Missouri recording consent law for interviews: a phone-centered statute with a $10,000 floor

Missouri is a one-party consent state for phone calls. Under RSMo 542.402.2(3), a private person may intercept "a wire 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. A recruiter can record or transcribe their own phone screen under Missouri law. What is unusual is how much of Missouri's statute is about wire communications only: there is no "electronic communication" category, the in-person rule is limited to radio transmitters, and the civil claim covers wire communications. Federal law fills those gaps.

Calling across the state line? The consent checker sets Missouri's rule beside the candidate's.

What sections 542.400 to 542.422 cover

Section 542.402.1 makes it a class E felony when a person:

1. "Knowingly intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire communication";
2. knowingly uses a device "to intercept any oral communication when such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication";
3. knowingly discloses the contents of a wire communication, knowing or having reason to know it was unlawfully intercepted; or
4. knowingly uses such contents.

The definitions in § 542.400 are narrower than the federal ones. "Intercept" is "the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire communication through the use of any electronic or mechanical device." "Wire communication" is any communication made "in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection." There is an "oral communication" definition, but the only offense that uses it is the radio-transmitter paragraph above.

The exception an interviewer relies on is § 542.402.2(3). It is not unlawful:

"For a person not acting under law to intercept a wire 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."

Where video and in-person interviews fit

Video calls

Missouri's act has no separate category for internet data. A Zoom or Teams interview travels in part over cables and network connections, so it plausibly fits "in whole or in part" through wire facilities, but we found no official guidance confirming that, and we did not rely on case law. The safe assumption is that the one-party rule for wire communications applies, which also matches federal law, where video calls are electronic communications and a party may record.

In-person interviews

A phone or laptop recording a conversation across a desk in Springfield or Columbia does not transmit by radio in the sense of § 542.402.1(2), so Missouri's act does not appear to reach it. The federal wiretap act does: it covers oral communications, and its consent exception at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) lets a participant record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. Someone who is not in the room still needs a participant's prior consent under federal law.

Penalties and the civil claim

• Criminal. A violation of § 542.402.1 is a class E felony. Under § 558.011.1(5), the prison term is "a term of years not to exceed four years," and § 558.002.1(1) sets the maximum fine for a class E felony at $10,000.
• Civil. Section 542.418.2 gives "any person whose wire communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation" of the act a claim for "actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation or ten thousand dollars whichever is greater," punitive damages "on a showing of a willful or intentional violation," and a reasonable attorney's fee.
• Evidence. Section 542.418.1 says the contents of an intercepted wire communication "shall not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any civil or administrative proceeding," except in actions under that section. How courts apply that to recordings made lawfully by a participant is a case-law question we did not research.

The $10,000 floor matches the federal statutory figure in 18 U.S.C. § 2520, so for a Missouri phone call the state and federal minimums line up. For an unlawful recording of an in-person interview, only the federal claim is likely to be available.

Situations the exception does not cover

St. Louis, Kansas City and the Illinois question

Missouri's two largest labor markets both straddle state lines, and they point in opposite directions.

St. Louis. The Metro East counties are in Illinois, and a St. Louis recruiter calling a candidate in Belleville, Edwardsville or Alton is talking to someone in an all-party state. Illinois makes it a felony to record a private conversation in a surreptitious manner without everyone's consent; recording openly with agreement avoids the problem. See Illinois eavesdropping law for interviews, which also covers Illinois's separate rule on AI analysis of video interviews.

Kansas City. The Kansas side follows a one-party rule for calls, set out in a breach of privacy statute rather than a wiretap act; see Kansas recording consent law for interviews. Missouri's other neighbors (Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky) are also one-party.

Federal law does not resolve a conflict between Missouri's rule and a stricter state's. The approaches courts have taken are in recording calls across state lines.

Why the narrow statute is not a loophole

Reading Missouri's act on its own, an employer might conclude that anything other than a phone call is unregulated. Three things make that a poor basis for an interview policy. First, the federal wiretap act covers wire, oral and electronic communications in every state, and its civil remedy applies to unlawful interceptions of all three. Second, a candidate calling from another state brings that state's statute with them, and many of those statutes cover in-person and electronic communications. Third, hidden recording of a job interview is the kind of conduct that invites other claims and damages trust with candidates, whatever the wiretap statute says. The narrow wording is a reason to understand where Missouri sits, not a reason to record without asking.

Recording and transcription in practice

1. Ask on every call. Missouri does not require it for a participant, but a St. Louis candidate pool includes Illinois residents, and you cannot see the river from a phone number.
2. Transcription counts. Missouri's definition says "aural acquisition," but software that converts the call to text is still acquiring its contents, and federal law says "aural or other acquisition."
3. Treat in-person the same. The gap in Missouri's act does not mean an unannounced room recording is safe; federal law and the candidate's expectations still apply.
4. Limit who receives files. Disclosure is its own offense, so send summaries and scorecards to clients rather than audio.

A consent line for Missouri interviews

"Before we dive in, I'd like your OK to [record / transcribe] this
conversation. It helps me give the hiring manager an accurate
picture of your answers for the [role] job. The file stays with
[who] and is deleted after [period]. If you'd prefer not, just tell
me and I'll take written notes; it won't change anything. All right?"

[On a clear yes, start. On a no or a pause, keep it off.]

Mentioning the hiring manager tells the candidate where the content goes, which is what most people want to know before agreeing. Panel and written versions are in the interview recording consent script, and the broader legal picture is in is it legal to record a job interview.