Law / United States / 
Connecticut
Connecticut Action for Illegal Recording of Private Telephonic Communications
In force.
An interception and recording consent rule binding public and private bodies.
- Criminal exposure
- No
- Private right of action
- Yes
- Obligation class
- Consent, Prohibition
What it requires
- Before using an instrument, device or equipment to record an oral private telephonic communication, either obtain the consent of all parties to it in writing or as part of, and at the start of, the recording, or give verbal notification recorded at the beginning and made part of the communication, or use an automatic tone-warning device that produces a distinct signal repeated at approximately fifteen-second intervals throughout the call.NIST Privacy FrameworkCT.PO-P1NIST Privacy FrameworkCM.AW-P1
- This duty reaches a party to the call who records it, not only a third party, and Connecticut carries no general exception letting a business record its own customer, sales or support calls without using one of these three mechanisms.NIST Privacy FrameworkCT.PO-P1
- These duties do not apply to: a federal, state or local law enforcement official recording in the lawful performance of duty; a public or private safety agency employee recording an emergency call; a person who, as recipient, records a threatening, extortionate or otherwise unlawfully demanding call; a person who, as recipient, records a call that occurs repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour; a common carrier employee performing lawful duties or providing wiretap facilities to law enforcement; an FCC-licensed broadcast station employee recording solely for broadcast; a United States Secret Service employee recording calls concerning presidential or White House safety; and an FCC broadcast licensee's employee recording as part of a cooperative broadcast programming effort solely for broadcast.
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text. Also read by: 47 Conn. App. 764 (recorded ).
In the frameworks
- NIST Privacy Framework
- CT.PO-P1Policies, processes, and procedures for authorizing data processing (e.g., organizational decisions, individual consent), revoking authorizations, and maintaining authorizations are established and in place.
- CM.AW-P1Mechanisms (e.g., notices, internal or public reports) for communicating data processing purposes, practices, associated privacy risks, and options for enabling individuals’ data processing preferences and requests are established and in place.
- FINOS AIGF
- AIR-PREV-005System Acceptance Testing
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework, and in the NIST Privacy Framework, line by line beside each duty above. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
A private civil action under Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d(c), brought by any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection (a).
Settledness
An annotation to the section records that it does not waive the state's sovereign immunity from suit, 193 Conn. App. 576.
- As of
- Case citation
- 47 Conn. App. 764
- Open questions
- Does section 52-570d(a), which names no territorial limit, reach a recording made outside Connecticut of a call with a party in Connecticut?
- Must a person who sues as “aggrieved” under section 52-570d(c) show actual loss, given that the subsection says only that the person may “recover damages”?
What this law does
No person may use an instrument, device or equipment to record an oral private telephonic communication unless the recording is preceded by the consent of all parties to the communication, obtained in writing or as part of, and at the start of, the recording, or is preceded by verbal notification recorded at the beginning and made part of the communication, or is accompanied by an automatic tone-warning device that produces a distinct signal repeated at approximately fifteen-second intervals throughout the use of the instrument.
This civil duty reaches a party to the call, unlike the wiretapping and mechanical-overhearing offenses of sections 53a-187 to 53a-189, which apply only to a non-party. It does not apply to a federal, state or local law enforcement official acting in the lawful performance of duty. It does not apply to a public or private safety agency employee recording a call of an emergency nature.
It does not apply to a person who, as the recipient, records a call conveying threats of extortion, bodily harm or other unlawful demands. It does not apply to a person who, as the recipient, records a call that occurs repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour.
Further exceptions reach a communication common carrier's employee performing lawful duties or providing facilities to law enforcement under a wiretapping order, an FCC-licensed broadcast station employee recording solely for broadcast, a United States Secret Service employee recording calls concerning the safety of the President or the White House, and an FCC broadcast licensee's employee recording as part of a broadcast network or cooperative programming effort solely for broadcast.
Connecticut carves out no general exception for a business recording its own customer or sales calls. Such a business must rely on one of the three consent, notice or tone-warning mechanisms like any other recording party. Any person aggrieved by a violation may bring a civil action in the Superior Court to recover damages, together with costs and a reasonable attorney's fee. The section names no fixed statutory-damages amount.
No source stating the specific day Public Act 90-305 came into force has been located. Connecticut's general rule for public acts, General Statutes section 2-32, places the effective date on October 1 of the year of passage absent a stated date in the act itself.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app records calls or processes voice recordings.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .