Is it legal to record a job interview? A guide for interviewers

In the United States, recording a job interview is usually legal when everyone on the call knows and agrees. Federal law and most states allow recording with the consent of one participant, but a minority of states, including California, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington, require the consent of every party. AI hiring laws, data protection law outside the US and your employer's policy can add further conditions, so the safe default is to tell the candidate and get a clear yes every time.

This guide is written for the person running the interview: recruiter, hiring manager or panelist. It covers what federal and state law say, why transcription tools count, the extra rules that apply when AI is involved, a short note on the UK and EU, and a checklist you can use before you record.

The short answer by situation

Federal law: one-party consent

The federal wiretap statute makes it unlawful to intercept wire, oral or electronic communications, with exceptions. The one that matters for interviews is in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d): it is not unlawful for a private person to intercept a communication "where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent," unless it is done for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.

So under federal law alone, an interviewer who is on the call can generally record it. Two limits are worth knowing:

• Federal law is a starting point, not the answer. States can and do set stricter rules, and a recording that satisfies federal law can still breach state law.
• In-person conversations are covered too. The statute's definition of "oral communication" covers speech by a person "exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception" where that expectation is justified (18 U.S.C. § 2510(2)). A one-to-one interview in a closed meeting room is the kind of conversation people expect to be private.

State law: one-party and all-party consent

Most states follow the federal model. A minority require every party to consent, and several of those have details that change the answer: some apply only to telephone calls, some only to in-person or video conversations (Oregon counts video calls as conversations), some only to "confidential," "private" or secretly recorded conversations, and in at least one, Delaware, two statutes point in different directions. That is why published lists disagree on how many all-party states there are.

Rather than repeat a list here, the full table, with each statute linked and the nuances explained, is in two-party consent states. When you and the candidate are in different states, read recording calls across state lines: California's Supreme Court, for example, applied California's all-party rule to calls made from a one-party state to California residents.

The stakes in all-party states are not only criminal. California, for example, gives anyone whose confidential communication was recorded in violation of its privacy statute a civil claim for the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, and says the person does not need to have suffered actual damages to sue (California Penal Code § 637.2).

Does a transcription or AI note-taker count as recording?

Assume it does. Recording laws are mostly written around capturing a conversation, not around saving an audio file. The federal definition of "intercept" is "the aural or other acquisition of the contents" of a communication "through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device" (18 U.S.C. § 2510(4)). A tool that turns the candidate's words into text acquires the contents of the conversation, whether or not it keeps the audio.

What changes with a transcription tool is how much data you hold afterwards, not whether you need to tell the candidate. Keeping less (a transcript and notes instead of an audio or video file) makes storage, access requests and retention easier. It does not replace consent.

The same applies to meeting bots and platform features. A bot joining the call or a "recording" badge on screen shows that something is happening, but a candidate who sees it has not necessarily agreed, and a phone screen has no badge at all. Say it out loud; the interview recording consent script has wording for each case.

When AI is involved, other rules apply

Recording law asks whether you may capture the conversation. A separate and growing set of rules asks what you may do with it when software analyzes candidates. As of September 2026, three are most relevant to interviewers in the US:

• Illinois. The Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act requires notice, an explanation and consent before an employer uses AI to analyze applicant video interviews for Illinois-based positions, with limits on sharing and deletion on request. An amendment to the Illinois Human Rights Act on AI in employment decisions took effect on January 1, 2026. See the Illinois AI Video Interview Act guide.
• New York City. Local Law 144 restricts the use of automated employment decision tools to screen candidates unless the tool has had a bias audit and candidates get notice. Whether a note-taker is in scope depends on what it produces and how you use it. See NYC Local Law 144 and AI note-takers.
• California. The Civil Rights Council's regulations on automated-decision systems took effect on October 1, 2025. According to the Council's announcement, they make clear that using such a system "may violate California law if it harms applicants or employees based on protected characteristics," and require employers to keep employment records, "including automated-decision data, for a minimum of four years."

A tool that only transcribes is in a different position from one that scores or ranks candidates. Know which one you are using before the first interview.

Employer policy and records you create

Even where the law allows a recording, your organization may not. Agency recruiters have two policies to check: their own agency's and, often, the client's. Some clients prohibit recording interviews with their hiring managers; others require it for consistency.

A recording or transcript is also a record, and records have obligations attached:

• Retention. The EEOC's rule requires covered employers to preserve personnel or employment records, including records "having to do with hiring," for one year from the date the record was made or the personnel action, whichever is later, and to keep relevant records until a discrimination charge is resolved (29 CFR § 1602.14). California's four-year requirement for automated-decision data is mentioned above.
• Disclosure. Recordings and transcripts can be requested in litigation or, outside the US, through a candidate's data access request. Anything said in the interview, including an interviewer's offhand remark, is in the record.
• Security. A folder of candidate recordings is personal data about people who never became your employees. Decide who can open it.

UK and EU in brief

Outside the US the question is framed differently. Under the UK GDPR and the EU GDPR, recording or transcribing an interview is processing personal data, so you need a lawful basis, a clear privacy notice given before or at the start, a retention period, and a way to answer the candidate's requests for their data. Consent is one lawful basis but often not the best one for employers, because of the imbalance of power between an employer and a candidate; legitimate interests is commonly used instead. AI that evaluates candidates also falls into the EU AI Act's high-risk category. The detail is in recording interviews under UK GDPR.

If the candidate is the one recording

Candidates are subject to the same recording laws as interviewers. In a one-party consent state, a candidate on the call can generally record it; in an all-party state, they generally need everyone's agreement. If a candidate asks to record, answer in line with your policy and give the same answer to everyone. If you suspect a candidate is recording without saying so, you can ask directly and state your policy. Candidates who want a record of the interview are usually well served by a written follow-up instead.

A decision checklist before you record

1. What will you capture? Audio, video, a transcript, AI notes, scores. Write it down.
2. Where are you, and where is the candidate? If either location is an all-party consent state, or you don't know, plan for all-party consent.
3. Does your employer, or your client, allow it? Get the policy in writing.
4. Does the tool analyze, score or rank candidates? If so, check the Illinois, New York City and California rules, and any others where you hire, before first use.
5. Is the candidate in the UK or EU? Confirm your lawful basis and privacy notice first.
6. Have you sent written notice? A line in the invite or confirmation email.
7. Will you ask at the start and wait for a clear yes? Use wording from the consent script.
8. Can you stop in one action if they say no? And take notes by hand instead, without any effect on the assessment.
9. Where will the file go, who can open it, and when is it deleted? Check the retention period against record-keeping rules.
10. Will you log that you asked? Date, wording used, the answer.

If any answer is "not sure," resolve it before the interview. Most of the practical risk in recording interviews comes from secret or ambiguous recording, and all of that is avoidable with a sentence at the start of the call.