Recording consent law in Washington
Washington requires everyone's consent — but consent can be satisfied by an announcement that recording is about to begin, itself recorded.
General information, not legal advice. Recording law turns on facts — where each person physically is, whether the exchange counts as oral or electronic, and what your profession separately requires. If the answer matters, ask a lawyer licensed in Washington.
Short answer: Washington (RCW 9.73.030) requires the consent of all parties to record a private conversation or communication. Consent can be satisfied by a recorded announcement that recording is about to start. A violation is a gross misdemeanor, and RCW 9.73.060 provides civil damages.
At a glance
| Statute | RCW 9.73.030 (recording); 9.73.080 (penalty); 9.73.060 (civil action) |
|---|---|
| Applies to | Both private in-person conversations and telephone / device communications |
| Criminal penalty | Gross misdemeanor — up to 364 days in jail and a fine up to $5,000. |
| Civil liability | Yes, under RCW 9.73.060 — actual damages including mental pain and suffering, or liquidated damages of $100 per day up to $1,000, plus attorney's fees. Unlawful recordings are generally inadmissible in Washington courts. |
The detail that catches people out
Washington builds in a practical way to comply: consent can be given by an announcement, itself recorded, that recording is about to occur. You don't need each person to say “yes” — a clear recorded “this call is being recorded” that everyone can respond to does the job.
Washington's Privacy Act is broad about what counts as a device. In State v. Christensen (2004) the state Supreme Court held that a cordless phone's base unit on speakerphone was a “device,” and that a parent secretly listening to a child's call violated the Act — there is no parental exception. The lesson: don't assume any informal listening-in is exempt.
What this means for AI meeting notes
In Washington, open the recording with a clear, recorded announcement and you've satisfied the statute. Secret recording of a private conversation is a gross misdemeanor, and the recording won't even be usable in court.
Two things worth separating. Whether a recording bot is visible in the attendee list has no bearing on any of the above — the statute governs the recording, not how obvious your tooling is. And where the recording is processed is a different question again: Washington law decides whether you may record at all, while your duty of confidentiality decides who may then receive it.
A tool that captures audio through your own machine and processes it locally, like Oats, removes the second problem and leaves the first entirely intact. You still need whatever consent Washington requires.
If people are in different states
A call with someone in a one-party-consent state and someone in Washington is not a one-party call. Standard conservative practice is to comply with the strictest rule represented on the call — get everyone's agreement, out loud, and note that you got it. See our overview of US recording consent law for the wider picture and the other all-party states.
Sources: RCW 9.73.030. RCW 9.73.060 civil action. State v. Christensen. Verified July 2026. Laws change — check the primary source before relying on this.
Notes that never leave your Mac
Free forever. No account. No server holding your recordings.
Download for Mac