Massachusetts is a strict all-party state: secretly recording is illegal even if you are on the call — the other party must know.
A covert recording is unlawful and inadmissible in Massachusetts. Announce that you are recording (an announced, dated archive) to stay lawful.
Recommended: an announced, dated archive of your own line.
Keep an announced, dated archive
In an all-party state, announce the recording — what judges prefer anyway. Copareo Secure Line keeps a lawful, time-stamped record of your line.
$9.90 once · no subscription, nothing to cancel
What all-party consent means in Massachusetts
Massachusetts has one of the strictest recording laws in the country. Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99, it is a crime to intercept a wire or oral communication without the knowledge of every person involved. What sets Massachusetts apart from most all-party states is the word secretly: the statute defines “interception” as hearing or recording a communication secretly, other than by a person given prior authority by all parties — which means even a participant in the call, someone who is legitimately part of the conversation, commits a crime by recording it without the other person knowing. In many all-party states the legal question is only about consent; in Massachusetts, the legal question is about secrecy, and a participant who records without disclosure is treated the same as an outsider who taps the line.
The penalties are real
Unlawful interception in Massachusetts is a felony, punishable by up to five years in state prison and a fine of up to $10,000. The statute goes further than just banning the recording itself: possessing an interception device under circumstances showing intent to make an unauthorized recording, or knowingly allowing such a device to be used for one, is also a crime, and disclosing or using the contents of an illegally intercepted communication carries its own separate penalty. Massachusetts treats every stage of an illegal recording — making it, keeping a device ready to make it, and using what was captured — as something the law can reach.
Exceptions and nuances worth knowing
The detail that trips up the most people is the lack of a participant exception. Some all-party states will at least debate whether someone on the call gets special treatment; Massachusetts closes that door outright. Whether you are one of the two people talking or a third party who was never part of the conversation, recording it without the other side’s knowledge is unlawful under § 99. There is no reading of the Massachusetts statute that lets a parent record a phone call with a co-parent behind their back, no matter how relevant the call feels to a custody dispute. Massachusetts residents sometimes assume the rule mirrors neighboring states or the general “two-party consent” shorthand they have read online; the safer mental model is the statute’s own word, secretly, since it captures the requirement more precisely than a simple consent checklist does.
It is worth being precise about what the statute reaches: it covers wire and oral communications, which includes ordinary phone calls and in-person conversations where someone reasonably expects not to be recorded. Massachusetts courts and legal commentators have described the reach of § 99 as broad, and the practical effect for a co-parent is simple — there is no situation where believing the recording is “for a good reason,” such as proving mistreatment or documenting a threat, changes the secrecy requirement. The good reason may matter to a judge once the recording is on the table, but it does not change whether making it was lawful in the first place.
Using it in a Massachusetts custody or co-parenting case
A covert recording is unlawful and inadmissible in Massachusetts, and a family court judge who learns a party secretly taped a co-parent is unlikely to view that party’s credibility kindly — even setting aside the criminal exposure. The fix is simple: announce that you are recording, out loud, at the start of the call, or restrict yourself to an archive both sides know is being kept, such as a shared text thread or email history. An announced, dated archive stays lawful in Massachusetts and gives you the same documentation value without the legal risk.
How Copareo handles this in Massachusetts
Copareo Secure Line treats Massachusetts as an all-party state, and it does so automatically. When a parent’s profile shows Massachusetts, the product plays a fail-safe announcement at the start of every recorded call with the co-parent before capture begins — there is no setting to disable it. Massachusetts sits on Copareo’s all-party consent list together with California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Washington, precisely because the stricter “secretly” standard leaves no room for a covert-recording feature. What you get is a timestamped, lawfully captured archive, not a recording that could be challenged, or prosecuted, later. The feature exists precisely because Massachusetts leaves no legal room for a covert option: given the “secretly” standard, there is no safer default than announcing every recording by design.
Recording across state lines
If you are in Massachusetts and your co-parent is in a one-party state, the mismatch does not give you a shortcut. The safe, standard practice is to apply the stricter rule to the whole call: treat it as if Massachusetts law governs, and announce the recording regardless of where the other person is sitting.
Frequently asked questions
Can I record a call with my co-parent if I’m one of the two people on it?
Not without telling them. Massachusetts defines interception as secret recording, and being a participant does not exempt you — the other party has to know.
What if my co-parent already knows I record our calls?
If they know and the call continues, that satisfies the consent requirement — it is no longer a secret recording. Announcing at the start of each call is the simplest way to establish that.
Does the interception law apply to text messages too?
Section 99 is aimed at wire and oral communications — phone calls and spoken conversations. Text messages and emails you already have lawful access to raise different legal questions and are generally simpler to rely on as evidence.
Is a voicemail my co-parent left me covered by this law?
Generally no — a voicemail is a message someone chose to leave for you to keep, not an intercepted communication. But consult an attorney if you are unsure about a specific recording.
What’s the actual criminal exposure if I get this wrong?
Up to five years in state prison and a $10,000 fine for the interception itself, with additional penalties for possessing a device meant to intercept unlawfully or for disclosing what was captured.
Does it matter that I only wanted the recording to protect myself?
No. Massachusetts’ statute does not carve out an exception for self-protection, documentation of abuse, or any other motive — the “secretly” element is what triggers the crime, regardless of why the recording was made. Announcing the recording removes the issue entirely.
Bottom line
Massachusetts is a strict all-party state where secrecy, not just consent, is the crime. Announce every recording, keep your archive dated and organized, and let a lawful record make your case.
If you are building a case file in a Massachusetts co-parenting dispute, Copareo Secure Line gives you a lawful, announced, dated archive of calls and texts with your co-parent for a single $9.90 one-time payment — no subscription, nothing to cancel. Compare the rules in every state on our state-by-state recording laws guide.
Not legal advice. This page summarizes Massachusetts law for general information and is not a substitute for advice from a licensed Massachusetts attorney. Recording and evidence rules change and courts decide admissibility case by case. Verify against the official statute (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99) and consult an attorney about your situation.