{"id":15050,"date":"2026-04-03T15:57:48","date_gmt":"2026-04-03T20:57:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/?p=15050"},"modified":"2026-04-03T15:57:48","modified_gmt":"2026-04-03T20:57:48","slug":"peta-challenges-two-party-consent-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/2026\/04\/03\/peta-challenges-two-party-consent-law\/","title":{"rendered":"PETA Challenges Two-Party Consent Law"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Emma Anmolsingh, Staff Writer<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Photo courtesy of Unsplash<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On February 2, 2026, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the Massachusetts two-party party consent law.[1]<\/a> PETA argued that the law prevents investigations and documentation of animal abuse.[2]<\/a> Massachusetts is one of several U.S. states that follows the two-party consent law requiring all participants in a conversation to give consent for a recording to be legal.[3]<\/a> Violating the Massachusetts two-party consent law can lead to criminal charges, including fines and imprisonment for up to five years.[4]<\/a> Individuals whose privacy rights were consequently violated can pursue civil damages.[5]<\/a> Alternatively, one-party consent states indicate that as long as one participant in the conversation agrees to the recording, it is considered legal.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

PETA filed its action seeking an exemption to the Massachusetts law so that the organization can continue conducting important undercover investigations that protect animals and consumers, hold perpetrators accountable, and keep the public informed about crimes committed out of sight.[7]<\/a> PETA cited a number of high-profile investigations that required the use of secret recordings, noting that, without the ability to gain such recordings, it would not have been able to expose various animal abuse and mistreatment instances.[8]<\/a> One of these past investigations led PETA to uncover 5,000 beagle dogs and puppies being confined in small cages all hours of the day at a massive breeding factory farm in Cumberland VA.[9]<\/a> Reportedly, the dogs were kept in sheds that stretched as long as a football field with extremely high noise levels resulting from continuous barking.[10]<\/a> The factory farm operated for more than 50 years, breeding the dogs to sell them to laboratories for experimentation.[11]<\/a> An example of the inhumane treatment the dogs and puppies faced included medical treatment by staff workers who wrongly inserted needles into various parts of the dogs\u2019 bodies instead of veterinarians.[12]<\/a> Additionally, they were repeatedly tattooed by getting needles pressed into their ears multiple times\u2014the first time with the wrong information, the second time with \u201cX\u2019s\u201d over the mistake, and the third time with the correct intended tattooed information.[13]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

PETA further argued that because of the two-party consent law, the organization is not likely to record the sounds animals make whenever other humans are present because capturing any human sound would expose them to criminal liability.[14]<\/a> Recording the sounds animals make in the presence of humans is important to investigations because vocalizations and labored breathing can be signs of distress among many animals. [15]<\/a> In its lawsuit, PETA emphasizes that the law should \u201cprotect vulnerable individuals, not safeguard violent ones.\u201d[16]<\/a> Therefore, PETA argues that Massachusetts should allow exceptions to the two-party wiretapping law for whistleblowers who work to expose cruelty.[17]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

PETA\u2019s lawsuit raises questions about balancing privacy rights with the public\u2019s interest in exposing wrongdoing. Pennsylvania is also one of the 11 two-party consent states meaning that the Massachusetts ruling may be persuasive in influencing or shaping similar arguments in Pennsylvania. While some strongly believe that legislation should advance fundamental privacy rights in all circumstances, others may agree with PETA, believing that sometimes exceptions to the law must be made to reveal unpleasant truths that aid in preventing abuse.[18]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> https:\/\/www.boston.com\/news\/local-news\/2026\/02\/03\/peta-sues-over-mass-wiretap-laws-saying-they-impede-animal-cruelty-investigations\/<\/a>   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> https:\/\/www.intradyn.com\/recording-conversations-understanding-consent-laws-and-legal-risks\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> https:\/\/www.boston.com\/news\/local-news\/2026\/02\/03\/peta-sues-over-mass-wiretap-laws-saying-they-impede-animal-cruelty-investigations\/<\/a>   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> https:\/\/investigations.peta.org\/dog-beagle-breeding-mill-envigo\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> https:\/\/www.boston.com\/news\/local-news\/2026\/02\/03\/peta-sues-over-mass-wiretap-laws-saying-they-impede-animal-cruelty-investigations\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> https:\/\/www.ntia.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/publications\/11-08-2018_public_interest_privacy_principles_final_0.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Emma Anmolsingh, Staff Writer Photo courtesy of Unsplash On February 2, 2026, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the Massachusetts two-party party consent law.[1] PETA argued that the law prevents investigations and documentation of animal abuse.[2] Massachusetts is one [\u2026] <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[1380,3036],"class_list":["post-15050","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-juris-blog","tag-peta","tag-two-party-consent"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15050","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15050"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15050\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15052,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15050\/revisions\/15052"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15050"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15050"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15050"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}