Butzel Prevails In Long‑Running Michigan Eavesdropping Statute Litigation

On March 30, 2026, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of Butzel’s clients, finally dismissing claims made under the Michigan Eavesdropping Statute in AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas, et al, Case No. 17‑cv‑13292. This ruling caps nearly nine years of intensive litigation on this cause of action in which the eavesdropping claim was repeatedly litigated, appealed, certified to the Michigan Supreme Court, returned to the district court, and ultimately rejected on the merits.

This suit originally alleged nine causes of action against Butzel’s clients. Most of those claims have now been dismissed. While various issues remain in the case, including the question of whether there were any damages incurred at all underpinning each of the asserted claims, Defendants won a clear victory for free speech with the dismissal of claims raised under the Michigan Eavesdropping Statute.

Critically, the dismissal confirms that Michigan remains a one‑party consent state for recordings made by a party to a conversation and represents a decisive victory for defendants facing expansive interpretations of Michigan’s eavesdropping law. The decision also underscores the limits of civil liability where recordings are made by a party, even in highly contested factual settings. What this latest ruling also confirms is that the definition of who is a “party” to a conversation is not a narrow and limited one; rather it is a common sense one.

Background of the Dispute

The case arose in 2017, when AFT Michigan, the Michigan affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers, filed suit against Project Veritas and an undercover journalist who had obtained an internship with AFT Michigan. The undercover journalist obtained previously unreported information and, in the process, recorded conversations with AFT Michigan employees. AFT Michigan brought a civil action, asserting a wide range of claims including fraud, trespass, misappropriation of trade secrets, and violations of Michigan’s Eavesdropping Statute, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c.

From the outset, a major piece of the litigation centered on a threshold legal question: whether Michigan law prohibits the recording of a conversation by a person who themselves is a party to that conversation. Although Michigan had long been understood as a one‑party consent state, the Plaintiff sought to redefine this body of legal precedent, arguing that the statute might require all‑party consent.

Early District Court Rulings and Interlocutory Appeal

Early in the case, the district court issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part Butzel’s motion to dismiss. While several claims were dismissed, the court allowed the eavesdropping claim to proceed, drawing into question the then-recognized precedent permitting a participant to record a conversation he or she was a party to, even if they did not have permission of all parties. The court ruled that it believed that if the Michigan Supreme Court were to rule on the issue, they would find the statute to be a two-party consent statute—meaning that to record a conversation, one must have the permission of all parties to the conversation. Recognizing the broader implications of its statutory interpretation, the court permitted an interlocutory appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, however, declined to take the matter, instead stating that the parties could appeal a final judgment if they wished to. Thus, the matter was sent back down.

Certified Question to the Michigan Supreme Court

In September 2020, the district court took the rare step of certifying a question—here, the question of one-party consent for audio recordings—to the Michigan Supreme Court, asking whether Michigan’s eavesdropping statute criminalizes recordings made by a participant to the conversation without the consent of all other participants.

The Michigan Supreme Court accepted the certified question, and the issue drew extensive amicus participation, reflecting its importance to journalists, investigators, employers, and privacy advocates. Butzel was proud to assemble a vast, bipartisan, eclectic group of supporters who filed “friend of the court” briefs on behalf of the issue raised. Ultimately, though, the Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear the issue, once again extending the long and winding road of this matter, sending it back to the federal District Court.

Proceedings on Remand and Narrowing of Claims

Once the matter was returned to the Eastern District of Michigan, Butzel, on behalf of its clients, requested that the district court reconsider its prior ruling. The district court did so, and this time reversed its prior ruling and dismissed the eavesdropping claim to the extent it was based on recordings of conversations to which the operative was a participant, and the case proceeded on a narrowed factual and legal record. Over the next several years, the court resolved numerous discovery disputes and expert challenges, further constraining the scope of the remaining issues.

Final Disposition on the Michigan Eavesdropping Statute: Summary Judgment for Butzel’s clients

Earlier this week, on March 30, 2026, nearly nine years after the lawsuit was filed, the district court granted Defendants' Summary Judgment on the Michigan Eavesdropping Statute claim, dismissing it in its entirety.

Central to the debate at this stage was whether the Defendants in question were properly defined as a “party” or “participant” to the conversations in question. The Michigan Eavesdropping Statute permits “one-party consent,” meaning that “a potential eavesdropper must be a third party not otherwise involved in the conversation being eavesdropped on.” So far as one party to a conversation consents to the recording—even if it is the party conducting the recording—then the statute is not violated.

In the instant case, the person recording the conversations was present for the only conversations in dispute. The Plaintiff, however, argued that because the recording party was merely an “observer” to the conversation and did not actually speak or participate in the dialogue, they were not a “party” to the conversation. The court undertook this “observer” versus “party” question.

The court was unequivocal. “The Court concludes that Defendants’ interpretation of the statute is correct. As other district judges have observed, courts considering the scope of the one-party consent rule have concluded that a person whose presence is apparent in the midst of a communication is considered a party, whether or not that person actually participates verbally in the communication.” (quotations marks and citations omitted). Thus, the court “therefore concludes that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment under Michigan’s wiretapping statute.”

This ruling still does not conclude the entire proceeding. But it does end a lengthy journey for the current state of Michigan law pertaining to the Michigan Eavesdropping Statute. With this ruling, the court conclusively upheld Michigan’s long-standing one-party consent rule, clarified the definition of a “party” for purposes of the one-party consent rule, and concluded one of the most closely watched Michigan Eavesdropping Statute decisions in recent Michigan history.

Key Takeaways for Clients

• Michigan remains a one‑party consent state: A participant to a conversation may lawfully record it without the consent of others.
• Someone is a “party” under the Michigan Eavesdropping Statute regardless of the amount they speak: The key question is whether the recorder is present or apparent to all others talking, not whether they spoke or uttered anything at all.
• Statutory expansion theories face steep hurdles: Even aggressive litigation strategies could not overcome long‑standing statutory text and precedent.
• Summary judgment remains a powerful tool: for eliminating claims that survive early motion practice but lack legal support on a fully developed record.
• Victories in court can often take a long time and setbacks can be overcome: Here, the issue in question was first debated in 2017, nearly nine years ago. But ultimately, the correct analysis prevailed.

Conclusion

After nearly a decade of litigation—including interlocutory appeals, a certified question to the Michigan Supreme Court, and years of proceedings—the dismissal of the eavesdropping claim marks a complete and decisive victory for the Defendants on the question of whether they violated the Michigan Eavesdropping Statute. The ruling restores and even extends clarity to Michigan’s eavesdropping statute and provides meaningful protection against efforts to expand civil liability under the long-understood statute.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.