Alaska recording consent law for interviews: one-party, with Washington next door

Alaska is a one-party consent state. Under AS 42.20.310(a)(1), a person may not use an eavesdropping device "to hear or record all or any part of an oral conversation without the consent of a party to the conversation," and the statute applies "whether the conversation is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means." An interviewer is a party to the interview, so recording or transcribing it is lawful under Alaska law. As of October 2026, a violation is a class A misdemeanor. The catch for Alaska hiring is geography: Alaska employers often interview candidates in Washington, which requires every participant's consent.

For a quick read on a call between two states, try the consent checker.

This page covers the two Alaska sections that matter, who counts as a party, how the rule applies to phone, video and in-person interviews, penalties, calls to Washington and Canada, and a consent line to read aloud.

What does Alaska's recording statute say?

Alaska's rules sit in Title 42, the utilities and carriers title, rather than the criminal code. Two sections carry the consent rule, and a definitions section sets their reach.

The definitions in AS 42.20.390 are broad:

• Oral communication is "human speech used to communicate information from one party to another." There is no privacy element in that definition.
• Private communication is an oral, wire or electronic communication "uttered or transmitted by a person who has a reasonable expectation that the communication is not subject to interception." A scheduled interview ordinarily fits.
• Intercept means acquiring the contents of a communication by a device, "including the acquisition of the contents by simultaneous transmission or by recording."

Read together, the sections give a simple rule for interviewers: a person in the conversation may record it, and a person outside it needs a participant's authorization.

Who counts as a party in an interview?

• The interviewer. Asking the questions makes you a party. Your own consent satisfies AS 42.20.310.
• A panel member. Any interviewer on the call is a party and can consent for their own recording.
• A recruiting coordinator who is not on the call. Not a party. Recording or transcribing an interview between a hiring manager and a candidate is lawful only if a participant authorized it.
• A note-taking tool joining for someone absent. The person who owns the tool is not a party to that conversation. Make sure a participant agreed, and tell the candidate.

AS 42.20.300(a) also starts with "Except for a party to a private conversation," which means its limits on passing communications along are aimed at carriers and intermediaries, not at participants sharing their own interview notes. That does not remove privacy duties under other laws or your own policy; it only answers the recording question.

Does the rule change for phone, video or in-person interviews?

No. The definition of eavesdropping device in AS 42.20.310(b) covers devices that hear or record oral conversation "whether the conversation is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means." Alaska has no separate rule for video conferencing.

What are the penalties in Alaska?

• Criminal. AS 42.20.330 makes any violation a class A misdemeanor. Under AS 12.55.135(a), that carries a definite term of up to one year. Under AS 12.55.035, the maximum fine is $25,000 for an individual and $500,000 for an organization (or three times the gain or loss, if greater).
• Using or passing on an unlawful recording. Paragraphs (a)(2) to (a)(4) of AS 42.20.310 make it a separate violation to use, publish or divulge information you know or reasonably should know came from illegal eavesdropping. Forwarding a recording to a client can be its own problem.
• Civil. We did not find a civil damages section in AS 42.20.300 to 42.20.390. The federal wiretap act gives a civil claim for unlawful interception under 18 U.S.C. § 2520, with statutory damages of "the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000."

The organization fine is the number staffing agencies should notice. A recording practice is a company practice, and the statute's ceiling for an organization is twenty times the individual one.

What does federal law add?

Federal law applies to the same interview. Its consent exception, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), protects a party's recording "unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act." Alaska's text has no purpose condition, but the federal one sits on top of it. Recording an interview to keep accurate notes is not the kind of purpose that clause describes; recording to embarrass or pressure someone could be.

What if the candidate is in Washington, Canada or another state?

Seasonal and remote-site jobs in seafood processing, tourism, construction and the oil fields are often filled with candidates from outside Alaska, and Washington is the closest large labor market. Washington is an all-party state. Washington recording consent law for interviews explains RCW 9.73.030, which requires "the consent of all the participants" for private phone conversations "between points within or without the state." A recruiter in Anchorage calling a candidate in Tacoma is a party under Alaska law, and the candidate is still protected by Washington's.

For candidates in Yukon or British Columbia, Canada's Criminal Code allows a participant to record, but Canadian privacy law adds notice duties for organizations collecting personal information. For candidates anywhere else, check the state against two-party consent states. The way courts choose between two states' laws, and why the stricter rule is the one to plan for, is covered in recording calls across state lines.

Is a transcript a recording under Alaska law?

Treat it as one. AS 42.20.310 covers using a device "to hear or record all or any part" of a conversation, and the definition of intercept includes acquiring contents "by simultaneous transmission." A tool that streams interview audio to a transcription service, or writes a live transcript on your laptop, is using a device to capture the conversation. In Alaska that is lawful for a party. The point matters in the states that require everyone's consent, where "we only kept the text" is not a defense. The wider rules, including AI scoring laws that apply on top of recording law, are in is it legal to record a job interview.

A consent line for Alaska interviews

"Before we start: I'd like to [record / transcribe] this interview so
my notes for the [role] position are accurate. It's seen by [who] and
deleted after [period]. If you're calling from outside Alaska today, or
you'd just rather I didn't, tell me and I'll take notes by hand. It
won't affect your application. Is that OK with you?"

[Clear yes: start capture. No or unsure: leave it off.]

Alaska does not require the question for a party, but Washington does, and you will not always know where a candidate is sitting. The line about calling from outside Alaska invites them to say so. Panel and email versions are in the interview recording consent script.

Checklist for Alaska interviews

1. Ask every candidate before capture starts, whatever the format.
2. Never record or transcribe an interview you are not in without a participant's authorization, and tell the candidate.
3. Assume Washington candidates are covered by an all-party rule.
4. Do not forward a recording you are unsure was made lawfully.
5. Treat transcripts and AI notes the same as audio.
6. Write the rule into a dated policy that applies to every recruiter, in Alaska and outside it.

Alaska's place among the other one-party states is shown on one-party consent states.