Recording Law for Employers & Businesses in North Carolina

North Carolina lets you record any conversation you are part of without telling the other person. The rule is in the state’s wiretap law, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287. It criminalizes intercepting a "wire, oral, or electronic communication" unless at least one party to the conversation consents. Because you are a party, your consent is enough to lawfully record the conversation. This one-party-consent rule applies uniformly to in-person chats, phone calls, and electronic communications such as text messages or data transmissions. The statute’s penalties vary by offense: a Class H felony for basic interception under § 15A-287(a), a Class G felony if the interception is done for pecuniary gain or to commit another offense under § 15A-287(e), and a Class 1 misdemeanor for disclosure of intercepted communications under § 15A-287(f). North Carolina also provides a private right of action under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-296, allowing aggrieved parties to sue for damages and equitable relief. The law’s definition of "oral communication" includes only words spoken with an expectation that the conversation won’t be overheard or recorded under the circumstances. If someone shouts in a public place where others can easily hear, that expectation may not exist at all. Wire and electronic communications, by contrast, carry no equivalent expectation-of-privacy qualifier in the statute.

Recording video without audio is not covered by North Carolina’s wiretap statute. The law protects "oral communications"—words that are meant to stay private. A silent video doesn’t capture any "oral communication" because there’s no aural content to intercept. The statute defines "intercept" as capturing the contents of a communication by aural or other means, and "oral communication" is limited to spoken words uttered with an expectation of privacy. The North Carolina Court of Appeals has squarely held in Kroh v. Kroh, 152 N.C. App. 347, 567 S.E.2d 760 (2002) that only oral communications are covered by the Electronic Surveillance Act, so videotaping without an accompanying audio track does not violate the statute. So, if your smartglasses capture video but no audio, you are not violating the wiretap law simply by recording. However, recording in areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy—like bathrooms, changing rooms, or other enclosed spaces where individuals expect solitude—can still be a crime under a different law, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202, even if there’s no audio.

North Carolina makes it a crime to secretly record someone in a private space, even with video only. The "peeping" statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202, criminalizes photographing, videotaping, or peeping at someone without consent in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes bathrooms, changing rooms, dressing areas, locker rooms, and other enclosed areas where people undress or expect solitude. The law doesn’t care whether the recording has audio or not. If your employees wear smartglasses in these areas, make sure the devices are not capturing or storing any footage there. The statute’s reach is broad: it covers not only traditional peeping but also the use of any device to secretly view or record another person in such a setting. Violations are punishable as Class 2 misdemeanors, with enhanced penalties for repeat offenses.

Not every location labeled "public" lets you record freely. North Carolina’s wiretap law protects "oral communications" only when the speaker has an expectation that the conversation won’t be overheard or recorded under the circumstances. Courts look at the actual setting, not just the label. For example, a conversation held in a quiet corner of a crowded store or inside a closed office door may still be considered private, even though the building is open to the public. A recent North Carolina Court of Appeals case, Riddick v. Gates Cnty., No. COA25-647 (filed Mar. 18, 2026), shows that if there’s a known audio-capable monitoring system or other objective sign that conversations could be overheard, the speaker’s expectation of privacy can be defeated. When in doubt, assume the conversation is private unless it’s clearly happening in an open area where anyone nearby could naturally hear it. The court in Riddick held that a county employee’s workplace complaint failed at the pleading stage because she did not plead facts showing an objectively justified expectation that her office conversations would not be overheard, given the presence of an audio-capable security system.

North Carolina does not allow one spouse to secretly record the other’s private conversations at home without consent. In Kroh v. Kroh, 152 N.C. App. 347, 567 S.E.2d 760 (2002), the court held that the state’s wiretap law applies to recordings between spouses in the marital home. The court did not create a blanket exception for the home. It also recognized for the first time in North Carolina a "vicarious consent" rule: a custodial parent may consent on behalf of a minor child to recording the child’s conversations if the parent has a good-faith, objectively reasonable belief it’s necessary to protect the child. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment and remanded for trial, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the wife met that standard. So, if your employees wear smartglasses at home, make sure any recording complies with this rule if children are involved.

Imagine your cashiers wear smartglasses with audio and video to document customer service. A customer raises their voice in the checkout line, arguing about a charge. The cashier’s smartglasses capture both audio and video of the exchange. Because the customer is shouting in a public area where others can hear, the conversation likely has no expectation of privacy. Under North Carolina’s one-party consent rule, the cashier can legally record the interaction without telling the customer. If the same exchange happens in a manager’s closed office with the door shut, the expectation of privacy may be higher. In that case, a lawyer should review whether the recording complies with the wiretap law’s 'circumstances justifying such expectation' test. The statute’s definitions make clear that wire and electronic communications are protected regardless of any privacy expectation, while oral communications require both a subjective expectation and objectively justifying circumstances.