Recording Law for Phone & Video Calls in Tennessee

Tennessee allows you to record any phone call or video call you’re part of without telling the other people. The law covers “wire, oral, or electronic communication,” which includes calls on phones, Zoom, FaceTime, Microsoft Teams, and similar services. The key statute is Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-601, which provides: "It is lawful ... to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act." There’s no requirement to notify the other person or get their permission before recording. This rule applies whether the call is on your phone, your computer, or any other device.

The statute treats phone calls and video calls the same way. Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-601 covers “wire, oral, or electronic communication.” That includes calls made over traditional phone lines, cellular networks, and internet-based services like Zoom, FaceTime, Teams, and similar platforms. The law also includes § 39-13-604, which imposes a similar one-party-consent rule for cellular or cordless phone interception with its own penalty range, but does not change the underlying consent standard. Both sections use the same one-party consent standard. Silent video-only recording (without any audio) is not covered by these wiretapping laws, because the statutes only prohibit interception of communications that include audio.

Recording your own conversations at home is generally allowed under the one-party consent rule. But if you record other people’s private conversations in your home that you’re not part of, Tennessee’s law does not provide a clear, absolute safe harbor. The statute uses a “reasonable expectation of privacy” test, and a conversation behind a closed door or in a lowered voice can create that expectation, even in a home. Whether such a recording is lawful turns on fact-specific circumstances, and Tennessee courts have not issued a squarely on-point decision resolving this scenario. Because the outcome rests on inference from the statutory language rather than a settled holding, this remains an area of legal uncertainty. Tennessee’s separate “unlawful photography” statute (§ 39-13-605) is a voyeurism law — it only applies to photography/video taken for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the defendant where the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., bathroom, changing area) — it does not create a general home-recording restriction and is inapplicable to recording disputes or police interactions. Proceed with caution and consider whether you are a party to the conversation being recorded.

If you record video without capturing any audio, Tennessee’s wiretapping laws do not apply. The statutes only prohibit interception of communications that include audio. So filming someone with your phone or computer camera — without recording their voice or any sounds — is not restricted by § 39-13-601. This includes recording video calls where you turn off the microphone or record only the visual portion. Just make sure you’re not capturing audio from another source at the same time, which could bring you back under the wiretapping statute. Note that other Tennessee laws, such as § 39-13-605 (unlawful photography), may still apply in limited circumstances involving sexual-purpose voyeurism or where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.

Violating Tennessee’s recording law is a criminal offense. Under § 39-13-602, it’s a Class A misdemeanor for basic violations and can rise to a Class E felony if the recording is disseminated. In 2024, Tennessee repealed the civil lawsuit option for illegal recording under § 39-13-603 in its entirety; § 39-13-603 was repealed by the same act and no independent civil-remedy provision elsewhere in Title 40, Ch. 6, Pt. 3 governs private suits. Now, only criminal penalties apply, and there is no longer a way for a private person to sue over an illegal recording in Tennessee. The only statutory exception is a parental monitoring carve-out in § 39-13-601(d), which allows parents to use software to monitor a minor child’s internet use.

Tennessee’s wiretapping statute does not create a general right to record police or other public encounters. The statute’s prohibition turns on whether a conversation carries a reasonable expectation of privacy. Communications occurring in public where there is no such expectation — such as a loud dispute on a public sidewalk or an on-duty officer’s public police-citizen encounter — generally fall outside the statute’s protection, so no consent is legally required to record them. Conversely, a lowered voice or a closed door can establish an expectation of privacy even in an otherwise public or semi-public setting. Tennessee case law, such as Mimms v. Mimms, 780 S.W.2d 739 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989), addresses the distinction between overhearing a naturally audible conversation versus intercepting one via a device, which is relevant to the reasonable-expectation analysis. However, the Sixth Circuit has not issued a published decision squarely recognizing a First Amendment right to record police performing public duties, and no unpublished decision affirms denial of qualified immunity on a recording-related First Amendment claim. As a result, while recording public police encounters may often be permissible under the wiretap statute, an officer’s objection or direction to stop recording should be treated as a factor requiring caution, and legal advice should be sought if the situation escalates.

Imagine you’re on a Zoom call with your boss and coworkers to discuss a project. You’re a participant in the call. Under Tennessee law, you can record the entire meeting without telling anyone. The one-party consent rule applies because you’re part of the conversation. If someone later claims the recording was illegal, a court would look at whether you were a party to the communication — which you were. The recording itself wouldn’t violate § 39-13-601. Just don’t use the recording for illegal purposes, like blackmail or harassment.

Tennessee does not have a dedicated biometric privacy statute like Illinois’ BIPA. Instead, biometric data is regulated as a subset of “sensitive data” under the Tennessee Information Protection Act (TIPA), enacted in 2023 and effective July 1, 2025. TIPA is enforced exclusively by the Attorney General and does not create a private right of action. Under TIPA, controllers must obtain opt-in consent before capturing or processing a wearer’s voiceprint for identification purposes, and a data protection assessment is required for sensitive-data processing. However, TIPA’s definition of biometric data includes voiceprints in one subsection while excluding audio recordings in another, creating a tension that has not been resolved by Tennessee courts. The civil penalty for violations is up to $7,500 per violation, or up to $22,500 if willful or knowing. TIPA applies to businesses meeting certain thresholds, though the exact consumer-count and revenue thresholds are subject to conflicting secondary sources and should be confirmed before reliance.

Tennessee’s wiretap statute includes several specific exceptions. Section 39-13-601(d) contains a longstanding parental-monitoring carve-out allowing parents to install software solely to monitor a minor child’s internet use. Section 39-13-604 imposes a similar one-party-consent rule for cellular or cordless phone interception with its own penalty range, but does not change the underlying consent standard. Tennessee’s separate “unlawful photography” statute (§ 39-13-605) is a voyeurism law that only applies to photography/video taken for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the defendant where the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and does not create a general home-recording restriction.