Michigan recording consent law for interviews: what the statute says and what courts do

Michigan's eavesdropping statute, MCL 750.539c, prohibits using a device to eavesdrop on a private conversation "without the consent of all parties thereto," but courts have read the definition of eavesdropping, "the private discourse of others," as excluding a person who is part of the conversation. As of October 2026, the Michigan Court of Appeals, the federal district court that once ruled the other way, and the Sixth Circuit all treat a participant's recording as lawful, and the Michigan Supreme Court has declined to decide the question. For interviewers, that means a participant may record; a coordinator, a colleague or a note-taking tool acting for someone absent needs everyone's permission.

For a call between two states, the consent checker shows which rule to plan for.

Below: the statutory text, the court decisions in order (including the 2021 developments that older guides miss), who is and is not a participant, formats, penalties, cross-state calls, and a consent line.

What does the Michigan statute say?

• The offense, MCL 750.539c. "Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same," commits a felony.
• The definition, MCL 750.539a(2). To eavesdrop is "to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse."
• Use and disclosure, MCL 750.539e. Using or divulging information a person "knows or reasonably should know was obtained in violation of" the eavesdropping sections is its own felony.
• Devices in private places, MCL 750.539d. No installing, placing or using a device "in any private place, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place," for recording or eavesdropping on "the sounds or events in that place."

The tension is in the text. Section 539c says "present or who is not present," which sounds like it covers people in the room. The definition says "discourse of others," which sounds like it covers only outsiders.

Can a participant record a conversation in Michigan?

Under the current case law, yes. The decisions, in order:

Many guides still describe Michigan as split because of the 2019 ruling. That ruling no longer stands on the participant point: the district court reconsidered it in November 2021, and the Sixth Circuit called the 2019 decision "of little probative value." What remains open is that the Michigan Supreme Court has never decided the question, and the statute's own words still say "all parties." A participant recording is lawful under every current appellate reading; it is not guaranteed forever. The earlier state of the debate is described in Michigan eavesdropping law for interviews.

Who is not a participant, and what do they need?

The participant reading protects only people "engaged in the discourse." For everyone else, the definition requires "the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse," which is an all-party rule. In hiring, that catches:

• A recruiter who records a hiring manager's interview without joining it.
• A note-taking bot that joins on behalf of someone absent, such as a manager who sends their assistant to a meeting they skip. The tool's owner is not in the conversation.
• A colleague listening in silently through a shared line or a forwarded meeting link, if that person is not introduced as a participant.

Section 539c also covers anyone who "knowingly aids, employs or procures another person" to eavesdrop. A manager who directs a coordinator to capture interviews they are not part of is within that phrase.

How does the law apply to phone, video and in-person interviews?

Section 539a(2) adds that nothing in the act affects "any law or regulation concerning interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications common carriers," so phone calls bring federal law into play. The federal consent exception, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), allows a party to record unless the purpose is "committing any criminal or tortious act."

What are the penalties in Michigan?

• Eavesdropping, § 539c: a felony punishable by "imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both."
• Using or divulging, § 539e: a felony with the same 2-year and $2,000 maximums. Forwarding an unlawful recording to a client is a separate violation.
• Devices in private places, § 539d: up to 2 years or $2,000 for a first violation of subsection (1)(a); distributing a recording obtained in violation of the section carries up to 5 years or $5,000.
• Civil, MCL 750.539h: parties to a conversation subject to eavesdropping may get an injunction, "all actual damages against the person who eavesdrops," and punitive damages.

Why ask for consent if participants may record?

1. The highest court has not ruled. A Michigan Supreme Court decision adopting the statute's literal wording would change the rule for everyone, including recordings already made.
2. Candidates move. A candidate on the other end may be in a state with a clear all-party rule.
3. Absent people are not participants. Asking everyone covers the cases where the participant reading does not apply.
4. One policy is easier than two. A team that asks every time does not have to work out who counts as a participant on each call.

What about candidates in other states?

Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin, Michigan's land neighbors, are one-party states for participants. Illinois, a short drive from southwest Michigan, bans surreptitious recording without all other parties' consent; see Illinois recording consent law for interviews. Candidates across the river in Ontario fall under Canada's federal Criminal Code and privacy law. For other states, check two-party consent states, and for how courts pick between two states' rules, see recording calls across state lines. The broader rules on AI and candidate notices are in is it legal to record a job interview.

A consent line for Michigan interviews

"Quick note before we begin: I'd like to [record / transcribe] our
conversation so my notes for the [role] position are accurate. Only
[who] will see it, and it's deleted after [period]. You're welcome to
say no, and I'll take notes by hand with no effect on your
application. Are you OK with me [recording / transcribing]?"

[Wait for a clear yes before capture starts.]

More wording, including panel and email versions, is in the interview recording consent script.

Checklist for Michigan interviews

1. Ask the candidate, and agree internally, before capture starts.
2. Never record an interview you are not part of without every participant's permission.
3. Do not let a note-taking tool attend for someone who is absent unless everyone agrees.
4. Do not leave a device recording in a private interview room without telling the people in it.
5. Do not forward a recording you are unsure was made lawfully.
6. Recheck the policy if the Michigan Supreme Court or Legislature takes up the participant question.