Minnesota recording consent law for interviews: one-party, with triple damages for outsiders

Minnesota is a one-party consent state. Under Minn. Stat. § 626A.02, subd. 2(d), it is not unlawful for a private person to intercept a communication "where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent," unless the purpose is a criminal or tortious act. An interviewer can record or transcribe their own interview under Minnesota law. What sets Minnesota apart is the cost of getting it wrong: up to five years and a $20,000 fine on the criminal side, and on the civil side, damages of three times actual losses or a statutory amount of at least $10,000.

To compare Minnesota with the candidate's state, use the consent checker.

This page covers the statute's wording, the penalties and the civil damages formula, where the one-party rule does not protect a hiring team, interview formats, cross-state calls and a consent line.

What the statute says

Minnesota's Privacy of Communications law is Chapter 626A. Section 626A.02, subdivision 1, covers any person who "intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, electronic, or oral communication," and any person who intentionally discloses or uses the contents of a communication "knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception" of a communication in violation of that subdivision.

The participant exception is subdivision 2(d):

"It is not unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of any state."

Note the last words: "of any state." A recording made in Minnesota for the purpose of a tort under another state's law falls outside the exception. In hiring, the ordinary case is a record kept for a lawful, job-related decision.

The definitions in § 626A.01 follow the federal model:

• Intercept (subd. 5) means "the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." Transcription acquires contents.
• Oral communication (subd. 4) is one uttered by a person "exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." That is the in-person category.
• Wire communication (subd. 3) and electronic communication (subd. 14) cover phone calls and transmitted "signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence," which is where video calls fall.

Penalties and the civil damages formula

• Criminal. Under § 626A.02, subd. 4(a), whoever violates subdivision 1 "shall be fined not more than $20,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." The lower penalties in subdivision 4(b) apply only to certain first offenses involving unscrambled radio communications, not to recording an interview.
• Civil. Section 626A.13 lets a person whose communication is "intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter" sue the person or entity responsible. Relief includes equitable relief, damages, "punitive damages in appropriate cases" and "a reasonable attorney's fee." In an ordinary case, the court may assess the greater of (1) "three times the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator," or (2) "statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000."

The tripling is worth noticing. The federal statute's version of the same formula, 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2), uses "the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits," without a multiplier. For an employer, the takeaway is that Minnesota's civil exposure for recording an interview you are not part of can be large even where the candidate's provable loss is small, because the $10,000 statutory figure is available as an alternative.

An illustrative example, not a prediction of any court's award: a coordinator who is not on the calls sets a tool to capture three panel interviews without asking the interviewers or the candidates. Each of the three candidates could ask a court for the statutory alternative of $10,000, before punitive damages and attorney's fees, even if none of them can show a financial loss. The statute says the court "may" assess these damages, so the outcome is not automatic, but it is not a risk worth carrying for the sake of a skipped question.

Where the one-party rule does not protect a hiring team

How the rule applies to interview formats

Calls from Minnesota to other states

Minnesota's neighbors (Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota and South Dakota) all follow a one-party rule for participants, so regional calls rarely conflict. Twin Cities employers hire nationally, though, and a candidate in California, Washington, Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania or Maryland is in an all-party state; Illinois's rule is explained in Illinois eavesdropping law for interviews.

Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) matches Minnesota's rule but does not stop a stricter state from applying its own. In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006), California's Supreme Court applied California law to calls a firm's Georgia employees recorded with California clients. Plan for the candidate's rule; the framework is in recording calls across state lines.

What it means for recording or transcribing an interview

1. Only participants start capture. Minnesota's exception covers parties and people with a party's prior consent.
2. Transcription counts. A tool that produces only text still acquires the contents of the conversation.
3. Sharing is its own risk. Intentional disclosure or use of unlawfully intercepted contents is covered by both the criminal and civil provisions. Share scorecards and summaries.
4. Assume candidates may record. A Minnesota candidate who is on the call may record it without asking. Keep questions consistent and job-related.
5. AI analysis is separate. Recording law does not address scoring; see AI hiring laws by state.

A consent line for Minnesota interviews

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

[Clear yes: start capture. No, or anything unclear: capture stays off.]

Minnesota does not require this line for a call you are on, but all-party states do, and asking every candidate is simpler than working out where each one is. More versions are in the interview recording consent script.

Checklist for Minnesota hiring teams

1. Ask every candidate before capture starts, wherever they are.
2. Only participants, or people with a participant's prior consent, set up recording or transcription.
3. Do not forward or quote a recording unless you know how it was made.
4. Delete recordings on a schedule.
5. Keep a dated written policy and review it yearly.

Minnesota appears with the other one-party states in one-party consent states, and the wider legal picture is in is it legal to record a job interview.