Recording Law for Voiceprints & Biometric Data in Michigan

Michigan does not have a law that requires consent, notice, or a public retention schedule before collecting or storing a biometric voiceprint. The only existing statute that mentions biometrics is the Identity Theft Protection Act (MCL 445.63(q)), which lists "biometrics" as an example of "personal identifying information" for identity-theft and breach-notification purposes only; it does not impose any duties at the point of collection. Two bills now in the legislature would change this if passed. SB 359 of 2025 would enact a new Michigan Personal Data Privacy Act, but it has been referred to the Senate Committee of the Whole since June 12, 2025 and is not law. SB 360 of 2025 would amend the Identity Theft Protection Act to add "genetic information or biometric information that is used to authenticate or ascertain the individual's identity, such as a fingerprint, voice print, retina, or iris image" to the definition of "personal information" that triggers breach-notification duties. SB 360 passed the full Senate on August 26, 2025 and is now before the House Committee on Government Operations. If enacted, SB 360 would require notice and protections only after a breach, not before collection.

Michigan’s eavesdropping statute (MCL 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 statute defines "eavesdrop" as overhearing, recording, amplifying, or transmitting "the private discourse of others" (MCL 750.539a(2)). Courts have interpreted this to mean that a participant in a conversation can record their own words without violating the statute, because the conversation is not the "discourse of others" to them; Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982) and Lewis v. LeGrow, 258 Mich. App. 175 (2003) both rely on this textual reading. A third-party recorder, however, must obtain the consent of every person whose private conversation is being captured, because the statute defines "eavesdrop" as targeting the "private discourse of others" and courts have not recognized a general exception for non-participants.

Michigan law specifically allows a resident, owner, or principal occupant to record inside their own home without telling others present, unless the recording is done for a lewd or lascivious purpose (MCL 750.539d(2)). This is an explicit carve-out from the general rule that recording in a "private place" without consent is a felony. The exception applies only to the recorder’s own dwelling and only when the recorder is a resident, owner, or principal occupant of that dwelling; it does not extend to recording in someone else’s home, a hotel room, a private office, or a vehicle. If the wearer is not a resident/owner/principal occupant of the home, or if the recording happens outside the home, the general "private place" and eavesdropping rules apply.

A conversation is not "private" under Michigan law if it occurs in a place "to which the public or substantial group of the public has access" (MCL 750.539a(1)). Examples include public streets, sidewalks, parks, and businesses open to walk-in customers during business hours. In those locations, neither the eavesdropping statute nor the hidden-device statute restricts recording, so a participant can record their own conversation and a bystander can record what is audible to an unaided ear. The statute does not require advance notice or consent in public places.

Imagine you host a team meeting in a co-working space conference room that is rented by the hour and open to any member during business hours. The room is not a private residence, and it is accessible to the general public who have paid for access. Because the space is a "place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access," Michigan’s eavesdropping statute does not apply to any conversation held there (MCL 750.539a(1)). You can record the meeting on your phone without telling the other attendees. If the meeting were held in a private office suite that requires a keycard and is not open to walk-in visitors, the room would be a "private place," and you would need the consent of all parties to record under MCL 750.539c.

Violating Michigan’s eavesdropping statute (MCL 750.539c) is a felony. The same statute creates a private right of action, so a person whose private conversation was unlawfully recorded can sue for damages and equitable relief. The Identity Theft Protection Act’s breach-notification duties (MCL 445.72) apply only if biometric or other "personal information" is compromised in a database, not at the point of collection. If SB 360 passes, a voiceprint used to authenticate identity would become "personal information" under the Act, triggering notice and investigation duties after a breach, enforced only by the Attorney General.