Georgia recording consent law for interviews: one-party audio, stricter video

Georgia is a one-party consent state for calls and conversations. Under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66(a), a person who "is a party to the communication," or who has a party's prior consent, may intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication. Two things make Georgia less simple than that sentence suggests. Video recording of activities in a private place needs "the consent of all persons observed" under § 16-11-62(2). And the best-known case about recording across state lines, Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, began with recordings made in Georgia that California's law was then applied to.

To check a call between Georgia and another state, use the consent checker.

This page covers the statute and its one-party exception, the separate rule for video, penalties, how each interview format fits, what Kearney means for Georgia recruiters, and a consent line.

What the statute says

The prohibitions are in O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62. The paragraphs most relevant to interviews make it unlawful for:

• Paragraph (1): "Any person in a clandestine manner intentionally to overhear, transmit, or record or attempt to overhear, transmit, or record the private conversation of another which shall originate in any private place."
• Paragraph (2): "Any person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view," subject to exceptions for jails, property security in areas with no reasonable expectation of privacy, home security, and law enforcement.
• Paragraph (4): "Any person intentionally and secretly to intercept by the use of any device, instrument, or apparatus the contents of a message sent by telephone, telegraph, letter, or by any other means of private communication."

The one-party exception is § 16-11-66(a): "Nothing in Code Section 16-11-62 shall prohibit a person from intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception."

The definitions in § 16-11-60 matter too. A "private place" is "a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy." A "device" includes instruments for "observing, photographing, videotaping, recording, or transmitting visual images" as well as sounds.

The video gap: why filming an interview is different

Section 16-11-66(a) talks about intercepting "a wire, oral, or electronic communication." Section 16-11-62(2) is about observing, photographing or recording "the activities of another" in a private place, and its consent requirement is "all persons observed." On the text, the one-party exception does not obviously reach the video side of a recording.

For hiring, that matters in in-person interviews. An interview in a closed office is plausibly a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a camera or laptop filming the candidate there is a device recording their activities. We did not find a Georgia decision applying § 16-11-62(2) to a recorded job interview, so we cannot say how a court would treat it. The practical answer does not depend on that: if you are capturing video of an in-person interview, get the candidate's consent first. Audio-only capture or transcription falls under the one-party rule.

How the rules apply to interview formats

Penalties

Under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-69, a person violating the part "shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years or a fine not to exceed $10,000.00, or both," except where another section provides otherwise.

Kearney: Georgia recordings, California law

In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006), employees of a firm's Atlanta office recorded telephone calls with clients in California without telling them. The recordings were lawful under Georgia's one-party rule. California's Supreme Court held that California's all-party law applied to the recording of calls with California residents, because California's interest in protecting its residents' privacy would be more seriously impaired if its law were not applied. The court allowed an injunction going forward but not damages for past recordings, because the firm could reasonably have relied on Georgia law until the decision.

That reliance argument is gone now. A Georgia recruiter who records candidates in California today, without consent, is on notice of Kearney. The same logic may be applied by courts in other all-party states. The California side is in California call recording law for recruiters, and the general framework in recording calls across state lines.

What it means for recording or transcribing an interview

1. Audio and transcripts: participant may record in Georgia. Transcription is acquiring the communication, so the same rule and the same habits apply.
2. Video of in-person interviews: get consent. The statute's video provision asks for all persons observed.
3. Interviews you are not in: get a participant's consent, and tell the candidate.
4. "Clandestine" and "secretly" are the operative words in paragraphs (1) and (4). Recording openly, with the candidate told, keeps you away from both.
5. The candidate's state can override your comfort. Kearney is the case that proves it, and it started in Georgia.

When the candidate is the one recording

Georgia's one-party rule works in both directions. A candidate who is a party to the interview may record it under § 16-11-66(a) without asking you. That surprises some hiring managers. Two practical points follow:

• Assume that anything said in a Georgia interview could be on a recording, and interview accordingly: job-related questions, consistent wording, no comments you would not want played back.
• If a candidate asks to record, answer according to a written policy and give every candidate the same answer. If your panel includes someone in an all-party state, their consent is needed for the candidate's recording too.

Keeping and sharing what you capture

Lawful capture does not settle what happens next. Agency recruiters often send a summary or excerpt to a client. Tell the candidate in the consent line who will see the recording or transcript, keep it only as long as your retention policy says, and share the scorecard rather than the raw file where you can. If a recording turns out to have been made without consent in a stricter state, sharing it can create separate exposure under that state's disclosure rules.

A consent line for Georgia interviews

"Before we start, I'd like to [record / transcribe] this interview
[and keep the video] so my notes for the [role] position are accurate.
It's seen by [who] and deleted after [period]. If you'd rather I
didn't, say so and I'll take notes by hand; it won't affect your
application. Is that OK with you?"

[Clear yes: start. No: capture stays off.]

Mention video explicitly when you keep it. Panel, email and log versions are in the interview recording consent script.

Checklist for Georgia hiring teams

1. Ask every candidate before capture starts, whatever their location.
2. Get explicit consent before filming an in-person interview.
3. Only participants, or people with a participant's prior consent, set up capture.
4. Follow the candidate's rule when they are in an all-party state.
5. Treat transcripts like recordings for retention and access.
6. Write the policy down and date it.

Georgia is listed with the other one-party states in one-party consent states.