Recording Law for Voiceprints & Biometric Data in Maine

Maine does not currently have a state law that governs the collection, storage, or use of voiceprints or other biometric identifiers. Recent legislative attempts to pass a BIPA-style biometric privacy law have failed, including bills in the 2021–22, 2023–24, and 2025–26 legislative sessions. These bills would have imposed a strict-necessity data-minimization standard for sensitive data (including voiceprints) rather than requiring consent before collection, and none became law. Without such a statute, there is no requirement to obtain consent before capturing or storing a voiceprint in Maine.

Maine’s wiretap statute, found in Title 15, Chapter 102 (§§ 709–713), regulates the interception of oral and wire communications. It does not address the extraction or storage of biometric data such as voiceprints. The law focuses on whether a conversation is recorded, not how the recording is processed afterward.

Maine follows a one-party consent rule for audio recording. Under 15 M.R.S. § 709(4), you can legally record a conversation if you are a participant in it, even if others in the conversation are unaware. This applies to both in-person conversations and phone calls. The law defines an "oral communication" as one "uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." Statements made in public or to someone recording as a participant generally do not carry a justified expectation of non-interception, so no consent is needed to record them.

Maine’s wiretap law does not restrict silent video recording, which is governed separately under 17-A M.R.S. § 511. That statute prohibits capturing images in a "private place"—such as bathrooms or changing rooms—without consent. In ordinary public spaces like streets or parks, silent video recording is unrestricted. The wiretap law also does not address the use of biometric data derived from recordings, such as voiceprint templates used for authentication.

Imagine you’re in a shared coworking area with others nearby. You start a voice recording on your phone during a conversation with a colleague. Because you’re a participant in the discussion and it’s taking place in a public area of the coworking space, Maine’s one-party consent rule allows you to record without telling the other person. However, if the conversation moves to a closed office or a quiet corner where someone lowers their voice, the legal analysis changes. The recording might still be allowed under the statute’s participant exclusion, but the circumstances could suggest a justified expectation of non-interception. Separately, if you later extract a voiceprint from that recording for authentication purposes, Maine’s wiretap law does not impose any additional requirements on how that biometric data is stored or used.

The First Circuit, which includes Maine, has held that the First Amendment protects the right to record on-duty police officers performing their duties in public: Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011). The First Circuit extended this to secret/covert recording of police and other government officials performing public duties in public spaces in Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020). Since Maine is a one-party consent state, recording such encounters does not require the officer’s consent under state law either.

Maine’s wiretap statute, 15 M.R.S. § 710, makes it a Class C crime to illegally intercept a wire or oral communication. The statute also provides a private right of action under 15 M.R.S. § 711, allowing any party to a conversation intercepted in violation of the chapter to bring a civil claim for damages and attorney’s fees. Liability does not attach when the person recording is a party to the conversation, is within normal unaided hearing range, or has prior authorization from a party, as these are exclusions built into the definition of 'intercept' in 15 M.R.S. § 709(4). Law enforcement officers acting within their authorized duties are also exempt from the interception offense under § 710(1).

Maine does not carve out a separate rule for recording inside one’s own home. Instead, the same frameworks apply: under the wiretap statute, if the device-wearer is a party to an oral conversation occurring in the home, the participant exclusion still permits recording. However, under 17-A M.R.S. § 511, a location within a home can qualify as a "private place" (e.g., a bathroom or bedroom) triggering the consent-of-the-person-entitled-to-privacy requirement for image or audio-visual recording. Common living areas of one’s own home are not automatically "private places" as to the resident recording them. The analysis depends on whether the specific room or location is a "private place" and whether the recorder is a party or consenting participant, not on home-ownership per se.