information (§ 750.539e) each carry up to two years' imprisonment or a $2,000 fine, or both. Section 750.539d escalates to five years and a $5,000 fine for a repeat offense or for distributing the unlawful recording.

Civil remedy and evidence effect

Section 750.539h gives a party to a conversation that was unlawfully bugged three civil remedies: an injunction against further eavesdropping, all actual damages against the eavesdropper, and punitive damages. The eavesdropping sections do not include their own rule excluding an illegal recording from evidence, so admissibility is decided under Michigan's general evidence law rather than an automatic statutory bar.

Interstate and federal boundary

Federal law lets a participant, or a person with one party's prior consent, record unless the purpose is a criminal or tortious act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)), and Michigan's courts read the state statute the same way for a participant. The two open risks are that the Michigan Supreme Court has not confirmed the participant reading, and that a call touching another state can bring that state's law—including an all-party rule—into play. When more than one state may apply, get everyone's consent.

What trips people up

"All parties" in the statute does not tell the whole story. Reading § 750.539c alone suggests Michigan is an all-party state. The controlling decisions in Sullivan v. Gray and Bloom v. Pegasus say a participant is not eavesdropping at all, which is why a party can lawfully record. The tension is real, and because the Michigan Supreme Court has not resolved it, cautious recorders still ask for consent.

A third party recording for you is different. The participant reading protects the person actually in the conversation. If someone who is not part of the conversation plants a recorder or records it for you, that person can be an eavesdropper under § 750.539c, and using or sharing what they captured is a separate felony under § 750.539e.

Private places have their own, stricter rule. Recording the sounds or events in a private place under § 750.539d requires the consent of everyone entitled to privacy there, and it is not softened by the participant reading. A hidden recorder in a bedroom, bathroom, or similar space is judged by that section, with penalties that climb for repeat or distribution conduct.

Common questions

Can I record my own Michigan phone call without telling the other person? Under the controlling appellate decisions, yes—a participant is not eavesdropping. Because the state's highest court has not confirmed this, the conservative choice is still to get consent, particularly if you may use the recording against the other person.

Is it legal to record a conversation happening in a public place? Generally yes. The statute protects only a "private conversation," which People v. Stone ties to a reasonable expectation of privacy, so talk in a genuinely public setting is not covered.

What can the other person do if I recorded them unlawfully? Section 750.539h lets a party to an unlawfully bugged conversation seek an injunction, all actual damages, and punitive damages, and the conduct can also be prosecuted as a felony.

Statutes and sources

• MCL 750.539a — definitions of "private place" and "eavesdrop" (the "private discourse of others" language). https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-750-539a (accessed 2026-07-20)
• MCL 750.539c — felony eavesdropping on a private conversation without all parties' consent. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-750-539c (accessed 2026-07-20)
• MCL 750.539d — recording in a private place; residential security-monitoring exception; penalties. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-750-539d (accessed 2026-07-20)
• MCL 750.539e — felony for using or divulging unlawfully obtained information. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-750-539e (accessed 2026-07-20)
• MCL 750.539g — exceptions (peace officers, carriers, utilities, corrections). https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-750-539g (accessed 2026-07-20)
• MCL 750.539h — civil remedies: injunction, actual damages, punitive damages. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-750-539h (accessed 2026-07-20)
• 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) — federal private-participant consent rule. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section2511&num=0&edition=prelim (accessed 2026-07-20)