Can you record or transcribe a meeting in Washington State?
Washington requires the consent of everybody in a private conversation before it is recorded. RCW 9.73.030 makes it unlawful to intercept or record a private communication or conversation with a device without first obtaining the consent of all the participants, and it counts as consent when one of them announces to all the others, “in any reasonably effective manner”, that it is about to be recorded or transmitted.
That announcement is the practical answer for a meeting with anybody in Seattle, Bellevue, Spokane or anywhere else in the state: say at the start that the call is being recorded or transcribed, after the recording has started, because the law says that if the conversation is recorded the announcement must be recorded too. Breaking the rule is a gross misdemeanor, and anybody recorded can sue.
Last checked 6 October 2026. This is general information, not legal advice: if a recording matters, ask a lawyer where you are. Every statement about the law links to the source it comes from, as it stood that day.
At a glance
| Whose consent | All the participants in a private communication or conversationRCW 9.73.030: consent to intercept or record private communications → |
|---|---|
| Consent by announcement | An announcement to everyone, in any reasonably effective manner, that it is about to be recorded or transmitted, itself recordedRCW 9.73.030: consent to intercept or record private communications → |
| What is private | Decided case by case: what the parties intended, and whether that was reasonableState v. Kipp, 179 Wn.2d 718 (2014), Supreme Court of Washington → |
| The criminal penalty | A gross misdemeanorRCW 9.73.080: penalties → |
| Suing | Actual damages, or $100 a day up to $1,000, and a reasonable attorney’s feeRCW 9.73.060: the civil action for damages → |
| As evidence | What is obtained unlawfully is generally not admissible in Washington’s courtsRCW 9.73.050: what is obtained unlawfully is not admissible → |
What RCW 9.73.030 says
It is unlawful to intercept or record a private communication carried by telephone, radio or another device, by any device designed to record or transmit it, “without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication”, and the same for a private conversation in person. The law covers communications “between points within or without the state”, so a call with one person in Washington can engage it.
The rule applies to private communications and conversations only, and it is often called two-party consent, though it requires the consent of everybody taking part.
The announcement rule
Subsection 3 says consent “shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted”, and that if the conversation is to be recorded, the announcement “shall also be recorded”. The Washington Supreme Court has said a party is deemed to have consented when another party has announced in an effective manner that the conversation would be recorded.
The statute does not say how the second part applies when only a transcript is kept. The cautious reading is to make the announcement once the transcription has started, so that it is in the transcript, and to repeat it for anybody who joins later.
What makes a conversation private
The Washington Supreme Court’s test, in State v. Kipp: “A communication is private (1) when parties manifest a subjective intention that it be private and (2) where that expectation is reasonable.” The factors include how long it lasted and what it was about, where it happened, who else was or could be present, and the relationship between the people in it, considered case by case.
The same court said that “Generally, two people in a conversation hold a reasonable belief that one of them is not recording the conversation.” So do not assume a work meeting is not private: tell people.
Does transcribing count?
Treat it as if it does. The statute covers any device designed to record or transmit a communication, and a tool that captures a call’s audio and turns it into text does both. As far as we found, no Washington appeal court has ruled on live transcription, so the cautious course is the same as for a recording: announce it.
The penalties
Breaking RCW 9.73.030 is a gross misdemeanor. Washington’s general rule for a gross misdemeanor with no punishment of its own is up to 364 days in county jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. Anybody whose business, person or reputation was injured can sue for actual damages, including mental pain and suffering, or for liquidated damages of $100 a day of violation, not exceeding $1,000, and a reasonable attorney’s fee. What is obtained in breach of the statute is generally not admissible in Washington’s courts.
Federal law, and calls across state lines
Federal law allows a person who is a party to a call, or has a party’s prior consent, to intercept it, unless the purpose is “committing any criminal or tortious act”, and it does not displace Washington’s stricter rule. When the people on a call are in different states, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press notes that courts have applied the law of the place where the recording device is and of the place where the person recorded is, and advises assuming the stricter law applies.
Using Troopa in Washington
Troopa keeps the transcript and the notes, not the audio, and keeps no voiceprint. It runs on your computer and shows the other people on the call nothing unless you present its window, so telling them is up to you, and in many places the law requires it. In Washington, that means announcing it to everyone once Troopa is listening.
An organisation in the United States can choose the US region, where its meetings are stored in Northern Virginia. We do not use your meetings to train or improve AI models, ours or anybody else’s.
Questions
Is Washington a two-party consent state?
Washington requires the consent of all participants, which is what people usually mean by two-party consent. Under RCW 9.73.030, a private call or conversation may not be intercepted or recorded with a device unless everybody in it consents, or one of them has announced to all the others, in any reasonably effective manner, that it is about to be recorded or transmitted.RCW 9.73.030: consent to intercept or record private communications →
Is announcing the recording enough in Washington?
Under RCW 9.73.030(3), consent is considered obtained when one party announces to all the others, in any reasonably effective manner, that the conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted. If the conversation is recorded, the announcement must be recorded too, so make it once the recording or transcription has started.RCW 9.73.030: consent to intercept or record private communications →
Does a meeting transcript count as a recording under Washington law?
Treat it as if it does. The statute covers any device designed to record or transmit a private communication, and a note taker that captures the audio and turns it into text does both. As far as we found, no Washington appeal court has ruled on live transcription, so announce it as you would a recording.RCW 9.73.030: consent to intercept or record private communications →
What are the penalties for recording without consent in Washington?
Breaking RCW 9.73.030 is a gross misdemeanor, punishable under Washington’s general rule by up to 364 days in jail, a $5,000 fine, or both. The person recorded can sue for actual damages, or $100 a day up to $1,000, plus a reasonable attorney’s fee, and the recording is generally not admissible in Washington’s courts.RCW 9.73.080: penalties →RCW 9.92.020: the punishment for a gross misdemeanor →RCW 9.73.060: the civil action for damages →RCW 9.73.050: what is obtained unlawfully is not admissible →
Which state’s law applies when people on a call are in different states?
It is not settled. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press notes that some courts apply the law of the state where the recording device is, and others the law where the person recorded is, and advises assuming the stricter law applies. Washington’s statute covers communications between points within or outside the state.Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Reporter’s Recording Guide (2021) →RCW 9.73.030: consent to intercept or record private communications →
Sources
- RCW 9.73.030: consent to intercept or record private communications
- State v. Townsend, 147 Wn.2d 666 (2002), Supreme Court of Washington
- State v. Kipp, 179 Wn.2d 718 (2014), Supreme Court of Washington
- RCW 9.73.080: penalties
- RCW 9.92.020: the punishment for a gross misdemeanor
- RCW 9.73.060: the civil action for damages
- RCW 9.73.050: what is obtained unlawfully is not admissible
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511: interception, and the one-party exception in (2)(d)
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Reporter’s Recording Guide (2021)
Read on 6 October 2026, by the people who make Troopa. Spotted something out of date? Tell us and we will correct it and say when.