Privacy · Recording Consent
Is It Legal to Record a Call in Michigan?
Whether you can record a conversation in Michigan, whether everyone must consent, the exceptions, the criminal penalty, and the trap that catches interstate calls. Cited to the statute.
The rules and exceptions in Michigan
Whose consent you need, when the rule does not apply, and the penalty for getting it wrong.
| The rule in this state | What it means |
|---|---|
| The text reads all-party, the courts read one-party | MCL 750.539c requires "the consent of all parties," but MCL 750.539a(2) defines eavesdropping as recording the private discourse "of others." Sullivan v. Gray held a participant is not eavesdropping, and the Sixth Circuit has followed that reading. |
| A non-participant needs everyone’s consent | The participant exception protects only the party who records. One party’s consent is expressly insufficient to let a third party record, so handing your phone to a friend to tape a meeting is not protected. |
| The conversation must be private | MCL 750.539c reaches only a "private conversation," and "private place" excludes any place the public or a substantial group has access to. A conversation in a public place is outside the statute. |
| When it is different | What it means |
|---|---|
| Participant recording | The judicially recognized participant exception from Sullivan v. Gray lets a party to the conversation record it, because a participant is not capturing the discourse "of others." |
| Public settings | Because the statute reaches only a private conversation in a private place, a conversation somewhere the public has access to is not covered. |
| Common-carrier savings clause | MCL 750.539a(2) provides that nothing in the act modifies any law about interception or recording of messages transmitted by communications common carriers. |
What you can do right now
Concrete, neutral steps before you record a conversation in Michigan. This is legal information, not legal advice.
- Record conversations you take part in
Under Sullivan v. Gray a participant is not eavesdropping on "others," so a party to a private Michigan conversation may record it. This is the practical one-party rule the statute’s text does not spell out.
- Do not have someone else record for you
The participant exception protects only the party who records. One party’s consent is not enough for a non-participant, so having a friend tape a meeting you attend is not protected.
- Treat the rule as unsettled
The Michigan Supreme Court declined to answer a certified question in 2021, so the highest state court has never ruled. A future decision could flip this. When in doubt, get everyone’s consent.
- Talk to a Michigan attorney or the Attorney General
Eavesdropping is a felony, and the operative rule is contested. A licensed Michigan attorney can assess your facts, and the Michigan Department of Attorney General handles referrals.
Illegal recording can be a felony. If you have been recorded without consent, or are accused of it, this resource can connect you with a licensed attorney.
→ Michigan Department of Attorney GeneralThis is general legal information, not legal advice. The expectation of privacy, the purpose of a recording, and interstate calls can change the answer, so confirm your situation with a licensed attorney.
What people get wrong about recording in Michigan
Michigan is the state where the statute and the courts disagree, which is why it is the most contested in this group. Read MCL 750.539c literally and you need "the consent of all parties" to record a private conversation. But the offense depends on the definition of "eavesdrop" in MCL 750.539a(2), which covers recording the private discourse "of others," and in Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982), the court reasoned that a participant is not listening in on others and therefore is not eavesdropping. The Sixth Circuit has since followed that participant exception, so in practice a party to a Michigan conversation may record it, and Michigan functions as a one-party state. The catch is that this rests on an intermediate appellate decision, not a Supreme Court ruling. In 2021, at the Michigan Attorney General’s request, a federal court certified the one-party-versus-all-party question to the Michigan Supreme Court, and the court declined to answer, leaving Sullivan v. Gray as the controlling authority without high-court endorsement. Because the state’s highest court has never resolved it, a future decision could flip the rule. Two other points matter: the participant exception protects only the party who records, so one party’s consent does not let a non-participant record, and the statute reaches only a private conversation in a private place, so public settings are outside it. The penalty is a felony up to two years or $2,000, but the civil remedy is unusual, offering an injunction and punitive damages with no statutory minimum and no attorney fees.
Common questions
Is Michigan a one-party or two-party consent state?
In practice, one-party. The statute says "all parties," but Sullivan v. Gray held a participant is not recording the discourse "of others," so a party may record. The Michigan Supreme Court has never resolved it, so the rule is contested.
Why does the Michigan statute say "all parties" if I only need my own consent?
Because the courts read the offense narrowly. MCL 750.539a(2) defines eavesdropping as recording the discourse "of others," and Sullivan v. Gray reasoned a participant is not covered. The text and the case law point in different directions.
Can I ask a friend to record a meeting I am attending in Michigan?
That is not protected. The participant exception covers only the party who records, and one party’s consent is expressly insufficient to let a non-participant record. Get everyone’s consent for that.
Can I sue for money if someone secretly recorded my private conversation in Michigan?
Yes, but the remedy is limited. MCL 750.539h allows an injunction, actual damages and punitive damages, but there is no statutory minimum and no attorney fees, unlike the federal-model states.
Not legal advicePlainStatute provides plain-language summaries of public law for general information only. This is not legal advice. Statutes change; always confirm current requirements with the official source linked above before acting.