Earkeep
Is Michigan a one-party consent state?
Last updated: · Reviewed quarterly
It is commonly listed as one, and the statutory text says the opposite. MCL 750.539c makes it a felony for a person who is present or not present during a private conversation to use a device to eavesdrop without the consent of all parties. A 1982 Court of Appeals decision read that down to exclude participants, the federal courts follow it, and the Michigan Supreme Court has never decided the question.
The short answer
Announce it. The prevailing reading probably protects you, but it rests on an appellate decision the state's highest court has twice passed over, and the offence is a felony.
The statute
The text. MCL 750.539c makes it a felony for a person "who is present or who is not present during a private conversation" to wilfully use any device "to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto". Read alone, that is an all-party rule that expressly reaches participants.
The participant exception. Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982), held the statutory language "on its face, unambiguously excludes participant recording from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the subject conversation to 'the private discourse of others'", the phrase coming from MCL 750.539a. On that reading a participant may record without anyone else's consent.
The federal courts have followed Sullivan. The district court in AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas initially read the statute as all-party, then reversed and held it is not violated when a conversation is recorded by one of its participants. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the participant exception in Fisher v. Perron (2022). One published source printed an impossible reporter citation for Fisher, so we cite it by name and year only.
Unresolved at the top. The Michigan Supreme Court declined the certified question from AFT Michigan in May 2021 and later declined to revisit it. The rule is keyed to a "private conversation", so non-private conversations fall outside either way.
What happens if you get it wrong
A felony. Eavesdropping and hidden-camera violations under MCL 750.539c, 539d and 540 carry up to two years and $2,000. Distributing illegally obtained recordings under 750.539d and 539j carries up to five years and $5,000.
Private right of action under MCL 750.539h: an injunction, all actual damages against the eavesdropper, and punitive damages as determined by the court or jury. No statutory dollar amount.
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 Michigan, the practical answer is to satisfy Michigan. 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 Michigan. 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 Michigan a one-party consent state?
Commonly listed as one, and genuinely disputed. MCL 750.539c reads all-party and expressly reaches a person who is present. Sullivan v. Gray read it down to exclude participants, the federal courts follow that, and the Michigan Supreme Court has twice declined to resolve it.
Can I record a meeting I am in, in Michigan?
On the prevailing reading, yes. We would still announce it, because the reading rests on a 1982 Court of Appeals decision rather than on the statutory text or a Supreme Court holding, and the offence is a felony.
Has the Michigan Supreme Court decided the question?
No. It declined the certified question from AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas in May 2021 and later declined to revisit it, so the participant exception remains an appellate reading rather than settled state law.
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.