California call recording law for recruiters: Penal Code 632 and 632.7

California requires consent from everyone on a call before it is recorded, under two separate statutes that recruiters run into for different reasons. Penal Code § 632 covers "confidential communications." Penal Code § 632.7 covers any call where at least one party is on a cellular or cordless phone, whether or not the call is confidential, which in practice means most phone screens today. Get it wrong and the exposure is not theoretical: § 637.2 sets civil damages at $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, whichever is greater, and the statute says a plaintiff does not have to prove they were harmed to collect.

This page works through both statutes as they apply specifically to recruiting calls: what "consent" has to look like, what happens when you are calling into California from somewhere else, and how AI note-takers and transcription tools fit into the definition of recording. For the other 13 states with an all-party rule, see the two-party consent states table. For the interstate question in general, see recording calls across state lines.

The short answer for a California call

If you are calling a candidate who is in California, or a candidate calls you from a California number, assume you need their clear, spoken consent before you record or run live transcription, and get it at the start of the call. That covers both statutes at once: it satisfies § 632's consent requirement for confidential communications, and it satisfies § 632.7's requirement for calls involving a cell or cordless phone. It does not depend on which state you are calling from, and it does not depend on whether the candidate says anything sensitive.

Penal Code § 632: confidential communications

Penal Code § 632 makes it an offense to use an electronic device to record a "confidential communication" without the consent of all parties. The statute defines a confidential communication as one made in circumstances that may reasonably indicate that a party desires it to be confined to the parties present, which excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in a circumstance where the parties reasonably expect it may be overheard or recorded.

For a recruiting call, that turns on the candidate's reasonable expectation, not on whether the subject matter feels sensitive to you. A candidate discussing their current salary, a health accommodation or a reason for leaving a job is very likely to be found to have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. The California Supreme Court set that test in Flanagan v. Flanagan (2002): a conversation is confidential under § 632 if a party "has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded."

Penal Code § 632.7: any call involving a cell or cordless phone

Penal Code § 632.7 is the statute most recruiting calls actually fall under, because it does not require the call to be confidential. It prohibits recording a communication "without the consent of all parties" where the communication involves a cellular radio telephone or cordless telephone on at least one end. Almost every candidate phone screen today involves a mobile phone on at least one side, which puts the call inside § 632.7 even if nothing said on it would qualify as "confidential" under § 632.

The California Supreme Court confirmed how broadly this reaches in Smith v. LoanMe, Inc. (2021), holding that § 632.7 applies to the parties on the call themselves, not only to eavesdroppers listening in from outside. The court also left open, and sent back unresolved, whether a beep tone followed by the party staying on the line amounted to consent. That is the reason to ask directly rather than rely on an automated notice.

What consent has to look like

Penalties: civil damages and criminal exposure

Penal Code § 637.2 gives anyone injured by a violation of the chapter that includes §§ 632 and 632.7 a civil action for the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, plus the text specifically says actual damages are not a necessary prerequisite to the action. In practical terms: a candidate who was recorded without consent can sue for the statutory amount without having to show the recording cost them anything. Both statutes also carry criminal exposure as a misdemeanor for a first offense under the Penal Code, on top of the civil remedy.

A worked example, arithmetic only, to show the scale: an agency that recorded 40 candidate screens in a California market over a year without asking, and is found to have violated § 632.7 on each call, faces a statutory exposure of up to $200,000 (40 × $5,000) before any actual-damages multiplier or attorneys' fees are considered. That number is not a prediction of what a court would award; it shows why "ask every time" is cheaper than any transcription tool.

Calling into California from another state

Recruiters based outside California sometimes assume their own state's one-party rule controls. California courts have not agreed. In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006), the California Supreme Court held that California's all-party consent rule could apply to an out-of-state company's telephone calls with California clients, reasoning that California has a strong interest in protecting the privacy of people within the state during a call, regardless of where the other party is located. For the full interstate framework and other states' rules, see recording calls across state lines.

AI note-takers and live transcription

Section 632 and § 632.7 are both written around using "an electronic amplifying or recording device" to "eavesdrop upon or record" a communication; neither statute is limited to saving an audio file. A tool that produces a live transcript while the call is happening, or that records audio briefly to generate a transcript, is commonly treated the same way as recording for consent purposes. Ask before you turn transcription on, the same as you would before hitting record, and say specifically what the tool does, for example "I'm using a transcription tool that will type up what we say."

A California-specific consent script

This script is written to satisfy both statutes at once: it discloses the recording or transcription, states the purpose, and asks a direct question the candidate can answer yes or no to.

Before we get into it, a quick note: I'm recording this call [and it's being
transcribed], so I have accurate notes for [Client Name / our hiring team] and
don't have to interrupt you to write things down. Are you okay with that?

[If yes] Great, thank you — go ahead and tell me about ...

[If no or hesitant] No problem at all, I'll take notes the regular way.
[Turn off recording and transcription before continuing.]

For panel interviews, phone screens with a different opening, and written notice language to send ahead of a call, use the full set of scripts in the interview recording consent script article, which this California-specific line is built to match.

Checklist before you dial a California number

• Ask before you record or start live transcription, every call, regardless of topic.
• Say specifically what is happening: "recording," "transcribing," not just "this call may be monitored."
• Get a spoken yes captured in the recording itself, not just a click-through disclaimer.
• If the candidate says no, turn off recording and transcription and take notes the ordinary way.
• Treat a candidate's California-area-code mobile number as a signal to use the California script, even if you are not sure where they are physically sitting.
• Keep your own record of when and how consent was given, separate from the interview notes.
• Re-check this page yearly. California's Legislature has amended the civil remedy sections before and can again.

Most recruiting teams do not need a lawyer on every call; they need one habit applied without exception. Build the disclosure line into the same part of the call every time, before any substantive question, so it is not something a recruiter has to remember to add only when a candidate happens to mention California. Agencies placing candidates with California clients should also check whether the client's own consent policy is stricter than the statute, since a client's internal rule can require more than the law does even where the law would allow less. If your applicant tracking system logs call recordings automatically, confirm someone is responsible for checking that consent was captured before a recording is kept, not after a candidate complains.

One pending change, for completeness: California's SB 690 was sent to the Governor on September 4, 2026, according to its bill status page. Its enrolled text amends the civil remedy section rather than the consent rules in §§ 632 and 632.7, so it does not change what counts as consent for a recruiting call. Check the bill's status before relying on this page if you are reading it well after September 2026.

For the federal baseline and the AI-specific hiring rules that can also apply to a recorded interview, see is it legal to record a job interview.