Lights, Camera… Limits? Owners’ Rights to Record Meetings and How Florida Associations May Regulate Them
Disputes over owners recording community association meetings have become increasingly common as smartphones and portable devices make capturing audio and video effortless. Transparency is essential to effective community governance, but unregulated recording can quickly undermine meeting decorum, intimidate directors, or lead to misuse of recordings on social media. For boards and community association managers, understanding exactly what Florida law allows, and what it permits community associations to regulate, is helpful in limiting conflict and promoting open and orderly meetings.
Florida’s Condominium Act contains a clear, affirmative right for unit owners to record meetings. Section 718.112(2)(c)1., Florida Statutes, states “Meetings of the board of administration at which a quorum of the members is present shall be open to all unit owners. Unit owners may tape record or videotape such meetings.” Although the statute uses outdated terms such as “tape record,” this language has been interpreted to include any contemporary audio or video recording device. The right is unconditional, but the statute simultaneously authorizes boards to adopt reasonable rules governing the “taping and videotaping” of meetings.
With respect to homeowners’ associations, Section 720.306(10), Florida Statutes, expressly provides “Any parcel owner may tape record or videotape meetings of the board of directors and meetings of the members. The board of directors of the homeowners’ association may adopt reasonable rules governing the taping of meetings of the board and the membership.” This language confirms that homeowners’ association parcel owners have the same affirmative right to record meetings as condominium owners. Like Chapter 718, Chapter 720 allows homeowners’ associations to adopt reasonable rules regulating the manner of recording, but those rules may not restrict the right itself.
It is generally held that while procedural rules are permitted, associations cannot impose restrictions that effectively prevent owners from exercising the statutory right. A rule is lawful only if it regulates the manner of recording without burdening the right itself. For example, requiring a device to be silent or stationary is permissible, while prohibiting video but allowing audio is not.
Determining whether a rule is “reasonable” requires distinguishing between regulating conduct and restricting statutory rights. A rule is considered reasonable when it preserves meeting decorum, safety, and the board’s ability to conduct business while still allowing owners to exercise their statutory right to record. Measures such as requiring recording devices to remain silent, prohibiting owners from walking around the room while filming, or designating a non‑obstructive area for recording are permissible time, place, and manner regulations because they address how recording occurs without limiting the right itself.
By contrast, rules that go beyond regulating how recording takes place are not considered reasonable. Associations may regulate the manner of recording, but they may not adopt rules that effectively prevent owners from exercising the statutory right. Measures that cap the number of owners who may record, impose procedures so burdensome that a typical owner would be discouraged from recording, or ban video recording altogether are generally unlawful because they impede or restrict the statutory right rather than regulate its manner.
Although associations cannot control how recordings are used after the meeting, they may address owner conduct when recording activity violates other legal rights. For example, Florida’s two‑party consent law, Section 934.03, Florida Statutes, prohibits recording of certain private conversations without consent. Additionally, community associations may also address harassment, intimidation, or interference with association operations stemming from recording activity, so long as any rule or enforcement action is directed at the disruptive conduct rather than the act of recording the meeting.
The most effective way for boards to avoid disputes is to adopt a written recording policy as part of their governing documents. A written policy ensures consistent enforcement, reduces the risk of selective enforcement claims, and gives officers, directors, and managers a clear script for addressing disruptive behavior. The policy should be neutral, technology‑agnostic, and tied to practical operational concerns such as maintaining clear walkways, preventing noise, and avoiding interference with meetings. Directors should also assume that any portion of an open meeting may be publicly shared and conduct themselves accordingly.
Florida law is clear that both condominium unit owners and homeowners’ association parcel owners have a statutory right to record and videotape open meetings. Sections 718.112(2)(c) and 720.306(10), Florida Statutes, place transparency at the forefront of community governance while allowing associations to adopt reasonable rules to maintain order. When boards understand these boundaries and adopt fair, well‑drafted policies, they can protect both owners’ rights and the integrity of the association’s meetings.
For assistance with drafting a policy on meeting recordings for your community, please contact your Association attorney.