Recording Law for Employers & Businesses in Louisiana

Louisiana lets you record any conversation you take part in without telling the other person first. The law is La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:1303, and it says: "It shall not be unlawful under this Chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception, unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of law." That means if you’re on the call, in the meeting, or in the room, you can hit record and it’s legal. The same rule covers in-person chats, phone calls, and video meetings. Just don’t use the recording to commit a crime or a tort — the law specifically says the protection disappears if you’re doing something illegal while recording. Louisiana courts apply a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test to determine whether a conversation qualifies for protection under the statute, as established in State v. Reeves, 427 So. 2d 403 (La. 1983).

If your smartglasses only capture video and no sound, Louisiana doesn’t treat that as a wiretap issue. The wiretap statute targets "wire, electronic, or oral communication," and those terms focus on aural or transmitted content. The statute defines an "oral communication" as "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication." So silent video of a public dispute, a customer service counter, or a warehouse aisle is not restricted by the wiretap law. But Louisiana’s video voyeurism law (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:283) can still apply if you film someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy — like a bathroom or a changing room — and the filming is done for a lewd or sexual purpose. The statute’s reasonable-expectation-of-privacy requirement applies only to the non-lewd "(1)(b)" clause, while the "(1)(a)" and child-exploitation clauses require lewd/lascivious purpose. That law doesn’t cover ordinary workplace or customer service video, but it’s worth checking if your smartglasses might ever be used in private areas.

The Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, has ruled that recording on-duty police in public is protected by the First Amendment in Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 688–89 (5th Cir. 2017). So filming a police stop from a safe distance is generally allowed. However, Louisiana passed a 2024 law (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:2410.2) that makes it a misdemeanor to stay within 25 feet of an officer after being ordered to stop approaching or retreat. That law was preliminarily enjoined by a federal judge on January 31, 2025, as unconstitutionally vague, and as of June 2026 the case is still on appeal before the Fifth Circuit with the injunction still in effect. Because the law is only preliminarily enjoined, not struck down, you should treat it as active until a final ruling — meaning if an officer orders you back, moving closer could risk arrest even while you’re recording.

Louisiana’s new Data Privacy Act (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 51:1780.1–51:1780.5) takes effect January 1, 2027. It defines "biometric data" to include a voiceprint when it’s used to identify a specific person. The statute says: "'Biometric data' means data generated by automatic measurements of an individual's biological characteristics that are used to identify a specific individual. The term includes a fingerprint, voiceprint, eye retina or iris scan, or other unique biological pattern or characteristic when such data is used to identify the specific individual. The term does not include a physical or digital photograph or data generated from a physical or digital photograph or a video or audio recording or data generated from a video or audio recording, unless such data is generated to identify a specific individual." The law says you can’t process someone’s biometric data without their consent. So if your smartglasses extract a voiceprint from an employee or customer for identification, you’ll need to get clear, opt-in consent first. The law is enforced only by the Attorney General, not by private lawsuits, and it applies only to larger businesses meeting one of three thresholds: annual gross revenue over $25 million, annually buying/selling/sharing personal data of 75,000+ consumers/households/devices, or deriving 50%+ of annual revenue from selling personal data. There is a mandatory notice-and-30-day-cure period from January 1, 2027 through July 31, 2027 before the Attorney General can sue; that cure right sunsets after July 31, 2027. But even if you’re small, it’s smart to plan ahead — the consent duty is strict, and the law bans burying it in general terms of use. Separately, if you sell biometric personal data, you must post: "NOTICE: We may sell your biometric personal data."

Louisiana’s wiretap law only protects conversations where the speaker has a reasonable expectation that the chat won’t be intercepted. The statute defines an "oral communication" as "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication — i.e., the protection is built around a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy (REP) test, not a blanket rule." That’s a two-part test: first, did the speaker actually expect privacy, and second, would society recognize that expectation as reasonable? A loud argument in a crowded store aisle? Probably not private. A quiet aside in a back office? Likely private. If the conversation doesn’t meet this test, it’s not protected by the wiretap law, so no consent is required to record. But if it does meet the test, you still only need your own consent to record under the one-party rule. Louisiana courts apply this REP framework under the state constitution, as adopted in State v. Reeves, 427 So. 2d 403 (La. 1983).

Imagine a retail employee wearing smartglasses that capture both video and audio. A customer loudly argues about a refund in the middle of the store, drawing a crowd. The employee records the exchange without telling the customer. Under Louisiana’s one-party consent law, this is legal because the employee is part of the conversation and the chat is happening in a public space where no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The video-only portion is unrestricted regardless. Now imagine the same employee records a quiet conversation with a coworker in the back office about a sensitive HR issue. That chat is likely private under the reasonable-expectation test, so the employee needs their own consent to record — which they have, since they’re part of it — but it’s still a private setting where care is warranted. The statute’s own definition of "oral communication" requires that it be "uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation" — i.e., the protection is built around a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy (REP) test, not a blanket rule. Louisiana's leading case on the REP framework generally is State v. Reeves, 427 So. 2d 403 (La. 1983), which adopted the Katz/Harlan two-part test (actual subjective expectation of privacy + one society recognizes as reasonable).