Recording Law for Phone & Video Calls in Missouri

Missouri follows a one-party consent rule for recording wire communications such as phone calls, VoIP calls, and video calls where the audio is transmitted electronically (e.g., Zoom, Teams, FaceTime). That means you can legally record these calls as long as at least one person in the conversation knows and agrees to the recording. Missouri’s wiretap statute, specifically Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402, makes it a crime to intercept wire communications without consent, but it includes an exception for private citizens who are part of the call or have prior consent from a party. The law states: "a person not acting under law to intercept a wire communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent." This exception applies only to wire communications, not in-person conversations. This applies to traditional phone calls, cellular calls, and internet-based calls where audio is transmitted electronically. The key point: you do not need everyone’s permission to record—just your own or another party’s consent is enough.

Missouri’s wiretap law covers "wire communications," which the statute defines as "any communication made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception." This includes traditional phone calls, cellular calls, and internet-based calls like VoIP. Video calls where audio is transmitted electronically (Zoom, Teams, FaceTime, Google Meet) fall under this definition because the audio portion is sent over wires or cables. The law applies as long as the interception occurs in Missouri, regardless of where the parties are located.

Missouri’s wiretap statute criminalizes the "aural acquisition" of wire communications, meaning it focuses on capturing the audio portion of a call. A video-only recording—one that captures images but no audio—does not count as an "interception" under this law. The statute defines "intercept" as "the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire communication through the use of any electronic or mechanical device." Since there is no audio being captured, a silent video recording of a call is not restricted by Missouri’s wiretap law. Separately, Missouri’s invasion-of-privacy statute (§ 565.252) criminalizes photographing or filming another person’s nudity or under clothing without consent in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, but this is a narrow voyeurism statute punishable as a class A misdemeanor, elevated to a class E felony for distribution, multiple victims, or repeat offense, and would not apply to filming a public dispute, interpersonal confrontation, or a police interaction where no nudity is involved.

Recording a wire communication in Missouri without consent can lead to criminal charges. Under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402, intercepting a wire communication without consent is a Class E felony; all four prohibited acts in the statute carry this penalty. Additionally, Missouri law allows the person whose communication was recorded to sue the recorder for damages. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.418 lets you recover $100 per day of violation (minimum $10,000), actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. This private right of action applies even if the recording didn’t harm you—just the act of illegal interception is enough. The law also explicitly closes off any spousal exemption, confirming that recording your spouse without consent is still illegal under the same rules. § 542.400’s definition of "intercept" expressly states aural acquisition includes but is not limited to "interception by one spouse of another spouse."

Imagine you’re a sales rep in Missouri and you’re on a Zoom call with a client to finalize a deal. You record the call to keep accurate notes and share highlights with your team. Since you’re a party to the call and Missouri law only requires one-party consent for wire communications, this recording is legal. If the client later finds out and objects, you’re still protected because you had consent from at least one party (yourself). However, if you recorded a call where you weren’t a participant and didn’t have consent (e.g., you secretly recorded a coworker’s meeting without being part of it), that would be illegal under Missouri’s wiretap law. The same rule applies to phone calls—recording a call you’re part of is fine, but recording a call you’re not part of without consent is a crime.

Missouri’s wiretap law draws a sharp line between electronic communications (phone/video calls) and in-person conversations. For in-person talks, the law defines an "oral communication" as "any communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." Unlike wire communications, Missouri’s law criminalizes intercepting oral communications only when done with a device that "transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission." This means a standard audio recorder used in person is likely not covered by the criminal statute at all, even if no one consents. Because the oral-communication offense is narrowly limited to radio-transmitting or interfering devices under § 542.402.1(2), ordinary local-storage recorders used by private citizens to capture in-person conversations are generally outside the statute’s reach regardless of consent. This is why Missouri is conventionally listed as a "one-party consent" state, even though the statutory basis for oral (in-person) recording is narrower and more idiosyncratic than for wire/electronic communications.