Call recording laws by state and country
Pick where you are and where the other person is, or paste their number: a green, amber or red light, what you have to announce, and what AI transcription changes. All 50 states, DC and 13 countries, with the statute behind every rule.
Know before you hit record
Your call
The answer updates with every choice.
The tool reads the country code and, in North America, the area code to find the state.
Examples
Automatic transcripts, summaries, or an AI notetaker on the call.
Everything runs in your browser: your choices are not sent anywhere.
Red light
Only with everyone’s consent
Recording without the other person’s consent exposes you to criminal and civil liability. Get it first.
Rule applied: the stricter of the two, California.
Between two states, courts generally apply the more protective law (Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 2006).
You
New York
A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose.
Other party
Rule appliedCalifornia
CIPA requires everyone’s consent for a confidential conversation (§ 632) and, for any call involving a cell phone, regardless of confidentiality (§ 632.7). Section 631, which targets third-party eavesdropping, is the basis of the lawsuits against AI transcription vendors.
Penalties: Civil action: the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages (§ 637.2), which makes class actions attractive.
What to do
In order, before your next recorded call.
- 1
Announce the recording at the very startRequired
Before anything is recorded: at pickup, by the rep or with a recorded message. Not at the end of the call, and not in a follow-up email.
- 2
Get every participant’s consentRequired
A clear announcement, then consent: a spoken yes or, where California accepts it, staying on the line after the announcement. A spoken yes is the safest.
- 3
Make opting out realRequired
Offer to continue without recording, and check that your tool can stop recording mid-call. An announcement with no real way to say no protects very little.
- 4
Say the call is transcribed and summarized by AIRequired
“This call is recorded” does not cover transcripts or AI summaries. Name them in the announcement, or at least in the policy it points to.
- 5
Settle the training questionRequired
Check whether your contract lets the vendor reuse your calls for its own models. Turn it off if you can; if not, disclose it clearly.
- 6
Tell your reps tooRequired
Give written notice to everyone whose calls are recorded, before you switch it on.
Now write what to say
The call recording notice generator writes the opening announcement, the privacy policy paragraph and the register entry, in the language of your calls.
Generate my noticeRecording a call and being allowed to make it are two different questions. For calling hours, do-not-call lists and consent to telemarketing, use the cold calling compliance checker.
If the call is transcribed by AI
California: lawsuits target AI transcription vendors
Class actions under CIPA § 631 argue that an AI transcription vendor is a third party eavesdropping on the call. Courts refused to toss those claims in Ambriz v. Google (February 2025) and in the Otter.ai case (order of August 13, 2026), because the vendor allegedly reuses conversations for itself. SB 690, signed September 30, 2026, leaves both sections untouched. Nothing has been decided on the merits, but the fix is well known: disclose AI transcription explicitly, get consent, and bar model training by contract.
If the vendor trains its models on your calls
Not sure? Check the contract
Search the vendor’s terms for “training”, “improve our services” or “model improvement”. Until you know, the tool assumes it does.
This is what matters most in California
In Ambriz v. Google and in the Otter.ai case (August 13, 2026), it was the vendor reusing conversations for its own models that made it a potential third party to the call. A tool that acts only for you is treated as your extension. A contract that rules out training on your calls cuts that risk sharply.
Statutes and sources
Checked November 6, 2026- N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05
- RCFP, Reporter’s Recording Guide
- Cal. Penal Code § 632
- Cal. Penal Code § 632.7
- Cal. Penal Code § 631
- Cal. Penal Code § 637.2
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)
- Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 39 Cal.4th 95 (2006)
- In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, No. 25-cv-06911-EKL (N.D. Cal., Aug. 13, 2026)
- IAPP: Ambriz v. Google, In re Otter.ai Privacy Litigation
- California SB 690 (2026)
Information, not legal advice
This tool summarizes statutes and court decisions as of the date checked. It does not know your industry (healthcare, financial services and debt collection have their own rules) or your contracts. Have counsel validate your practice before rolling it out.
Save or share this answer
The link reopens the tool with the same answers.
Skipcall records, transcribes and summarizes your sales calls. Right from the power dialer, with the summary on the contact record. Announcing the recording is up to you: this page tells you how.
Is it legal to record a phone call?
It depends on two places: where you are, and where the other person is. Call recording laws fall into three families, and the stricter of the two ends sets what you have to do.
In the US, federal law lets a participant record without telling anyone, but twelve states require everyone’s consent. In the EU, the UK and Canada, criminal law usually lets a participant record, but a business recording its calls is processing personal data, so it must give notice first and let people object. Germany, Switzerland and Portugal go further: recording without consent is a crime there, even for someone on the call.
For a sales team, the takeaway is simple: as soon as your calls leave your own one-party state or country, announcing the recording and letting people opt out becomes the working rule.
One-party consent
You are on the call, so your consent is enough. Thirty-eight states, DC and, under criminal law, Canada.
Prior notice
Recording is allowed if you announce it first and let people object. France, the UK and most EU countries.
All-party consent
Everyone must be told and agree. California, Florida, Illinois and nine other states, plus Germany, Switzerland and Portugal.
Call recording laws by state: the full table
Federal law sets one-party consent (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia follow it; twelve require more. Each row gives the state statute and what sets it apart.
The 12 all-party consent states
Calling a prospect in any of them is enough to bring its law into your call, even if your office is elsewhere.
- California
- Connecticut
- Delaware*
- Florida
- Illinois
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Montana
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- Pennsylvania
- Washington
* Unsettled
The 38 one-party consent states, plus DC
A participant may record without telling anyone. Announcing it is still the working rule as soon as you call across state lines.
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- Colorado
- District of Columbia
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Michigan*
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Nebraska
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
* Unsettled
| State | Rule | Statute | What to know |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama Check | One-party consent | Ala. Code §§ 13A-11-30, 13A-11-31 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Alaska Check | One-party consent | Alaska Stat. § 42.20.310 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Arizona Check | One-party consent | Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3005 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Arkansas Check | One-party consent | Ark. Code § 5-60-120 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| California Check | All-party consent | Cal. Penal Code § 632 | CIPA requires everyone’s consent for a confidential conversation (§ 632) and, for any call involving a cell phone, regardless of confidentiality (§ 632.7). Section 631, which targets third-party eavesdropping, is the basis of the lawsuits against AI transcription vendors. |
| Colorado Check | One-party consent | Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-9-303, 18-9-304 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Connecticut Check | All-party consent | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d | Criminal law is one-party. Civil law is not: recording a call without everyone’s consent opens you to damages. Written consent, recorded verbal consent, a recorded notice at the start of the call or an automatic beep tone satisfies it. |
| Delaware Check | All-party consent Unsettled | Del. Code tit. 11, § 1335(a)(4) | Two statutes conflict: the wiretap law allows one-party consent (§ 2402), the privacy law requires all parties (§ 1335). When in doubt, follow the stricter rule. |
| District of Columbia Check | One-party consent | D.C. Code § 23-542 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Florida Check | All-party consent | Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(d) | All parties must give prior consent. The “no reasonable expectation of privacy” carve-out applies to in-person conversations, not to phone calls. |
| Georgia Check | One-party consent | Ga. Code §§ 16-11-62, 16-11-66 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Hawaii Check | One-party consent | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3)(A) | For phone calls, one party’s consent is enough. Installing a recording device in a private place, however, requires everyone’s consent (§ 711-1111). |
| Idaho Check | One-party consent | Idaho Code § 18-6702(2)(d) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Illinois Check | All-party consent | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 | Since the 2014 rewrite, the offense targets “surreptitious” recording of a private conversation without everyone’s consent. An announced recording is not surreptitious. Separately, BIPA applies if you create voiceprints. |
| Indiana Check | One-party consent | Ind. Code §§ 35-33.5-5-5, 35-31.5-2-176 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Iowa Check | One-party consent | Iowa Code §§ 808B.2(2)(c), 727.8 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Kansas Check | One-party consent | Kan. Stat. § 21-6101(a)(1) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Kentucky Check | One-party consent | Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 526.010, 526.020 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Louisiana Check | One-party consent | La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1303 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Maine Check | One-party consent | Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 709, 710 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Maryland Check | All-party consent | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402(c)(3) | Every party’s consent is required for a phone call, whether or not the parties expect privacy. |
| Massachusetts Check | All-party consent | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 | The law bans secret recording: if everyone knows the call is being recorded, no affirmative consent is needed (Curtatone v. Barstool Sports, 2021). A clear announcement therefore works. |
| Michigan Check | One-party consent Unsettled | Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c | The statute speaks of eavesdropping without everyone’s consent, but an appellate court held that a participant may record their own conversation (Sullivan v. Gray). The state supreme court has not ruled: give notice. |
| Minnesota Check | One-party consent | Minn. Stat. § 626A.02, subd. 2(d) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Mississippi Check | One-party consent | Miss. Code § 41-29-531(e) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Missouri Check | One-party consent | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402.2(3) | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Montana Check | All-party consent | Mont. Code § 45-8-213(1)(c) | Recording a call “without the knowledge of all parties” is unlawful. A person who has been warned of the recording falls under the statutory exception: the announcement is enough. |
| Nebraska Check | One-party consent | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Nevada Check | All-party consent | Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620 | The statute reads like one-party, but the Nevada Supreme Court requires all-party consent for phone calls (Lane v. Allstate, 1998). In-person conversations remain one-party (§ 200.650). |
| New Hampshire Check | All-party consent | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 570-A:2 | All parties must consent. Courts accept implied consent when the person knew the call was being recorded. |
| New Jersey Check | One-party consent | N.J. Stat. §§ 2A:156A-3, 2A:156A-4 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| New Mexico Check | One-party consent | N.M. Stat. § 30-12-1 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| New York Check | One-party consent | N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| North Carolina Check | One-party consent | N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-286, 15A-287 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| North Dakota Check | One-party consent | N.D. Cent. Code §§ 12.1-15-02, 12.1-15-04 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Ohio Check | One-party consent | Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Oklahoma Check | One-party consent | Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.4 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Oregon Check | One-party consent | Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540 | For phone calls, one party’s consent is enough. Oregon sometimes appears on all-party lists because of its in-person conversation rule, which requires telling every participant: a Ninth Circuit panel struck it down in 2023, but the full court upheld it in 2025 (Project Veritas v. Schmidt). |
| Pennsylvania Check | All-party consent | 18 Pa. C.S. §§ 5703, 5704(4) | All-party consent is required for phone calls, whatever the expectation of privacy. Courts find consent when the person knew or should have known the call was being recorded. |
| Rhode Island Check | One-party consent | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| South Carolina Check | One-party consent | S.C. Code § 17-30-30 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| South Dakota Check | One-party consent | S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Tennessee Check | One-party consent | Tenn. Code §§ 39-13-601, 39-13-604 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Texas Check | One-party consent | Tex. Penal Code § 16.02 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Utah Check | One-party consent | Utah Code § 77-23a-4 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Vermont Check | One-party consent | 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) | Vermont has no call recording statute: the federal one-party rule applies. |
| Virginia Check | One-party consent | Va. Code § 19.2-62 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Washington Check | All-party consent | Rev. Code Wash. § 9.73.030(1)(a), (3) | All-party consent is required, but the law treats it as obtained once one party announces the recording to everyone, provided the announcement itself is recorded. |
| West Virginia Check | One-party consent | W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Wisconsin Check | One-party consent | Wis. Stat. § 968.31 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
| Wyoming Check | One-party consent | Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-702 | A participant may record without the others’ consent, unless it is for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
No state matches.
Checked November 6, 2026. Information, not legal advice.
Call recording laws in other countries
Outside the US, the question is framed differently: criminal law often lets a participant record, but a business processes personal data and must give notice. In Europe, three countries make recording without consent a crime, even for a participant.
-
Australia
All-party consent UnsettledRules vary by state and territory: several, including New South Wales, require all-party consent for a private conversation, with exceptions; others, such as Victoria, let a participant record. Expected practice: announce the recording at the start of the call.
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 · Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), s. 7
Check -
Austria
Prior noticeThe Criminal Code targets third-party eavesdropping and disclosing a recording without the speaker’s consent. A company that records must give notice at the start of the call (GDPR).
§ 120 StGB (Autriche / Austria) · RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21
Check -
Belgium
Prior noticeThe Criminal Code only targets recording a communication you do not take part in (art. 314bis of the former code; the new Criminal Code, in force since September 1, 2026, carries the offense under a new number). A company that records must give notice at the start of the call (GDPR).
Code pénal belge de 1867, art. 314bis · SPF Justice : entrée en vigueur du nouveau Code pénal le 1er septembre 2026 · RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21
Check -
Canada
Prior noticeThe Criminal Code allows one-party consent. A business must still announce the recording and every purpose at the start of the call (PIPEDA); staying on the line is implied consent, and a customer who objects must be offered an alternative. In Quebec, the provincial private sector act also requires telling people why their information is collected.
Criminal Code / Code criminel, s. 184(2)(a) · OPC Canada: recording of customer telephone calls · Québec, Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels dans le secteur privé (RLRQ c. P-39.1), art. 8
Check -
France
Prior noticeNo express consent is required, but the other party must be told at the start of the call (that it is recorded, why, and how to object). The CNIL rejects permanent, systematic recording unless a law requires it, and caps retention at six months. The Criminal Code presumes consent when recording is done openly and the person does not object.
Penalties: Recording someone’s private or confidential words without consent: one year in prison and a €45,000 fine (art. 226-1). Under the GDPR, the CNIL can also impose administrative fines.
RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21 · CNIL, L’écoute et l’enregistrement des appels sur le lieu de travail · Code pénal, art. 226-1 · Code du travail, art. L. 1222-4, L. 2312-38
Check -
Germany
All-party consentRecording another person’s non-public spoken words without authorization is a crime (§ 201 StGB), even as a participant. Ask for explicit consent before you start recording, and keep the answer on the recording.
Penalties: Up to three years in prison or a fine.
§ 201 StGB · RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21
Check -
Ireland
Prior noticeUnder the interception law, the consent of either the caller or the person called is enough. A company that records must give notice at the start of the call (GDPR).
Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983, s. 98 · RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21
Check -
Italy
Prior noticeThe Court of Cassation holds that a recording made by a participant is not an interception. A company that records must give notice at the start of the call (GDPR); disclosing the recording remains restricted.
Corte di cassazione, Sezioni Unite, n. 36747/2003 · Codice penale, art. 617 · RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21
Check -
Netherlands
Prior noticeThe Criminal Code only punishes recording a conversation you are not part of. A company that records must give notice at the start of the call (AVG, the Dutch name of the GDPR).
Wetboek van Strafrecht, art. 139a · RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21
Check -
Portugal
All-party consentThe Criminal Code punishes recording another person’s words without consent, even words addressed to you. Get the other party’s consent before recording.
Penalties: Up to one year in prison or a fine of up to 240 days.
Código Penal, art. 199.º · RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21
Check -
Spain
Prior noticeThe secrecy of communications cannot be invoked against a participant (STC 114/1984): only third-party recording is a crime. A company that records must still give notice at the start of the call under the GDPR.
Tribunal constitucional, STC 114/1984 · Código Penal, art. 197 · RGPD / GDPR, art. 13, 21
Check -
Switzerland
All-party consentA participant who records without the others’ consent commits an offense (art. 179ter). Exception: calls about orders, assignments, reservations or similar transactions in a business relationship (art. 179quinquies). A prospecting call does not necessarily qualify.
Penalties: On complaint, up to one year in prison or a monetary penalty.
Code pénal suisse (CP), art. 179ter, 179quinquies · nLPD / FADP, art. 19
Check -
United Kingdom
Prior noticeA business may record calls to establish facts, check compliance or monitor quality, provided it informs everyone who uses its system. The UK GDPR also requires telling the other party. Some regulated financial firms must record.
SI 2018/356, regs 3, 4 · UK GDPR, art. 13
Check
Calls across state lines or borders: the stricter rule wins
When the caller and the person called are under different laws, follow the stricter one. In the US, the leading case is Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (California Supreme Court, 2006): a brokerage recording calls from Georgia, a one-party state, to clients in California was held to California’s all-party rule.
Between countries, no single ruling settles it as clearly, but the logic is the same: the other person’s law protects the other person. A team in Austin calling Munich has to reckon with § 201 of the German Criminal Code, whatever Texas allows.
In practice, the tool always applies the stricter rule of the two ends. For a team calling several states or countries, the simplest approach is one announcement that satisfies the strictest case, used on every call.
AI transcription and model training: what changes
-
Transcribing a call, summarizing it or pulling tasks out of it does not make a lawful recording unlawful. It does add a use, and usually a party: the vendor running the model. That is where the rules tighten.
-
In California, class actions under CIPA § 631 argue that a transcription vendor is a third party listening in without everyone’s consent. In Ambriz v. Google, the Northern District of California denied the motion to dismiss in February 2025, reasoning that the vendor had the capability to use the data for its own purposes. On August 13, 2026, the same court let the consolidated Otter.ai suits proceed under CIPA and the federal Wiretap Act: Otter allegedly uses conversations to train its models, which would make it a third party rather than a mere tool. SB 690, signed September 30, 2026, only targets website trackers and leaves these rules intact. Nothing has been decided on the merits, but the practice is set: disclose AI transcription explicitly, and bar the vendor by contract from reusing your calls.
-
In the EU, transcripts and summaries are additional personal data, to be disclosed and kept for a defined period. Training a model on calls is a purpose separate from the one you announced. And since February 2, 2025, the EU AI Act bans inferring employees’ emotions with AI in the workplace, so a “mood score” for reps is out. In Illinois, identifying speakers by their voice falls under BIPA, which requires a written release.
How the tool reaches its answer
Each jurisdiction has a record: its rule (one-party, prior notice, all-party), its statutes, its nuances and, where the statute sets them, its penalties. For US states, the classification follows the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press’s Reporter’s Recording Guide, cross-checked against the official statutes for the twelve all-party states and the disputed cases. For countries, it relies on criminal codes, the GDPR and regulator guidance (France’s CNIL, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada). A pasted number is read against the area code table published with libphonenumber, Google’s phone numbering library. Checked November 6, 2026.
Four calls are deliberate. Delaware, whose two statutes conflict, is classed as all-party to be safe. Michigan stays one-party, but the tool recommends notice because the state supreme court has not ruled. Oregon is one-party for phone calls: its stricter rule only covers in-person conversations. Australia is classed as all-party because several states and territories require it. AI transcription never changes the color of the answer; it adds obligations, listed separately.
The tool does not know your industry. Healthcare, banking, insurance and debt collection often have rules of their own, which can require recording or restrict it.
The most common mistakes
-
Thinking from your own office
Your HQ is in Austin? It does not matter if the prospect is in San Francisco: their state’s law is often the one that bites.
-
Announcing at the end of the call
Notice has to come before the recording. A mention afterward, or a follow-up email, does not replace the opening announcement.
-
Saying “recorded” when it is also transcribed by AI
AI transcription is another use, and usually another vendor. Name it.
-
An announcement with no way to opt out
If someone says no and the recording keeps running, the announcement works against you. Plan the procedure and test it.
-
Forgetting your own reps
People whose calls are recorded need written notice before you switch recording on, and several states have employee monitoring notice rules of their own.
Keep going
Got your answer? Here is the logical next step, from the announcement to calling compliance.
- Call recording notice generator The opening announcement and the GDPR wording, ready to copy, in seven languages.
- Cold calling compliance checker Legal calling hours, holidays, do-not-call lists and telemarketing consent, country by country.
- Call recording laws for business Consent, retention, employee notice, PCI pause-and-resume: the full compliance playbook.
- AI call transcription and summaries What transcription actually produces, how accurate it is, and how to use it.
- Sales call scorecard Put your recordings to work: a printable scorecard to review calls.
- Cold calling laws by country The telemarketing rules of fourteen countries in one place.
Information, not legal advice
This tool summarizes statutes and court decisions as of the date checked. It does not know your industry (healthcare, financial services and debt collection have their own rules) or your contracts. Have counsel validate your practice before rolling it out.
Checked November 6, 2026
A calendar full of meetings starts with a call.
No commitment · Number live in 2 minutes