Illinois eavesdropping law and interviews: what the 2014 rewrite means

Illinois makes it a felony to record a private conversation "in a surreptitious manner" without the consent of all the other parties. That wording, in 720 ILCS 5/14-2, dates from a 2014 rewrite, and it changes the practical question for interviewers. The test is secrecy: recording or transcribing an interview openly, with everyone told and agreeing, is outside the offense, while doing it quietly is exactly what the statute targets. Illinois also has two separate laws that often apply to the same interview, one on AI analysis of video interviews and one on biometrics.

To compare Illinois with the state you are calling from, use the consent checker.

Why the 2014 rewrite matters

Older guides describe Illinois as one of the strictest all-party states, where recording almost any conversation without everyone's consent was a crime. That law is gone. On March 20, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court held the recording provision of the old statute unconstitutional in People v. Melongo, 2014 IL 114852, and in the companion case People v. Clark, 2014 IL 115776, because it criminalized recording conversations with no expectation of privacy, such as a loud argument in public. The legislature replaced it with Public Act 98-1142, effective December 30, 2014, which added two limits: the conversation must be private, and the recording must be surreptitious.

What the statute prohibits now

Under 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a), a person commits eavesdropping when they knowingly and intentionally:

• (1) use an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, to overhear, transmit or record a private conversation they are not part of, unless all parties consent;
• (2) use an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, to transmit or record a private conversation they are part of, "unless he or she does so with the consent of all other parties";
• (3) intercept, record or transcribe, in a surreptitious manner, a private electronic communication they are not part of, without all parties' consent;
• (5) use or disclose information they know or reasonably should know was obtained in violation of the article.

The key definitions are in 720 ILCS 5/14-1:

What that means for an interviewer

Read (a)(2) with the definition of surreptitious and the practical rule is clear. An interviewer who tells the candidate they are recording or transcribing, and gets agreement, is not acting by stealth, deception, secrecy or concealment. An interviewer who records without saying anything, or who describes a transcription tool as "just taking notes," is doing what the statute describes.

Two points deserve care. First, "secretly" is judged by what the candidate knew, so a line in a calendar invite the candidate may not have read is weaker than saying it at the start. Second, the statute asks for "consent of all other parties," so on a panel, the other interviewers count as well as the candidate.

Penalties and civil claims

• Criminal. Under 720 ILCS 5/14-4, eavesdropping is a Class 4 felony for a first offense and a Class 3 felony for a second or subsequent offense.
• Civil. Under 720 ILCS 5/14-6, any or all parties to a conversation that was eavesdropped on can get an injunction, "all actual damages against the eavesdropper or his principal or both," and punitive damages.

The principal definition is the one agencies should notice. If a recruiter records candidates secretly as part of their job and the agency knows, or benefits from the recordings, the agency is exposed to the civil claim as well as the recruiter.

The two other Illinois laws that apply to the same interview

The eavesdropping statute answers whether you may capture the conversation. Two other statutes answer what you may do with it:

A transcription tool that turns speech into text, without building a voiceprint or analyzing the candidate, is in a different position from one that scores facial expressions or identifies speakers by their voice. Ask your vendor which of those it does before the first Illinois interview. For AI used in employment decisions more generally, Illinois also amended its Human Rights Act from January 1, 2026; the summary is in AI hiring laws by state.

Note-taking bots and people who are not on the call

Paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 14-2 cover conversations and electronic communications the recorder is not part of, and paragraph (3) expressly includes transcribing. That is the situation created by a note-taking bot that joins a meeting on behalf of someone who is absent, or by a hiring manager who asks a colleague's tool to capture an interview they cannot attend. The person relying on the bot is not a party to the conversation, so the question becomes whether everyone on the call knew and agreed. A visible bot with a clear name helps show the capture was not secret; a spoken announcement at the start, with a chance to object, is what actually settles it.

A consent line for Illinois interviews

"Before we start, I want to be upfront: I'd like to [record / transcribe] this
interview with [tool] so I have an accurate record for the [role] position.
It's seen by [who] and kept for [period]. [It does not analyze or score you;
people make the decision.] If you'd rather I didn't, I'll switch it off and
take notes by hand, and it won't affect your application. Is that OK?"

Only include the bracketed sentence about analysis if it is true. If the tool does analyze candidates, the Illinois AI and biometric laws require their own written notice and consent before the interview, not a line at the start of it. More wording, including panel and phone versions, is in the interview recording consent script.

Checklist for Illinois interviews

1. Never record or transcribe an interview without telling everyone on it.
2. Describe the tool accurately; "taking notes" is not an accurate description of a recorder.
3. Get the other interviewers' agreement before the call.
4. Check whether the tool analyzes video, voice or faces, and if so apply the AI video interview and biometric rules first.
5. Make sure managers know that secret recording by a recruiter can expose the agency as a principal.
6. Log when and how consent was given.

Illinois' place among the other all-party states, and why lists disagree about it, is explained in two-party consent states.