1060

I'm trying to put together a comprehensive regex to validate phone numbers. Ideally it would handle international formats, but it must handle US formats, including the following:

  • 1-234-567-8901
  • 1-234-567-8901 x1234
  • 1-234-567-8901 ext1234
  • 1 (234) 567-8901
  • 1.234.567.8901
  • 1/234/567/8901
  • 12345678901

I'll answer with my current attempt, but I'm hoping somebody has something better and/or more elegant.

4
  • 2
    This answer has been added to the Stack Overflow Regular Expression FAQ, under "Common Validation Tasks". Commented Apr 10, 2014 at 1:24
  • Unfortunately, going to that page and searching for "Common Validation Tasks" yields no results... Commented Jul 25, 2022 at 0:09
  • Is this a regex task? Commented Mar 29, 2023 at 8:59
  • In some cases, this is an XY Problem. You asked for a predicate which returns True if a phone number is valid, but you really just wanted a correct phone number. For anyone who is trying to sanitize phone numbers typed by end-users into a webpage or cellphone app, I recommend simply have 4 or 5 lines of code which goes left to right one character at a time and discards all non-numbers. (303)873-9919 becomes 3038739919. After deleting all non-numbers you can insert (dots .), insert (hyphens -) or slashes at the proper positions. Commented Apr 14, 2023 at 2:21

46 Answers 46

554

Better option... just strip all non-digit characters on input (except 'x' and leading '+' signs), taking care because of the British tendency to write numbers in the non-standard form +44 (0) ... when asked to use the international prefix (in that specific case, you should discard the (0) entirely).

Then, you end up with values like:

 12345678901
 12345678901x1234
 345678901x1234
 12344678901
 12345678901
 12345678901
 12345678901
 +4112345678
 +441234567890

Then when you display, reformat to your hearts content. e.g.

  1 (234) 567-8901
  1 (234) 567-8901 x1234
24
  • 42
    The formatting code is going to be a waste of time if the numbers are allowed to come from outside the US. Commented Jul 21, 2009 at 12:13
  • 30
    This is good and all, but it doesn't validate what was entered was actually a phone number. For example, what if the user doesn't enter the requisite 10 digits? This should be combined with good regex validation. Commented Jul 29, 2010 at 13:40
  • 149
    Considering the question was about validation - this is a really really bad answer.
    – PlexQ
    Commented Mar 30, 2012 at 17:12
  • 18
    @PlexQ I disagree. The original problem is trying to handle phone number validation because it was trying to handle all the possible formatting options. Rather than try to solve all that, take the input and "pre-strip" it of all formatting fluff until you have just the "number". Doing this solves 2 problems - testing the result is now easy and you can now ensure that values rendered back out for display can all be formatted consistently. The first comment on this answer about the "Complicator's Gloves" is a good read... sometimes the answer to a problem is to approach it differently.
    – scunliffe
    Commented Mar 30, 2012 at 20:19
  • 47
    How the hell is this such a highly voted answer? This doesn't validate anything. What's worse is all the other phone number validation questions reference this one...
    – jlars62
    Commented Jun 19, 2014 at 18:37
336
.*

If the users want to give you their phone numbers, then trust them to get it right. If they do not want to give it to you then forcing them to enter a valid number will either send them to a competitor's site or make them enter a random string that fits your regex. I might even be tempted to look up the number of a premium rate horoscope hotline and enter that instead.

I would also consider any of the following as valid entries on a web site:

"123 456 7890 until 6pm, then 098 765 4321"  
"123 456 7890 or try my mobile on 098 765 4321"  
"ex-directory - mind your own business"
13
  • 246
    I agree with the sentiment here, but sometimes it's nice to perform validation when the phone number is actually going to be used for something important in the interest of the user. Best example here is credit card authorization for a purchase. If the phone number is wrong, the auth might fail.
    – Pointy
    Commented Nov 10, 2010 at 18:21
  • 66
    If the user doesn't want to enter his phone number you can just allow the field to be optional, but is it to much to ask the user to enter a valid phone number if they are going to enter one? Commented Dec 6, 2010 at 19:41
  • 13
    Also a role of validation is simply to remind people to add area codes etc that they might not otherwise remember to add, but which cannot possibly be guessed after the fact. Commented Feb 23, 2011 at 0:09
  • 37
    @Pointy But regex validation won't help you. The one and the only way to actually validate if the phone number is correct is to actually send a message to it (in case of mobile) AND make sure the user confirms using some kind of verification code. This is what you do when the number correctness is important. Everything else is just for user's convenience to protect against some (but not all) typos and does not validate anything.
    – Alex B
    Commented Nov 16, 2012 at 6:40
  • 17
    Cool. My phone number is 1' OR 1=1 -- PWNED. See xkcd.com/327 and owasp.org/index.php/Testing_for_SQL_Injection_(OWASP-DV-005) Commented Sep 19, 2013 at 8:31
333

It turns out that there's something of a spec for this, at least for North America, called the NANP.

You need to specify exactly what you want. What are legal delimiters? Spaces, dashes, and periods? No delimiter allowed? Can one mix delimiters (e.g., +0.111-222.3333)? How are extensions (e.g., 111-222-3333 x 44444) going to be handled? What about special numbers, like 911? Is the area code going to be optional or required?

Here's a regex for a 7 or 10 digit number, with extensions allowed, delimiters are spaces, dashes, or periods:

^(?:(?:\+?1\s*(?:[.-]\s*)?)?(?:\(\s*([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-8]1|[2-9][02-8][02-9])\s*\)|([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-8]1|[2-9][02-8][02-9]))\s*(?:[.-]\s*)?)?([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-9]1|[2-9][02-9]{2})\s*(?:[.-]\s*)?([0-9]{4})(?:\s*(?:#|x\.?|ext\.?|extension)\s*(\d+))?$
11
  • 7
    here it is without the extension section (I make my users enter ext in a separate field): ^(?:(?:\+?1\s*(?:[.-]\s*)?)?(?:(\s*([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-8]1|[2-9][02-8][02-9])\s*)|([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-8]1|[2-9][02-8][02-9]))\s*(?:[.-]\s*)?)?([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-9]1|[2-9][02-9]{2})\s*(?:[.-]\s*)?([0-9]{4})$
    – aarona
    Commented May 4, 2010 at 4:37
  • 20
    Here is a version that only matches 10 digit phone numbers (not 7 digit like 843-1212): /(?:(?:\+?1\s*(?:[.-]\s*)?)?(?:(\s*([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-8]1|[2-9][02-8][02-9])\s*)|([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-8]1|[2-9][02-8][02-9]))\s*(?:[.-]\s*)?)([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-9]1|[2-9][02-9]{2})\s*(?:[.-]\s*)?([0-9]{4})/ Commented Sep 7, 2010 at 19:32
  • 11
    10 digit accepts () around area code, and dosen't allow preceeding 1 as country code (?:(?:(\s*\(?([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-8]1|[2-9][02-8][02-9])\s*)|([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-8]1|[2-9][02-8][02-9]))\)?\s*(?:[.-]\s*)?)([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-9]1|[2-9][02-9]{2})\s*(?:[.-]\s*)?([0-9]{4})
    – Brooke.
    Commented Jan 9, 2011 at 5:09
  • 6
    @StevenSoroka I have had Jeffrey Friedl's book beside me on my desk for the past two years, as regular expressions are a major part of my work. It takes a good while to really understand regular expressions. Sometimes, the readers of this site are simply looking for an existing soltuion, rather than writing their own, especially in domains with lots of corner cases, such as phone number representations.
    – Justin R.
    Commented Mar 28, 2013 at 21:06
  • 7
    @fatcat1111 I understand that, but majority of the responses here are "me too" type of one-off regular expressions that likely don't fit any of your corner cases. These then end up on all the websites I'm trying to use and I can't enter my zip code or phone number or email address because someone used a half-baked regular-expression (eg: + is a valid character in email addresses). The best responses on this page point users to libraries, not to napkin-scrawled regexes. Commented Apr 5, 2013 at 21:49
204

I would also suggest looking at the "libphonenumber" Google Library. I know it is not regex but it does exactly what you want.

For example, it will recognize that:

15555555555

is a possible number but not a valid number. It also supports countries outside the US.

Highlights of functionality:

  • Parsing/formatting/validating phone numbers for all countries/regions of the world.
  • getNumberType - gets the type of the number based on the number itself; able to distinguish Fixed-line, Mobile, Toll-free, Premium Rate, Shared Cost, VoIP and Personal Numbers (whenever feasible).
  • isNumberMatch - gets a confidence level on whether two numbers could be the same.
  • getExampleNumber/getExampleNumberByType - provides valid example numbers for all countries/regions, with the option of specifying which type of example phone number is needed.
  • isPossibleNumber - quickly guessing whether a number is a possible phonenumber by using only the length information, much faster than a full validation.
  • isValidNumber - full validation of a phone number for a region using length and prefix information.
  • AsYouTypeFormatter - formats phone numbers on-the-fly when users enter each digit.
  • findNumbers - finds numbers in text input.
  • PhoneNumberOfflineGeocoder - provides geographical information related to a phone number.

Examples

The biggest problem with phone number validation is it is very culturally dependant.

  • America
    • (408) 974–2042 is a valid US number
    • (999) 974–2042 is not a valid US number
  • Australia
    • 0404 999 999 is a valid Australian number
    • (02) 9999 9999 is also a valid Australian number
    • (09) 9999 9999 is not a valid Australian number

A regular expression is fine for checking the format of a phone number, but it's not really going to be able to check the validity of a phone number.

I would suggest skipping a simple regular expression to test your phone number against, and using a library such as Google's libphonenumber (link to GitHub project).

Introducing libphonenumber!

Using one of your more complex examples, 1-234-567-8901 x1234, you get the following data out of libphonenumber (link to online demo):

Validation Results

Result from isPossibleNumber()  true
Result from isValidNumber()     true

Formatting Results:

E164 format                    +12345678901
Original format                (234) 567-8901 ext. 123
National format                (234) 567-8901 ext. 123
International format           +1 234-567-8901 ext. 123
Out-of-country format from US  1 (234) 567-8901 ext. 123
Out-of-country format from CH  00 1 234-567-8901 ext. 123

So not only do you learn if the phone number is valid (which it is), but you also get consistent phone number formatting in your locale.

As a bonus, libphonenumber has a number of datasets to check the validity of phone numbers, as well, so checking a number such as +61299999999 (the international version of (02) 9999 9999) returns as a valid number with formatting:

Validation Results

Result from isPossibleNumber()  true
Result from isValidNumber()     true

Formatting Results

E164 format                    +61299999999
Original format                61 2 9999 9999
National format                (02) 9999 9999
International format           +61 2 9999 9999
Out-of-country format from US  011 61 2 9999 9999
Out-of-country format from CH  00 61 2 9999 9999

libphonenumber also gives you many additional benefits, such as grabbing the location that the phone number is detected as being, and also getting the time zone information from the phone number:

PhoneNumberOfflineGeocoder Results
Location        Australia

PhoneNumberToTimeZonesMapper Results
Time zone(s)    [Australia/Sydney]

But the invalid Australian phone number ((09) 9999 9999) returns that it is not a valid phone number.

Validation Results

Result from isPossibleNumber()  true
Result from isValidNumber()     false

Google's version has code for Java and Javascript, but people have also implemented libraries for other languages that use the Google i18n phone number dataset:

Unless you are certain that you are always going to be accepting numbers from one locale, and they are always going to be in one format, I would heavily suggest not writing your own code for this, and using libphonenumber for validating and displaying phone numbers.

6
  • Noting that there is now also Go port at: github.com/ttacon/libphonenumber Commented Sep 12, 2016 at 18:59
  • When checking if it's a possible number don't you need to specify a country code? I'm using the PHP version and if I enter a British number like (replace 0's with real numbers) 07700000000 I get Missing or invalid default region. error. But if I specify the country code it will pass. Commented Nov 28, 2016 at 23:22
  • 3
    @BugHunterUK (and anyone who comes across this question and wonders the same) when parsing a number, you can specify the expected region, and the library will look for non-international numbers in that region. If you don't specify, it will reject anything not in a valid international format.
    – IMSoP
    Commented Mar 22, 2018 at 16:56
  • Consider github.com/nyaruka/phonenumbers as it has become the "official" Go package recommended by Google rather than libphonenumber.
    – DeeZone
    Commented May 6, 2019 at 14:59
  • I can confirm what @BugHunterUK says. Took time to get there, but the result is exactly as expected - local numbers accepted in any format plus all fully specified international formats.
    – dimplex
    Commented Jul 9, 2020 at 7:43
95

/^(?:(?:\(?(?:00|\+)([1-4]\d\d|[1-9]\d*)\)?)[\-\.\ \\\/]?)?((?:\(?\d{1,}\)?[\-\.\ \\\/]?)+)(?:[\-\.\ \\\/]?(?:#|ext\.?|extension|x)[\-\.\ \\\/]?(\d+))?$/i

This matches:

 - (+351) 282 43 50 50
 - 90191919908
 - 555-8909
 - 001 6867684
 - 001 6867684x1
 - 1 (234) 567-8901
 - 1-234-567-8901 x1234
 - 1-234-567-8901 ext1234
 - 1-234 567.89/01 ext.1234
 - 1(234)5678901x1234
 - (123)8575973
 - (0055)(123)8575973
 - +1 282 282 2828

On $n, it saves:

  1. Country indicator
  2. Phone number
  3. Extension

You can test it on https://regex101.com/r/kFzb1s/42

16
  • This was the most comprehensive regex I've seen. It's easy to get around until you remove ^ and $ or else I'm able to get around it using [111] [111] [1111] or 111--111--1111 and the like. (sorry, deleted my last comment)
    – bafromca
    Commented Mar 7, 2014 at 20:10
  • 17
    ^^^This is a great example of why comment threads should NOT go to chat. I am very interested in how this conversation turned out and need to know if this ReGex is sturdy enough to use in my app. Unfortunately, the chat conversation is now gone. Commented Jul 18, 2014 at 16:53
  • 2
    To be honest, i didnt went to chat. After asking multiple times for explainations, i was left with no info. You can always try it yourself with all kind of numbers you find online, in multiple formats. One thing i tried with this one is to use multiple phone numbers, but it doesnt work that well if they have spaces around. And i have to find a solution to count the amount of digits and enforce a specific amount. Commented Jul 19, 2014 at 18:09
  • 2
    @heisenberg Thank you for pointing it out, I managed to fix it. Additionally, I've added a different link with unit tests, to make sure it worked as it should. The bug was a single ? that shouldn't be there. Commented Feb 22, 2022 at 13:22
  • 1
    @Gavin I've edited it to match +1 as well. The problem is that I was assuming that the indicative was 1 ot 9 and then 1 or more numbers, but USA uses +1, which breaks the "1 or more numbers". It works now for those. Commented Mar 13, 2023 at 13:22
66

Although the answer to strip all whitespace is neat, it doesn't really solve the problem that's posed, which is to find a regex. Take, for instance, my test script that downloads a web page and extracts all phone numbers using the regex. Since you'd need a regex anyway, you might as well have the regex do all the work. I came up with this:

1?\W*([2-9][0-8][0-9])\W*([2-9][0-9]{2})\W*([0-9]{4})(\se?x?t?(\d*))?

Here's a perl script to test it. When you match, $1 contains the area code, $2 and $3 contain the phone number, and $5 contains the extension. My test script downloads a file from the internet and prints all the phone numbers in it.

#!/usr/bin/perl

my $us_phone_regex =
        '1?\W*([2-9][0-8][0-9])\W*([2-9][0-9]{2})\W*([0-9]{4})(\se?x?t?(\d*))?';


my @tests =
(
"1-234-567-8901",
"1-234-567-8901 x1234",
"1-234-567-8901 ext1234",
"1 (234) 567-8901",
"1.234.567.8901",
"1/234/567/8901",
"12345678901",
"not a phone number"
);

foreach my $num (@tests)
{
        if( $num =~ m/$us_phone_regex/ )
        {
                print "match [$1-$2-$3]\n" if not defined $4;
                print "match [$1-$2-$3 $5]\n" if defined $4;
        }
        else
        {
                print "no match [$num]\n";
        }
}

#
# Extract all phone numbers from an arbitrary file.
#
my $external_filename =
        'http://web.textfiles.com/ezines/PHREAKSANDGEEKS/PnG-spring05.txt';
my @external_file = `curl $external_filename`;
foreach my $line (@external_file)
{
        if( $line =~ m/$us_phone_regex/ )
        {
                print "match $1 $2 $3\n";
        }
}

Edit:

You can change \W* to \s*\W?\s* in the regex to tighten it up a bit. I wasn't thinking of the regex in terms of, say, validating user input on a form when I wrote it, but this change makes it possible to use the regex for that purpose.

'1?\s*\W?\s*([2-9][0-8][0-9])\s*\W?\s*([2-9][0-9]{2})\s*\W?\s*([0-9]{4})(\se?x?t?(\d*))?';
3
  • 2
    FYI the regex also matches: (4570457-6789 which would be a pretty common typo. The match groups get skewed too: rubular.com/r/TaTP0mHL5c
    – SooDesuNe
    Commented Feb 20, 2013 at 19:16
  • @SooDesuNe Prepending (^|[^\d\n]) (with multiline flag on) avoids the general problem, by ensuring it's not immediately preceded by something numeric.
    – btown
    Commented Mar 23, 2017 at 19:32
  • Note that this is North America-centric -- it misses "44 7911 123456" Commented Mar 25, 2020 at 16:40
58

I answered this question on another SO question before deciding to also include my answer as an answer on this thread, because no one was addressing how to require/not require items, just handing out regexs: Regex working wrong, matching unexpected things

From my post on that site, I've created a quick guide to assist anyone with making their own regex for their own desired phone number format, which I will caveat (like I did on the other site) that if you are too restrictive, you may not get the desired results, and there is no "one size fits all" solution to accepting all possible phone numbers in the world - only what you decide to accept as your format of choice. Use at your own risk.

Quick cheat sheet

  • Start the expression: /^
  • If you want to require a space, use: [\s] or \s
  • If you want to require parenthesis, use: [(] and [)] . Using \( and \) is ugly and can make things confusing.
  • If you want anything to be optional, put a ? after it
  • If you want a hyphen, just type - or [-] . If you do not put it first or last in a series of other characters, though, you may need to escape it: \-
  • If you want to accept different choices in a slot, put brackets around the options: [-.\s] will require a hyphen, period, or space. A question mark after the last bracket will make all of those optional for that slot.
  • \d{3} : Requires a 3-digit number: 000-999. Shorthand for [0-9][0-9][0-9].
  • [2-9] : Requires a digit 2-9 for that slot.
  • (\+|1\s)? : Accept a "plus" or a 1 and a space (pipe character, |, is "or"), and make it optional. The "plus" sign must be escaped.
  • If you want specific numbers to match a slot, enter them: [246] will require a 2, 4, or 6. (?:77|78) or [77|78] will require 77 or 78.
  • $/ : End the expression
2
  • 1
    This is very useful, but I doubt and looking for a {min,max} expression. Can you help? Commented Jan 7, 2015 at 8:02
  • If it is a single digit we're talking about (and you can make it match according to that), see the [2-9] block I put there. That means your min is 2, and your max is 9. Adjust accordingly.
    – vapcguy
    Commented Jan 7, 2015 at 21:00
34

I wrote simpliest (although i didn't need dot in it).

^([0-9\(\)\/\+ \-]*)$

As mentioned below, it checks only for characters, not its structure/order

5
  • 41
    this validates tons of numbers that are technically invalid. like, "-- +()()())())))". Learn to read regular expressions so you can understand what you're doing. Commented Mar 28, 2013 at 14:47
  • 4
    @StevenSoroka technically it may allow lot of invalid cases, but when we think about just helping the user out to avoid common mistakes with the simplest possible solution, this is the way to go :) Commented Aug 23, 2013 at 18:44
  • 2
    this also matching white space, empty line
    – Wasim A.
    Commented Sep 16, 2013 at 8:13
  • 1
    @HappyHardik. Indeed. Simple and powerful, for basic validation let the user type more than one dot, dash, bracket or plus.
    – dijipiji
    Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 12:18
  • 1
    Just used it and it's wrong in many aspects. For example, a UK phone number may begin with +44, or a phone nuber may have (0) inside it. But this is not valid according to your regular expression. I would recommend @Ismael Miguel's answer. It works just fine and I would recommend you to revise your answer. Commented Jul 29, 2015 at 10:44
23

Note that stripping () characters does not work for a style of writing UK numbers that is common: +44 (0) 1234 567890 which means dial either the international number:
+441234567890
or in the UK dial 01234567890

1
22

If you just want to verify you don't have random garbage in the field (i.e., from form spammers) this regex should do nicely:

^[0-9+\(\)#\.\s\/ext-]+$

Note that it doesn't have any special rules for how many digits, or what numbers are valid in those digits, it just verifies that only digits, parenthesis, dashes, plus, space, pound, asterisk, period, comma, or the letters e, x, t are present.

It should be compatible with international numbers and localization formats. Do you foresee any need to allow square, curly, or angled brackets for some regions? (currently they aren't included).

If you want to maintain per digit rules (such as in US Area Codes and Prefixes (exchange codes) must fall in the range of 200-999) well, good luck to you. Maintaining a complex rule-set which could be outdated at any point in the future by any country in the world does not sound fun.

And while stripping all/most non-numeric characters may work well on the server side (especially if you are planning on passing these values to a dialer), you may not want to thrash the user's input during validation, particularly if you want them to make corrections in another field.

19

Here's a wonderful pattern that most closely matched the validation that I needed to achieve. I'm not the original author, but I think it's well worth sharing as I found this problem to be very complex and without a concise or widely useful answer.

The following regex will catch widely used number and character combinations in a variety of global phone number formats:

/^\s*(?:\+?(\d{1,3}))?([-. (]*(\d{3})[-. )]*)?((\d{3})[-. ]*(\d{2,4})(?:[-.x ]*(\d+))?)\s*$/gm

Positive:
+42 555.123.4567
+1-(800)-123-4567
+7 555 1234567
+7(926)1234567
(926) 1234567
+79261234567
926 1234567
9261234567
1234567
123-4567
123-89-01
495 1234567
469 123 45 67
89261234567
8 (926) 1234567
926.123.4567
415-555-1234
650-555-2345
(416)555-3456
202 555 4567
4035555678
1 416 555 9292

Negative:
926 3 4
8 800 600-APPLE

Original source: http://www.regexr.com/38pvb

3
  • This has some limited support for extensions. It matches "616-555-1234 x567" but not "616-555-1234 ext. 567". Commented Jun 23, 2016 at 21:01
  • 3
    False positive for e.g."-------((((((55555555" or "99999999999999999999999"
    – mikep
    Commented Nov 23, 2017 at 11:46
  • It does not validate Nitherland macdonalds number +31 76 596 4192 (I was just testing for random numbers)
    – BIOHAZARD
    Commented Dec 9, 2018 at 15:28
15

Have you had a look over at RegExLib?

Entering US phone number brought back quite a list of possibilities.

2
  • 3
    This looks like a great way to integrate obscure bugs into your code.
    – Tom Lord
    Commented Oct 26, 2016 at 9:25
  • 1
    Link-only answers should be avoided because they may break in the future and render the post useless. Static solutions are always necessary to sustain the value of an answer. If you wanted to recommend a hyperlink, add it as a comment under the question. Commented Jul 31, 2020 at 20:24
15

My attempt at an unrestrictive regex:

/^[+#*\(\)\[\]]*([0-9][ ext+-pw#*\(\)\[\]]*){6,45}$/

Accepts:

+(01) 123 (456) 789 ext555
123456
*44 123-456-789 [321]
123456
123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345
*****++[](][((( 123456tteexxttppww

Rejects:

mob 07777 777777
1234 567 890 after 5pm
john smith
(empty)
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
911

It is up to you to sanitize it for display. After validating it could be a number though.

0
14

I found this to work quite well:

^\(*\+*[1-9]{0,3}\)*-*[1-9]{0,3}[-. /]*\(*[2-9]\d{2}\)*[-. /]*\d{3}[-. /]*\d{4} *e*x*t*\.* *\d{0,4}$

It works for these number formats:

1-234-567-8901
1-234-567-8901 x1234
1-234-567-8901 ext1234
1 (234) 567-8901
1.234.567.8901
1/234/567/8901
12345678901
1-234-567-8901 ext. 1234
(+351) 282 433 5050

Make sure to use global AND multiline flags to make sure.

Link: http://www.regexr.com/3bp4b

11

Here's my best try so far. It handles the formats above but I'm sure I'm missing some other possible formats.

^\d?(?:(?:[\+]?(?:[\d]{1,3}(?:[ ]+|[\-.])))?[(]?(?:[\d]{3})[\-/)]?(?:[ ]+)?)?(?:[a-zA-Z2-9][a-zA-Z0-9 \-.]{6,})(?:(?:[ ]+|[xX]|(i:ext[\.]?)){1,2}(?:[\d]{1,5}))?$
1
  • Worked like a charm! Thanks for sharing
    – KdPisda
    Commented Jan 29, 2021 at 14:55
11

If you're talking about form validation, the regexp to validate correct meaning as well as correct data is going to be extremely complex because of varying country and provider standards. It will also be hard to keep up to date.

I interpret the question as looking for a broadly valid pattern, which may not be internally consistent - for example having a valid set of numbers, but not validating that the trunk-line, exchange, etc. to the valid pattern for the country code prefix.

North America is straightforward, and for international I prefer to use an 'idiomatic' pattern which covers the ways in which people specify and remember their numbers:

^((((\(\d{3}\))|(\d{3}-))\d{3}-\d{4})|(\+?\d{2}((-| )\d{1,8}){1,5}))(( x| ext)\d{1,5}){0,1}$

The North American pattern makes sure that if one parenthesis is included both are. The international accounts for an optional initial '+' and country code. After that, you're in the idiom. Valid matches would be:

  • (xxx)xxx-xxxx
  • (xxx)-xxx-xxxx
  • (xxx)xxx-xxxx x123
  • 12 1234 123 1 x1111
  • 12 12 12 12 12
  • 12 1 1234 123456 x12345
  • +12 1234 1234
  • +12 12 12 1234
  • +12 1234 5678
  • +12 12345678

This may be biased as my experience is limited to North America, Europe and a small bit of Asia.

2
  • I've been trying to implement the above in my javascript validation script but I keep getting an invalid quantifier error. Any ideas on what I'm doing wrong?
    – Jannis
    Commented Oct 17, 2010 at 20:07
  • I'd add the trivial case where the phone is specified without symbols but maybe spaces and country code, in Europe is typical for local and mobile numbers: 676412342, 676 46 32 12, 676 463 212
    – rupps
    Commented Apr 19, 2015 at 23:12
11

This is a simple Regular Expression pattern for Philippine Mobile Phone Numbers:

((\+[0-9]{2})|0)[.\- ]?9[0-9]{2}[.\- ]?[0-9]{3}[.\- ]?[0-9]{4}

or

((\+63)|0)[.\- ]?9[0-9]{2}[.\- ]?[0-9]{3}[.\- ]?[0-9]{4}

will match these:

+63.917.123.4567  
+63-917-123-4567  
+63 917 123 4567  
+639171234567  
09171234567  

The first one will match ANY two digit country code, while the second one will match the Philippine country code exclusively.

2
  • Thanks. How about landline numbers with area code such as 028231234? I'm wondering if area codes are only 2-3 digit numbers and are they always preceded by 0?
    – stormwild
    Commented Feb 26, 2014 at 5:41
  • how to validate for canada Commented Jun 24, 2022 at 2:38
10

My gut feeling is reinforced by the amount of replies to this topic - that there is a virtually infinite number of solutions to this problem, none of which are going to be elegant.

Honestly, I would recommend you don't try to validate phone numbers. Even if you could write a big, hairy validator that would allow all the different legitimate formats, it would end up allowing pretty much anything even remotely resembling a phone number in the first place.

In my opinion, the most elegant solution is to validate a minimum length, nothing more.

2
  • After trying a number of these and going through the existing data and feedback from users i would tend to agree... Commented Jan 17, 2014 at 15:12
  • Sometimes you need to do validation though. If I'm sending out confirmation codes I can't just send a code to any random garbage a spammer has input in the field. I want to make sure the number is probably a phone number before wasting resources messaging it. Commented Apr 24, 2020 at 10:29
9

You'll have a hard time dealing with international numbers with a single/simple regex, see this post on the difficulties of international (and even north american) phone numbers.

You'll want to parse the first few digits to determine what the country code is, then act differently based on the country.

Beyond that - the list you gave does not include another common US format - leaving off the initial 1. Most cell phones in the US don't require it, and it'll start to baffle the younger generation unless they've dialed internationally.

You've correctly identified that it's a tricky problem...

-Adam

1
  • Not an offered solution. IT IS POSSIBLE. Just because it's tricky or complex doesn't mean you should just throw your arms up. Commented Mar 29, 2017 at 16:14
8

After reading through these answers, it looks like there wasn't a straightforward regular expression that can parse through a bunch of text and pull out phone numbers in any format (including international with and without the plus sign).

Here's what I used for a client project recently, where we had to convert all phone numbers in any format to tel: links.

So far, it's been working with everything they've thrown at it, but if errors come up, I'll update this answer.

Regex:

/(\+*\d{1,})*([ |\(])*(\d{3})[^\d]*(\d{3})[^\d]*(\d{4})/

PHP function to replace all phone numbers with tel: links (in case anyone is curious):

function phoneToTel($number) {
    $return = preg_replace('/(\+*\d{1,})*([ |\(])*(\d{3})[^\d]*(\d{3})[^\d]*(\d{4})/', '<a href="tel:$1$3$4$5">$1 ($3) $4-$5</a>', $number); // includes international
    return $return;
}
3
  • This regular expression matched +1 1234562222222222222222222222. Commented Oct 13, 2015 at 18:39
  • why not just return?
    – thexande
    Commented Mar 8, 2017 at 21:21
  • False positive for "999999999999999999999999999999999999999" Commented Mar 25, 2020 at 16:26
6

I believe the Number::Phone::US and Regexp::Common (particularly the source of Regexp::Common::URI::RFC2806) Perl modules could help.

The question should probably be specified in a bit more detail to explain the purpose of validating the numbers. For instance, 911 is a valid number in the US, but 911x isn't for any value of x. That's so that the phone company can calculate when you are done dialing. There are several variations on this issue. But your regex doesn't check the area code portion, so that doesn't seem to be a concern.

Like validating email addresses, even if you have a valid result you can't know if it's assigned to someone until you try it.

If you are trying to validate user input, why not normalize the result and be done with it? If the user puts in a number you can't recognize as a valid number, either save it as inputted or strip out undailable characters. The Number::Phone::Normalize Perl module could be a source of inspiration.

1
  • I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that allowing 911 as a phone number is probably a bad idea in almost all applications of this regex. Good catch though.
    – Blank
    Commented Jul 10, 2012 at 20:29
5

Do a replace on formatting characters, then check the remaining for phone validity. In PHP,

 $replace = array( ' ', '-', '/', '(', ')', ',', '.' ); //etc; as needed
 preg_match( '/1?[0-9]{10}((ext|x)[0-9]{1,4})?/i', str_replace( $replace, '', $phone_num );

Breaking a complex regexp like this can be just as effective, but much more simple.

4

I work for a market research company and we have to filter these types of input alllll the time. You're complicating it too much. Just strip the non-alphanumeric chars, and see if there's an extension.

For further analysis you can subscribe to one of many providers that will give you access to a database of valid numbers as well as tell you if they're landlines or mobiles, disconnected, etc. It costs money.

2
  • Validation? 123%$)*%()$*()#456*()*$#(*(#$@8908 would match your proposed solution.
    – PlexQ
    Commented Mar 30, 2012 at 17:17
  • 1
    @PlexQ 555-123-1234, 07777777777, 90210, 01/01/1901 - users are inventive in ramming garbage through validation. Better to not tic off the ones who genuinely do have some odd data by using overly restrictive validation and telling them they're wrong. Commented Apr 29, 2012 at 3:19
3

I found this to be something interesting. I have not tested it but it looks as if it would work

<?php
/*
string validate_telephone_number (string $number, array $formats)
*/

function validate_telephone_number($number, $formats)
{
$format = trim(ereg_replace("[0-9]", "#", $number));

return (in_array($format, $formats)) ? true : false;
}

/* Usage Examples */

// List of possible formats: You can add new formats or modify the existing ones

$formats = array('###-###-####', '####-###-###',
                 '(###) ###-###', '####-####-####',
                 '##-###-####-####', '####-####', '###-###-###',
                 '#####-###-###', '##########');

$number = '08008-555-555';

if(validate_telephone_number($number, $formats))
{
echo $number.' is a valid phone number.';
}

echo "<br />";

$number = '123-555-555';

if(validate_telephone_number($number, $formats))
{
echo $number.' is a valid phone number.';
}

echo "<br />";

$number = '1800-1234-5678';

if(validate_telephone_number($number, $formats))
{
echo $number.' is a valid phone number.';
}

echo "<br />";

$number = '(800) 555-123';

if(validate_telephone_number($number, $formats))
{
echo $number.' is a valid phone number.';
}

echo "<br />";

$number = '1234567890';

if(validate_telephone_number($number, $formats))
{
echo $number.' is a valid phone number.';
}
?>
2
3

You would probably be better off using a Masked Input for this. That way users can ONLY enter numbers and you can format however you see fit. I'm not sure if this is for a web application, but if it is there is a very click jQuery plugin that offers some options for doing this.

http://digitalbush.com/projects/masked-input-plugin/

They even go over how to mask phone number inputs in their tutorial.

3

Here's one that works well in JavaScript. It's in a string because that's what the Dojo widget was expecting.

It matches a 10 digit North America NANP number with optional extension. Spaces, dashes and periods are accepted delimiters.

"^(\\(?\\d\\d\\d\\)?)( |-|\\.)?\\d\\d\\d( |-|\\.)?\\d{4,4}(( |-|\\.)?[ext\\.]+ ?\\d+)?$"
3

I was struggling with the same issue, trying to make my application future proof, but these guys got me going in the right direction. I'm not actually checking the number itself to see if it works or not, I'm just trying to make sure that a series of numbers was entered that may or may not have an extension.

Worst case scenario if the user had to pull an unformatted number from the XML file, they would still just type the numbers into the phone's numberpad 012345678x5, no real reason to keep it pretty. That kind of RegEx would come out something like this for me:

\d+ ?\w{0,9} ?\d+
  • 01234467 extension 123456
  • 01234567x123456
  • 01234567890
2

My inclination is to agree that stripping non-digits and just accepting what's there is best. Maybe to ensure at least a couple digits are present, although that does prohibit something like an alphabetic phone number "ASK-JAKE" for example.

A couple simple perl expressions might be:

@f = /(\d+)/g;
tr/0-9//dc;

Use the first one to keep the digit groups together, which may give formatting clues. Use the second one to trivially toss all non-digits.

Is it a worry that there may need to be a pause and then more keys entered? Or something like 555-1212 (wait for the beep) 123?

2
    pattern="^[\d|\+|\(]+[\)|\d|\s|-]*[\d]$" 
    validateat="onsubmit"

Must end with a digit, can begin with ( or + or a digit, and may contain + - ( or )

2

For anyone interested in doing something similar with Irish mobile phone numbers, here's a straightforward way of accomplishing it:

http://ilovenicii.com/?p=87

PHP


<?php
$pattern = "/^(083|086|085|086|087)\d{7}$/";
$phone = "087343266";

if (preg_match($pattern,$phone)) echo "Match";
else echo "Not match";

There is also a JQuery solution on that link.

EDIT:

jQuery solution:

    $(function(){
    //original field values
    var field_values = {
            //id        :  value
            'url'       : 'url',
            'yourname'  : 'yourname',
            'email'     : 'email',
            'phone'     : 'phone'
    };

        var url =$("input#url").val();
        var yourname =$("input#yourname").val();
        var email =$("input#email").val();
        var phone =$("input#phone").val();


    //inputfocus
    $('input#url').inputfocus({ value: field_values['url'] });
    $('input#yourname').inputfocus({ value: field_values['yourname'] });
    $('input#email').inputfocus({ value: field_values['email'] }); 
    $('input#phone').inputfocus({ value: field_values['phone'] });



    //reset progress bar
    $('#progress').css('width','0');
    $('#progress_text').html('0% Complete');

    //first_step
    $('form').submit(function(){ return false; });
    $('#submit_first').click(function(){
        //remove classes
        $('#first_step input').removeClass('error').removeClass('valid');

        //ckeck if inputs aren't empty
        var fields = $('#first_step input[type=text]');
        var error = 0;
        fields.each(function(){
            var value = $(this).val();
            if( value.length<12 || value==field_values[$(this).attr('id')] ) {
                $(this).addClass('error');
                $(this).effect("shake", { times:3 }, 50);

                error++;
            } else {
                $(this).addClass('valid');
            }
        });        

        if(!error) {
            if( $('#password').val() != $('#cpassword').val() ) {
                    $('#first_step input[type=password]').each(function(){
                        $(this).removeClass('valid').addClass('error');
                        $(this).effect("shake", { times:3 }, 50);
                    });

                    return false;
            } else {   
                //update progress bar
                $('#progress_text').html('33% Complete');
                $('#progress').css('width','113px');

                //slide steps
                $('#first_step').slideUp();
                $('#second_step').slideDown();     
            }               
        } else return false;
    });

    //second section
    $('#submit_second').click(function(){
        //remove classes
        $('#second_step input').removeClass('error').removeClass('valid');

        var emailPattern = /^[a-zA-Z0-9._-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+\.[a-zA-Z]{2,4}$/;  
        var fields = $('#second_step input[type=text]');
        var error = 0;
        fields.each(function(){
            var value = $(this).val();
            if( value.length<1 || value==field_values[$(this).attr('id')] || ( $(this).attr('id')=='email' && !emailPattern.test(value) ) ) {
                $(this).addClass('error');
                $(this).effect("shake", { times:3 }, 50);

                error++;
            } else {
                $(this).addClass('valid');
            }


        function validatePhone(phone) {
        var a = document.getElementById(phone).value;
        var filter = /^[0-9-+]+$/;
            if (filter.test(a)) {
                return true;
            }
            else {
                return false;
            }
        }

        $('#phone').blur(function(e) {
            if (validatePhone('txtPhone')) {
                $('#spnPhoneStatus').html('Valid');
                $('#spnPhoneStatus').css('color', 'green');
            }
            else {
                $('#spnPhoneStatus').html('Invalid');
            $('#spnPhoneStatus').css('color', 'red');
            }
        });

     });

        if(!error) {
                //update progress bar
                $('#progress_text').html('66% Complete');
                $('#progress').css('width','226px');

                //slide steps
                $('#second_step').slideUp();
                $('#fourth_step').slideDown();     
        } else return false;

    });


    $('#submit_second').click(function(){
        //update progress bar
        $('#progress_text').html('100% Complete');
        $('#progress').css('width','339px');

        //prepare the fourth step
        var fields = new Array(
            $('#url').val(),
            $('#yourname').val(),
            $('#email').val(),
            $('#phone').val()

        );
        var tr = $('#fourth_step tr');
        tr.each(function(){
            //alert( fields[$(this).index()] )
            $(this).children('td:nth-child(2)').html(fields[$(this).index()]);
        });

        //slide steps
        $('#third_step').slideUp();
        $('#fourth_step').slideDown();            
    });


    $('#submit_fourth').click(function(){

        url =$("input#url").val();
        yourname =$("input#yourname").val();
        email =$("input#email").val();
        phone =$("input#phone").val();

        //send information to server
        var dataString = 'url='+ url + '&yourname=' + yourname + '&email=' + email + '&phone=' + phone;  



        alert (dataString);//return false;  
            $.ajax({  
                type: "POST",  
                url: "http://clients.socialnetworkingsolutions.com/infobox/contact/",  
                data: "url="+url+"&yourname="+yourname+"&email="+email+'&phone=' + phone,
                cache: false,
                success: function(data) {  
                    console.log("form submitted");
                    alert("success");
                }
                });  
        return false;

   });


    //back button
    $('.back').click(function(){
        var container = $(this).parent('div'),
        previous  = container.prev();

        switch(previous.attr('id')) {
            case 'first_step' : $('#progress_text').html('0% Complete');
                  $('#progress').css('width','0px');
                       break;
            case 'second_step': $('#progress_text').html('33% Complete');
                  $('#progress').css('width','113px');
                       break;

            case 'third_step' : $('#progress_text').html('66% Complete');
                  $('#progress').css('width','226px');
                       break;

        default: break;
    }

    $(container).slideUp();
    $(previous).slideDown();
});


});

Source.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.