Can you record a job interview? Consent, state law and the AI Act question nobody answers

You can record a job interview when the people on the call know and agree, but "agree" means something narrower than most guides let on. US federal law only requires one party's consent, which in practice means yours. A majority of states follow that floor. A significant minority require every participant to agree, and a few of those treat a voice recording as biometric data with its own consent rule, separate from the recording question entirely. None of that changes because the interview is remote, or because a scheduling email mentioned a notetaker.

The federal floor, and why it is not the answer

18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) makes it a federal offence to intentionally intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication. Subsection (2)(d) then exempts the case that covers an ordinary interview: it is not unlawful for a person not acting under colour of law to record a call where they are a party to it, or where one of the parties has given prior consent, unless the purpose is a criminal or tortious act.

That is one-party consent at the federal level, and it means a recruiter can lawfully record their own interview under federal law without telling the candidate. It is also the wrong place to stop reading, because state law can and does require more.

Some states require everyone to agree

A meaningful minority of states run an all-party, sometimes called two-party, consent rule: every person in the conversation has to agree, not just the one doing the recording. Three examples with their own statute, so you can check the current text rather than trust a summary:

• California, Penal Code § 632, makes it an offence to record a confidential communication without the consent of all parties.
• Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/14-2, the state's eavesdropping statute, requires the consent of all parties to a private conversation.
• Washington, RCW 9.73.030, similarly requires consent from all participants to record a private communication.

Published lists of "two-party consent states" disagree with each other, particularly on Connecticut, Michigan, Oregon and Vermont, because some states apply the rule only to certain kinds of communication or add exceptions the summary drops. Rather than reproduce a table that will be wrong within a year, use the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Reporter's Recording Guide, which covers all fifty states and the District of Columbia and links to each state's own statute. Check the state of every participant, not just your own: if a candidate is calling in from an all-party-consent state, that state's rule applies to the call regardless of where the recruiter sits.

The question none of the vendor guides ask: is a voice recording biometric data?

This is the gap in almost every article on this topic. Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14, defines a "biometric identifier" to include a voiceprint, and requires a private entity to obtain written consent before collecting one, publish a retention schedule, and destroy the data within the period it sets, generally no later than three years after the last interaction. An interview recording is audio of a specific person's voice. Whether a given transcription workflow extracts anything that counts as a voiceprint under the statute is a technical and legal question your counsel should answer for your specific tool, not something this article can settle in the abstract, but the possibility is real enough that "we have consent to record" is not the same as "we have complied with BIPA." Texas and Washington have comparable biometric statutes with their own definitions and remedies.

The EU employer, or the EU candidate

Recording a candidate does not stop being a data protection question just because it also clears a wiretap statute. If either the employer or the candidate is in the EU, the GDPR applies regardless of where the recording technically happened, and it adds obligations wiretap consent does not touch:

• A lawful basis, decided before the interview, not reconstructed afterwards. Consent is available but weak in a hiring context, because Recital 43 treats consent as invalid where there is a clear imbalance between the parties, and an applicant is rarely in a position to refuse. Legitimate interest or the steps necessary to enter into a contract are the bases usually relied on instead.
• Notice under Art. 13, given before or at the point of collection: who controls the recording, why, how long it is kept, and who can see it.
• A retention period fixed in advance. In Germany, the practical benchmark most data protection guidance uses is around six months after rejection, derived from the two-month deadline to bring an equal-treatment claim under § 15 Abs. 4 AGG plus the three-month period to file suit under § 61b Abs. 1 ArbGG. It is a reasoned practice, not a statutory number, and your own counsel may land somewhere different.

None of this is unique to interviews conducted from the US. A US company interviewing a candidate physically located in Germany, or a German company interviewing a candidate in California, is subject to both frameworks at once, which is exactly the mixed case most guides on this topic skip.

What the AI Act settles, and what it does not

If any part of the process uses AI to score, rank or otherwise evaluate candidates from the recording, the EU AI Act has two provisions worth knowing before you shop for a tool, not after.

Article 5(1)(f) prohibits AI systems that infer emotions of a natural person in the workplace, with narrow exceptions for medical or safety reasons. That provision has applied since 2 February 2025 (implementation timeline). A tool that scores a candidate's enthusiasm, confidence or sentiment from their voice or face is exactly what this bans in the EU, regardless of how the vendor markets it.

Annex III, point 4(a) classifies AI systems intended to be used to evaluate candidates or make recruitment decisions as high-risk, which brings a set of obligations under Chapter III of the Act, applicable from 2 December 2027 (Annex III).

A plain transcription tool that produces text and does not score or rank anyone sits outside both provisions. The moment a vendor adds a "fit score", a confidence index or a ranked shortlist generated from the interview, it has built something the Annex III classification and, depending on what exactly it measures, potentially Article 5(1)(f) reach. That is a decision for your legal team before procurement, not a feature to discover after rollout.

What actually needs to happen before the call

What Kalima does, and does not do, here

Kalima produces a transcript with speaker labels and, if you ask for it, a structured summary of the discussion. It does not score, rank or evaluate anyone, and it does not infer emotion, sentiment or confidence from a candidate's voice. That is a design boundary, not a missing feature, drawn along the same line Article 5(1)(f) and Annex III draw.

Capture happens on the interviewer's own device, over the microphone, the system audio, or both mixed together. Nothing joins the call as a participant, so there is no on-screen signal telling anyone that a recording is running. That is exactly why announcing it out loud matters: the software will not do that part for you.

Audio is encrypted in transit, stored in the EU, and never used to train models. Sharing is off until you turn it on. Export and account deletion are self-service from your account. None of that decides whether your specific interview process is lawful; that call belongs to your legal team, informed by the state and country of the people on the call.

Frequently asked questions

Can an employer record a job interview without telling the candidate?

Under federal law and in one-party-consent states, yes, though telling them is still the better practice. In an all-party-consent state such as California, Illinois or Washington, no: every participant has to agree, and recording without that agreement can be a criminal offence as well as grounds for a civil claim.

Does it matter which state the candidate is calling from?

Yes, and this is the detail most guides skip. If the candidate is physically in an all-party-consent state during the call, that state's rule generally applies to the recording regardless of where the interviewer is located. Check both ends before you record.

Is a recorded interview a biometric data problem?

It can be. Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act defines a voiceprint as a biometric identifier and requires written consent, a published retention schedule and timely destruction before a private entity collects one. Whether a given recording or transcription workflow triggers that requirement depends on what data is actually extracted, which is a question for counsel and the vendor, not something a blog post can answer for your specific setup.

Does the GDPR apply if the interview is over Zoom and both people are outside the EU?

No, the GDPR turns on whether the employer or the data subject falls within its territorial scope, not on the video platform used. It does apply where either the hiring company or the candidate is in the EU, which is the mixed-jurisdiction case most US-focused guides never mention.

Can we use AI to score candidates from the interview recording?

Not from a system that infers emotion in the EU, which Article 5(1)(f) of the AI Act has prohibited since 2 February 2025. A scoring or ranking system that does not infer emotion is not banned outright but is classified as high-risk under Annex III, point 4(a), with obligations that apply from 2 December 2027. Either way, this is a legal question to resolve before you buy the tool.

Should a candidate record the interview themselves?

Only with the interviewer's agreement. The same state consent rules apply regardless of who is holding the recorder, and a recording made without the required consent is frequently inadmissible if a dispute follows. Asking for a copy of the notes afterwards is the safer route if you want a record of what was said.

Related

• Ist es zulässig, ein Bewerbungsgespräch aufzuzeichnen? (DE): the German-market version, with § 201 StGB, § 26 BDSG and works-council rules.
• Is it legal to record a meeting?: the general framework for meetings, calls and video conferences.
• Meeting recording consent wording you can copy
• Works councils and AI transcription
• Why no bot joins your meeting