Wiretap Act, one-party consent (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d))
Under federal law the prior consent of one party (for example an employee who signed a monitoring and data-use policy) removes Wiretap Act liability, unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. That consent speaks only for the person who gave it: outside correspondents on the same threads have not consented, and some state wiretap laws require every party to consent, so a consent-based programme should be scoped to the consenting staff and to states that allow it.
Dated 17 Oct 2026Source checked 17 Oct 2026Basis: primary text
In the source's own words
“It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.”
Where it was read
Figures it counts in
It is shown on its own, not counted into a figure.
Cited in these 2 guides