Michigan is treated as an all-party consent state: get everyone's agreement before recording a private conversation.
Because the participant exception is unsettled in Michigan, do not rely on covert recording. Announce the recording (an announced, dated archive) to be safe.
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 Michigan
Michigan’s eavesdropping statute, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c, makes it a crime to use a device to eavesdrop on a private conversation without the consent of all parties to it. Read on its face, that is a straightforward all-party consent rule. In practice, Michigan law is more complicated: a 1982 Court of Appeals decision, Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476, carved out a participant exception, reasoning that the statute’s language only covers eavesdropping on “the private discourse of others” — meaning someone who is already part of the conversation isn’t “eavesdropping” by recording it. That exception has never been squarely decided by the Michigan Supreme Court: the Court accepted a certified question on the issue in 2020 and then declined to answer it in 2021, leaving Sullivan as controlling precedent but not a definitive ruling from the state’s highest court.
The penalties are real
Where the statute does apply — to a non-participant who eavesdrops on a private conversation without consent — the penalty is a felony punishable by up to two years in prison and a fine of up to $2,000. The seriousness of the charge is exactly why the participant-exception question matters so much in practice: get the classification wrong, and what felt like ordinary self-documentation can turn into a felony exposure. And because the statute’s language and its judicial interpretation point in different directions, a parent cannot simply read § 750.539c on their own and be sure which side of that line they fall on without legal advice specific to their facts.
Exceptions and nuances worth knowing
This is the one state on this list where the honest answer is “it depends who you ask.” Michigan courts, including a federal district court ruling in 2026, have continued to apply the Sullivan participant exception, and legal commentary increasingly describes Michigan as functioning like a one-party consent state in practice. But because the Michigan Supreme Court has never ruled on the question directly — and could revisit it — Copareo makes a deliberate, cautious editorial choice: we treat Michigan as an all-party consent state for the purposes of this product and this guide. Recording a co-parent without their knowledge might survive a challenge under current Court of Appeals precedent, but “might survive a challenge” is a bad foundation for evidence you are counting on in a custody case, so we recommend the safer standard regardless of which way the law is presently leaning.
It is also worth noting what the debate is not about: nobody disputes that a true third party — someone who is not part of the conversation at all, such as a relative secretly bugging a room — needs the consent of everyone in it under § 750.539c. The uncertainty is narrowly about whether a parent who is themselves on the call can rely on the participant exception. Given that narrow but real uncertainty, and given what is at stake in a custody proceeding, Copareo’s position is to remove the guesswork rather than have a parent’s evidence turn on how a future Michigan Supreme Court might eventually rule.
Using it in a Michigan custody or co-parenting case
Because the participant exception is unsettled at the highest level, the safest move in a Michigan custody dispute is not to lean on it. Announce that you are recording, or build your file from records both sides already know exist — text threads, emails, call logs. An announced, dated archive avoids the whole debate: it is lawful whichever way the eavesdropping statute is eventually read, and it removes the risk of a judge, or opposing counsel, raising the legality of how you got your evidence in the first place.
How Copareo handles this in Michigan
Copareo Secure Line applies the cautious reading automatically. When a parent’s profile shows Michigan, the product plays a fail-safe announcement at the start of every recorded call with the co-parent, the same as it does in every other all-party state on Copareo’s list — California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Washington. There is no setting to turn this off, and no attempt to exploit the participant exception, even though current Court of Appeals precedent might allow it. The goal is a lawful, timestamped archive that stands up regardless of how Michigan’s unsettled law eventually resolves. In practice, that means a Michigan parent using Copareo gets the same announced, dated archive as a parent in a clearly all-party state like California or Illinois — the product does not gamble on an unresolved legal question on your behalf.
Recording across state lines
If you are calling a co-parent in a state with clearer all-party rules, or vice versa, the safe default is the same one Copareo applies inside Michigan: assume the stricter standard governs and announce the recording. Given that Michigan’s own law is debated, there is no scenario where relying on an unresolved exception across a state line makes your evidence safer.
Frequently asked questions
Is Michigan a one-party or all-party consent state?
Legally, it is genuinely debated. The eavesdropping statute reads as all-party, but a 1982 Court of Appeals ruling, Sullivan v. Gray, created a participant exception that Michigan courts still apply, and the Michigan Supreme Court has declined to resolve the question directly. Copareo treats Michigan as all-party out of caution.
Can I rely on the participant exception to record my co-parent secretly?
You could, and current Court of Appeals precedent might protect you, but the Michigan Supreme Court has never confirmed it and the law could shift. An announced recording avoids betting your evidence on that uncertainty.
Why doesn’t Copareo just rely on the participant exception since courts currently allow it?
Because “currently allow it” is not the same as “settled law,” and a custody case can take months or years to resolve. Building an archive that is lawful under either reading of Michigan law is a safer bet than one that depends on Sullivan v. Gray continuing to hold.
What’s the penalty if the exception doesn’t apply to my situation?
Up to two years in prison and a fine of up to $2,000 for eavesdropping on a private conversation without consent.
Should I just ask my attorney which reading applies to my case?
Yes — this is exactly the kind of state-specific, fact-specific question a licensed Michigan attorney should weigh in on before you rely on any recording as evidence.
Bottom line
Michigan’s eavesdropping law is genuinely unsettled at the highest court, with a real but unconfirmed participant exception. Until the Michigan Supreme Court rules, the safer path — the one Copareo builds in by default — is to treat every recording as if all-party consent is required.
If you are documenting a Michigan co-parenting conflict, 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 every state’s rules on our state-by-state recording laws guide.
Not legal advice. This page summarizes Michigan law for general information and is not a substitute for advice from a licensed Michigan attorney. Recording and evidence rules change and courts decide admissibility case by case. Verify against the official statute (Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c) and consult an attorney about your situation.