Maine recording consent law for interviews: the sender-or-receiver rule and the New Hampshire line

Maine is a one-party consent state, but its statute gets there in an unusual way. Instead of an exception for participants, Maine's definition of "intercept" in 15 M.R.S. § 709(4) simply leaves them out: interception means hearing or recording a call or conversation with a device "by any person other than" the sender or receiver, someone within normal hearing range, or "a person given prior authority by the sender or receiver." An interviewer who records or transcribes their own phone screen or video interview is the receiver of what the candidate says, so Maine's wiretap chapter does not treat that as interception. The one neighboring state, New Hampshire, takes the opposite approach.

Check a specific pair of locations with the consent checker.

How Maine defines interception

Chapter 102 of Title 15 governs "Interception of Wire and Oral Communications." Its definition reads:

"'Intercept' means to hear, record or aid another to hear or record the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device by any person other than: A. The sender or receiver of that communication; B. A person within the range of normal unaided hearing or subnormal hearing corrected to not better than normal; or C. A person given prior authority by the sender or receiver."

Three practical readings follow for interviews:

• The interviewer. Sending and receiving is what an interviewer does on a call, so recording it is outside the definition.
• A colleague who records for you. Paragraph C covers someone given "prior authority" by a participant, which is the Maine version of one-party consent for a non-participant. The authority must come first.
• Someone in the room. Paragraph B leaves out a person within normal hearing range. It reflects the idea that you cannot intercept what you can already hear. Do not read it as permission for a hidden device; federal law still asks whether the recorder is a party or has a party's consent.

Two other definitions matter. "Contents" covers "any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, contents, substance, purport or meaning of that communication," so the fact of the call is itself protected. And unlike the federal rule, Maine's definition has no clause about a criminal or tortious purpose; the federal limit in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) still applies to every interview anyway.

Wire and oral only: where video interviews fit

Maine's chapter speaks of "wire or oral" communications. It has no separate category for electronic communications, which the federal act and most newer state laws use for internet traffic. A "wire communication" in § 709 is "any communication made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception." An "oral communication" is one uttered with a justified expectation that it is not subject to interception.

A video interview runs at least partly over cable, so it plausibly fits the wire definition, but we found no Maine source applying the chapter to video platforms. Federal law covers electronic communications directly. For planning, treat a video interview exactly like a phone screen: a participant may record, and a non-participant needs a participant's prior authority. A transcription tool is "record[ing] the contents" in the ordinary sense and belongs in the same category.

Penalties and the civil claim

The civil remedy in § 711 belongs to "any party to a conversation intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter." It allows "actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages, computed at the rate of $100 per day for each day of violation," plus a reasonable attorney's fee. There is no $1,000 minimum and no mention of punitive damages, which makes it smaller than many states' remedies. The federal claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2520, with its $10,000 statutory alternative, is the larger exposure.

Editing recordings that end up in a proceeding

Maine's chapter has a provision most wiretap laws lack. Section 710(2) makes it a Class C crime to knowingly or intentionally edit, alter or tamper with "any tape, transcription or other sound recording," or to know of such editing, and then present the recording "in any judicial proceeding or proceeding under oath, without fully indicating the nature of the changes made and the original state of the recording."

Interview recordings do sometimes end up as evidence, most often when a rejected candidate brings a discrimination claim or an employee disputes what was said at hiring. The provision is a reason to keep the original file intact and to treat clips, excerpts and cleaned-up transcripts as derived copies, labelled as such. If an edited version is ever offered in a hearing, the changes have to be disclosed. A retention policy that keeps originals unaltered until they are deleted on schedule handles this without extra effort.

Interview formats in Maine

New Hampshire and the Canadian border

Maine shares a land border with exactly one state. Kittery sits across the Piscataqua River from Portsmouth, and the Seacoast labor market runs both ways: Maine employers interview New Hampshire residents and the reverse every day. New Hampshire makes intercepting a call or private conversation without the consent of all parties a felony, and a person recorded unlawfully can sue. A York County recruiter calling a candidate in Dover or Portsmouth should follow New Hampshire's rule; see New Hampshire wiretap law for interviews. Massachusetts, one state further, is similarly strict.

To the north and east, Maine borders New Brunswick and Quebec. Canada's Criminal Code allows a participant to record, but Canadian privacy law adds notice and purpose requirements, and Quebec has its own private-sector privacy statute. That combination is covered in recording interviews in Canada. For candidates elsewhere in the United States, the analysis of conflicting state laws is in recording calls across state lines.

A short checklist for Maine hiring teams

1. Assume the Seacoast is New Hampshire. If the candidate's number or address is near the border, ask where they are and get consent.
2. Get authority in advance. Paragraph C requires prior authority when someone other than the interviewer runs the recording. Arrange it before the call, not after.
3. Do not lean on the earshot exception. It describes who is not intercepting under Maine's definition; it is not a plan for recording a room.
4. Treat contents broadly. Maine counts the identity of the parties as contents. Keep recordings, transcripts and even the list of who was recorded inside the hiring team.
5. Check AI features separately against AI hiring laws by state.

A consent line for Maine interviews

"Thanks for making the time. Before we start, I'd like to
[record / transcribe] this conversation so I can focus on what you're
saying instead of on my notes. The file stays with our hiring team
for this role and is deleted after [period]. Would that be OK? If
you'd prefer I don't, just say so; it makes no difference to how
the interview goes."

[Yes: start capture and note the time. No: notes only.]

Maine law does not require the question, but New Hampshire's does, and you will not always know which side of the river the candidate is on. Other wording options are in the interview recording consent script.