Earkeep
Is Maryland a two-party consent state?
Last updated: · Reviewed quarterly
Yes, and all-party is the accurate word: § 10-402(c)(3) permits interception only where you are a party and every party has given prior consent. One asymmetry is worth knowing. For in-person conversation, Maryland courts limit protection to speech carrying a reasonable expectation of privacy. For telephone calls, RCFP reports no such limit, so all calls are protected.
The short answer
Announce it at the top and get an answer before the substance starts. Prior consent of every party is the operative test, so the safe practice is an announcement plus an affirmative response from each participant.
The statute
The Maryland Wiretap Act, Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402. The (c)(3) exception permits interception only "where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act". Wire, oral and electronic are all covered.
For in-person conversation, Malpas v. State, 695 A.2d 588 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997), held speech loud enough to be heard next door without a device unprotected, so a privacy element applies. For telephone calls RCFP states no privacy-expectation limit applies, which means every call is inside the statute regardless of how private it was.
On notice: practitioner commentary states consent may be express or implied, and that a person clearly told the call is being recorded who keeps talking can be found to have impliedly consented, while noting that implied consent is harder to prove afterwards. No specific Maryland decision was verified for that, so treat it as commentary rather than settled authority. No authority was found on beeps or calendar-invite notices.
What happens if you get it wrong
A felony: "imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both", under § 10-402(b). Hidden-camera violations are misdemeanors at up to a year and $2,500.
Private right of action under § 10-410: actual and punitive damages plus reasonable fees and costs. No fixed statutory-damages figure was found, so the dollar minimum is unclear and any number you see quoted should be checked.
If the other person is in another state
No rule settles which state's law applies to a conversation spanning two of them, several may apply at once, and courts have reached opposite results on comparable facts. If anyone in the meeting is in Maryland, the practical answer is to satisfy Maryland. The general problem is on the US overview.
What to say
Said before the substance starts, so the consent is prior; asking a question, so an answer is on the record rather than inferred from silence; and offering a way out, which is what makes the answer mean anything.
Before we start: I'm recording and transcribing this meeting so I have accurate notes. It runs on my own laptop and nothing is uploaded. Is everyone okay with that? If anyone would rather I didn't, say so now and I'll turn it off.
Then leave a beat for an answer. Longer and shorter versions are on telling people you're recording.
Where Earkeep sits in this
Earkeep records continuously and announces itself to nobody: no bot in the participant list, no banner on anyone else's screen. Where every participant's agreement is what makes the recording lawful, that means the whole of the obligation sits on you saying something, and the app will not remind you.
What it gives you is somewhere to go when the answer is no. A pause from the live edge releases the microphone and the system audio stream, so your operating system's own recording indicator goes dark in front of the person who asked. A meeting on a connected calendar can be marked never-record, so a standing meeting is decided once. And a stretch of the day, or a saved meeting with its transcript, can be purged: the lines come out of the file on your own disk and nothing is written in their place, with no server copy anywhere. The one caveat is that it is not recoverable either.
None of that makes a recording lawful in Maryland. Consent law is about the recording, not about where it is stored, so the fact that transcription runs on your own device and the audio is never written to disk is not an answer to the statute. It is an answer to a different and often more pressing question in the room.
Sources
Frequently asked questions
Is Maryland a two-party consent state?
Yes, and more precisely all-party: § 10-402(c)(3) requires that you be a party and that every party has given prior consent, however many there are.
Does Maryland protect a conversation that was not private?
It depends on the medium, which is the asymmetry worth knowing. For in-person conversation, Malpas v. State held that speech loud enough to be overheard next door without a device is unprotected. For telephone calls RCFP reports no privacy-expectation limit at all, so every call is inside the statute.
Does continuing to talk count as consent in Maryland?
Practitioner commentary says implied consent is available and that someone clearly told a call is recorded who keeps talking may be found to have consented, while warning it is hard to prove afterwards. No Maryland decision was verified for that, so we would ask rather than rely on it.
Related
- US recording laws, state by state: the federal baseline, the cross-border problem, and all 51 jurisdictions.
- Telling people you're recording: the scripts, and the three ways to stop.
- Private by design: why the audio never leaves your computer.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. It summarises statutes and cases rather than replacing them, and we are not lawyers. If the answer matters, ask someone who can be held to their answer.
Ask the room, then keep the answer
14-day full trial, no account required.