What is the difference between one-party and two-party consent?
Under one-party consent, a person taking part in a call can record it without asking anyone else. Under two-party consent, everyone on the call has to agree first. US federal law, in 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d), uses the one-party rule, and the states in the table below are stricter.
The federal rule lets a party record unless the purpose is "committing any criminal or tortious act." It sets a minimum for the whole country. A state rule sits on top of it, so in a two-party state you have to meet the state's rule as well.
Canada and the UK work differently again, and the guide to whether it is legal to record a job interview covers both. This page stays with the US states.
Why is it also called all-party consent?
Because the rule covers every person on the call, however many there are. "Two-party" comes from the days of one caller and one listener. A panel interview with three interviewers has four parties, and in a state like Pennsylvania all four need to agree. The statutes themselves mostly say "all parties."
Pennsylvania's 18 Pa.C.S. 5704(4) allows a recording "where all parties to the communication have given prior consent." New Hampshire's RSA 570-A:2 uses the same idea in reverse, making it a class B felony to intercept a call "without the consent of all parties."
So for a panel round, one interviewer's yes covers only that interviewer. Ask the group at the start, when everyone has joined, and wait until each person has answered.
Which states are two-party consent states?
As of October 22, 2026, the statutes we read set an all-party rule in California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Nevada and Oregon have partial or disputed versions. Each state's rule has its own wording, shown in the table with a link to the statute.
| State | Statute checked October 22, 2026 | Whose consent the statute requires | Note for an interview call |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | Penal Code 632 | All parties to a confidential communication | Fine of up to $2,500 per violation. Covers in-person talk and calls by "telephone, or other device" |
| Connecticut | Gen. Stat. 52-570d | All parties, for a private telephone call | A civil rule. The criminal eavesdropping law (53a-187) needs only one party |
| Delaware | 11 Del. C. 2402(c)(4) and 11 Del. C. 1335(a)(4) | Disputed | One section allows a party to record. Another bars intercepting private messages "without the consent of all parties" |
| Florida | Stat. 934.03(2)(d) | All parties | Lawful when "all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent" |
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 | All parties to a private conversation | Covers recording "in a surreptitious manner" |
| Maryland | Courts and Judicial Proceedings 10-402(c)(3) | All parties | Lawful for a party when all parties have given prior consent |
| Massachusetts | General Laws c. 272, s. 99 | All parties | Bars recording "secretly" without prior authority from all parties |
| Michigan | MCL 750.539c | All parties, in the statute's words | A 1982 appeals court ruling says a participant can record their own conversation |
| Montana | MCA 45-8-213(1)(c) | All parties | Covers a "hidden" device used "without the knowledge of all parties" |
| Nevada | NRS 200.620 and NRS 200.650 | Phone: one party's consent alone is insufficient, as written. In person: one party | Read the phone rule closely before relying on it |
| New Hampshire | RSA 570-A:2 | All parties | Class B felony |
| Oregon | ORS 165.540 | Phone: one participant. In person and video: all must be informed | ORS 165.535 counts a video conferencing program as a conversation |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa.C.S. 5704(4) | All parties | Lawful when all parties have given prior consent |
| Washington | RCW 9.73.030 | All parties to a private call or conversation | A recorded announcement counts as consent |
If your state is missing, we did not find an all-party rule in its statutes. That is a search result, so read your state's own law before you rely on it.
Which states have only a partial or disputed rule?
Five states need a closer look. Connecticut, Nevada and Oregon apply the stricter rule to some kinds of call only, and Delaware has two sections that point in different directions. Michigan's statute says all parties, and a court has read it more narrowly. In each of these, the type of call matters.
Oregon matters most for video interviews. ORS 165.540(1)(c) bars recording a conversation "if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed." ORS 165.535 defines a conversation to include "a communication occurring through a video conferencing program." A phone call is a telecommunication there, which needs only one participant's consent.
Connecticut's 52-570d covers a "private telephonic communication" and needs consent in writing, consent recorded at the start, a recorded notice, or a warning tone. Nevada's NRS 200.620 makes intercepting a phone call unlawful unless one party consents "and" an emergency makes a court order impractical. Read as written, one party's consent alone is not enough there.
In Michigan, the 1982 ruling in Sullivan v. Gray held that the statute "unambiguously excludes participant recording," because it defines eavesdropping as recording "the private discourse of others." The Michigan Supreme Court has not settled the point, as far as we found. Delaware's two sections have not been reconciled in anything we read, so treat both states as unsettled.
What counts as a private or confidential conversation?
Several statutes protect only private or secret talk. California's Penal Code 632(c) defines a confidential communication as one where a party "desires it to be confined to the parties thereto." It excludes settings where people "may reasonably expect" to be recorded. A one-to-one job interview would usually look private.
Other states use different words. Illinois covers recording done "in a surreptitious manner." Massachusetts defines interception as recording "secretly." Montana covers a "hidden" device. Each word points the same way: a recording everyone knows about is treated differently from one kept quiet.
Those words are a reason to announce the recording out loud. They are a poor reason to skip asking, because a court decides what was private after the fact. Get a clear yes from each person and you avoid the question altogether.
Which state's law applies when you're in different states?
Courts have not given one rule, and the answer can depend on where each person sits. In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, decided in 2006, the California Supreme Court applied California's all-party rule to calls that a Georgia office recorded with clients in California. Georgia law allowed those recordings.
The court let California's rule govern future recordings and declined to award damages for past ones. It also said out-of-state companies "are on notice" that California law applies to calls "made to or received from California." The case involved a business recording its clients, and other states may reason differently.
For a job interview, follow the strictest law that could apply. If you're in a one-party state and the interviewer is in California, treat the call as all-party. With a remote panel, you often won't know where everyone is, which is one more reason to ask all of them.
How do you get consent that holds up in a two-party state?
Ask everyone before you press record, then repeat the agreement once recording starts so it is captured. Washington's RCW 9.73.030(3) counts consent as obtained when one party announces the recording "in any reasonably effective manner," as long as the announcement is recorded too. Connecticut accepts consent "obtained at the start of" the recording.
The words can be short. The guide to how to ask to record your interview has a one-line script and versions for video and phone. Use the same sentence every time, so your habit stays the same across states.
Video tools add their own layer. A platform may show a recording notice or ask the other side to agree. The guide to what Zoom, Teams and Meet show the other side covers what each one does, and a platform notice is no substitute for asking.
Should you record without asking in a one-party state?
No. Federal law and many states would allow it, and it still puts you at risk. You may not know where every interviewer is sitting, and an all-party rule could reach the call. Prept's position is to ask every time, even where the law would let you skip it, and it asks you to confirm consent before each recording.
There is a practical side too. A recording made openly is one you can keep, mention and review without worry. A yes on tape also answers the question if anyone asks later.
If you do record, the audio and transcript are sensitive. The interview recording privacy checklist lists what to ask of any tool before you upload one.
What do you do if the interviewer says no?
Accept it and keep the recorder off for the whole call. Then write your notes within the hour using the free 10-minute debrief template. It needs no recording and takes about 10 minutes, and it catches most of what you would want from a transcript.
The guide for when an interviewer refused recording covers what to say in the moment. The post interview notes template explains each part of the written debrief.
If the interviewer agrees, Prept's free tier transcribes and debriefs one interview hour with no card, as analysis after the call, never during it (try one free debrief).