Law / United States / 
Massachusetts
Interception of Wire and Oral Communications
In force.
An interception and recording consent rule binding public and private bodies.
- Obligation class
- Consent, Prohibition
What it requires
- Obtain the prior authorization of every party to a wire or oral communication before secretly hearing, recording, or transmitting its contents, or aiding another to do so, with any device; a recording made openly, with the parties aware it is happening, is not restricted by this duty, because the statute's own definition of an interception requires secrecy.
- Do not disclose or use the contents of a wire or oral communication, or aid another to do so, knowing it was obtained through an unlawful interception.
- This duty does not reach an office intercommunication system used in the ordinary course of business, or a common carrier's own use of its facilities in the ordinary course of its business; a financial institution may record calls with a corporate or institutional trading partner if it gives that partner semi-annual written notice that designated lines are recorded.
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text. Also read by: Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital, SJC-13542 (Mass. ) (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.
- FINOS AIGF
- AIR-PREV-005System Acceptance Testing
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
If you get it wrong
Criminal exposureYes
Private right of actionYes
Criminal exposure note
Willfully committing, attempting, or procuring another to commit an interception is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000, imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and a half years, or both.
Penalty structure
The fine of not more than $10,000 is the ceiling for willfully committing, attempting or procuring an interception, which also carries imprisonment. Knowingly disclosing or using the contents of an unlawfully intercepted communication, and possessing an interception device with intent to use it unlawfully, are separate misdemeanors with a fine of up to $5,000.
- Rule
- Fixed only
- As of
- Currency
- USD
- Fixed cap
- 10,000
Statutory damages
The court awards actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at $100 for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher, plus punitive damages and a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs.
- As of
- Currency
- USD
- Per person minimum
- 1,000
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
Private civil action under paragraph Q; criminal prosecution by the Commonwealth.
Settledness
- As of
- Case link
- https://web.archive.org/web/20241103032347if_/https://www.mass.gov/doc/vita-v-new-england-baptist-hospital-sjc-13542/download
- Case citation
- Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital, SJC-13542 (Mass. )
- Open questions
- Does 'communication' in section 99 reach a message a person types into a website's chat feature or form, as distinct from the browsing of published pages that the Supreme Judicial Court held ambiguous in Vita?
What this law does
Section 99 makes it unlawful to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or record the contents of a wire or oral communication by any means, unless the person doing so has been given prior authority by all the parties to the communication, so a recording made openly with the parties' knowledge falls outside this definition and a party's own secret recording is not excused merely by that party's participation.
The Supreme Judicial Court held in 2024 that the act's word "communication" is ambiguous as applied to a person's browsing of publicly available information on a hospital's websites, so under the rule of lenity the plaintiff's wiretap act claims over that browsing should be dismissed. An office intercommunication system used in the ordinary course of business, and a common carrier's own use of its facilities in the ordinary course of its business, are exempt.
A financial institution may record its calls with a corporate or institutional trading partner if it gives that partner semi-annual written notice that designated lines are recorded. A person whose communication is unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, or used has a civil action for actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100 for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher, plus punitive damages and a reasonable attorney's fee.
Willfully committing or attempting an interception, or procuring another to do so, is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000, imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and a half years, or both; knowingly disclosing or using the contents of an unlawfully intercepted communication, and possessing an interception device with intent to use it unlawfully, are each a separate misdemeanor punishable by up to two years in a jail or house of correction or a fine of up to $5,000.
The provisions this entry describes came into force on different days.
How courts have read itPremium data
Our analysis of this law draws on 1 court ruling.
What each ruling held, what it means for an app, and whether it still stands are premium data, in the Plus, Pro and Enterprise plans.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app records calls, records text chat, processes voice recordings or deploys a chatbot.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .