Massachusetts recording consent law for interviews: prior authority from everyone

Massachusetts allows a conversation to be recorded only with the prior authority of everyone in it, unless the recording is open. The statute, G.L. c. 272, § 99, defines interception as to "secretly hear, secretly record" a wire or oral communication "by any person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication." For an interviewer, that means announcing any recording or transcription to the candidate and every other participant before capture starts. As of October 2026, a secret interception is punishable by up to five years in state prison, and the person recorded can sue for at least $1,000.

Recording across state lines? The consent checker compares Massachusetts with your state.

This page focuses on the parts of § 99 that hiring teams run into: what "prior authority" requires, how the definitions reach video calls, the business exemptions recruiters cannot use, the separate offense of sharing an intercepted recording, what the courts have and have not narrowed, and calls to New Hampshire and beyond.

What does section 99 require?

The statute begins with a finding that "the secret use of such devices by private individuals must be prohibited." The definitions in paragraph B then set the reach:

What does "prior authority by all parties" mean in an interview?

Three words in the definition do the work.

• Prior. Authority comes before the recording, not after. If your tool starts capturing the moment you join a call, either start it only after the candidate agrees or open with the notice so the question and answer are the first things captured, and delete the opening if the answer is no.
• All parties. On a panel, every interviewer is a party as well as the candidate. Agree internally before the call, then ask the candidate.
• Secretly. The offense is secret hearing or recording. Saying out loud what is being captured, and with what tool, is what takes a recording out of that category. Someone who joins late did not hear it, so repeat the notice.

The Supreme Judicial Court's reading of "secretly," including why it does not depend on whether the conversation was private, is covered in Massachusetts wiretap law for interviews. The practical upshot is that you cannot argue your way out with "it was only a business call"; you stay out by telling people.

Does it cover phone, video and in-person interviews?

Are there business exemptions a recruiter can use?

Paragraph D lists what is not a violation. Two entries are business-related, and both show how narrow the room is:

• Office intercoms, D.1.b. It is not a violation "for persons to possess an office intercommunication system which is used in the ordinary course of their business or to use such office intercommunication system in the ordinary course of their business." That covers an intercom, not a recorder.
• Financial trading lines, D.1.f. A financial institution may record telephone communications with its "corporate or institutional trading partners," provided it gives them "semi-annual written notice" that designated lines will be recorded.

The second exemption is the telling one. When the Legislature wanted a notice-based recording rule for an industry, it wrote one, with conditions. There is no equivalent for employers, staffing agencies or interviews, so the general rule applies: no secret recording without everyone's prior authority.

What are the penalties for recording, sharing or helping?

• Interception, § 99(C)(1). A fine of "not more than ten thousand dollars," imprisonment "in the state prison for not more than five years," or in "a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years," or a fine and one such term.
• Disclosure or use, § 99(C)(3). Willfully disclosing or using the contents of a communication "knowing that the information was obtained through interception" is a misdemeanor punishable by up to two years in a jail or house of correction, a $5,000 fine, or both. Sending a secretly made recording to a client, or quoting it in a submittal, falls here.
• Possession with intent, § 99(C)(5). Possessing an intercepting device "under circumstances evincing an intent to commit an interception," or permitting one to be used for an unlawful interception, is a separate misdemeanor.
• Helping, § 99(C)(6). Anyone who "permits or on behalf of any other person commits" a violation, or is an accessory, is punished the same way as the person who did it.
• Civil, § 99(Q). "Actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 per day for each day of violation or $1000, whichever is higher," punitive damages, and a reasonable attorney's fee.

For an agency, the "permits or on behalf of" language matters: a manager who knows recruiters record secretly and lets it continue is not a bystander under the statute's terms.

Have the courts narrowed section 99?

Once, for a context far from hiring. In Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020), the First Circuit affirmed a ruling that § 99 "violates the First Amendment by prohibiting the secret, nonconsensual audio recording of police officers discharging their official duties in public spaces." The same decision affirmed the dismissal of a challenge to the statute as a whole. A job interview is a private conversation between private parties, not an official performing public duties in a public space, so the rule for interviewers is unchanged.

What if the candidate is in another state?

Massachusetts recruiters hire across New England. New Hampshire is also an all-party state, with a felony for recording without everyone's consent; see New Hampshire recording consent law for interviews. Connecticut's criminal law is one-party, but its civil statute covers phone calls recorded without consent or notice. Rhode Island and New York are one-party states, and Vermont has no general state recording statute. If you sit in a one-party state and call a candidate in Boston, do not assume your own law decides it; the approaches courts take are in recording calls across state lines, and the all-party states are listed on two-party consent states.

Recording law answers only whether you may capture the conversation. AI scoring and candidate-notice rules that apply on top of it are summarized in is it legal to record a job interview.

A consent line for Massachusetts interviews

"Before we begin: I'm going to [record / transcribe] this conversation
with [tool] so I have an accurate record for the [role] position, and
everyone on our side has agreed. It's seen by [who] and kept for
[period]. If you'd rather I didn't, say so and I'll keep it off and
take notes by hand; it won't affect your application. Is that OK?"

[Say it before capture starts. Repeat it if anyone joins late.]

Capturing the notice and the candidate's yes at the start of the recording is the simplest proof that nothing was secret. More wording, including written notices and a consent log, is in the interview recording consent script.

Checklist for Massachusetts interviews

1. Announce recording or transcription before it starts, to everyone present.
2. Get every interviewer's agreement before the call.
3. Name the tool and describe it accurately.
4. Repeat the notice when someone joins late.
5. Never share or quote a recording you are not sure was made openly.
6. Make sure managers know that permitting secret recording is itself covered.