One-party consent states: what interviewers can and cannot rely on
On this page
- What one-party consent actually permits
- The one-party states, with sample statutes
- Three states that are one-party for some calls only
- Why one-party consent rarely settles an interview
- Situations where one-party consent does not help
- What to do as an interviewer in a one-party state
- Questions people ask
A one-party consent state lets a person record a conversation they are taking part in without asking anyone else, and lets a non-participant record if one participant has agreed in advance. Federal law works the same way. Counting the states on our two-party consent states page as the exceptions, 36 states and the District of Columbia follow a one-party rule. For an interviewer, that rule is narrower than it sounds: it covers your own conversations, it does not cover recording for a criminal or tortious purpose, and it does not follow you into a call with a candidate in an all-party state.
To check a specific call, the consent checker takes your state and the candidate's and tells you which rule applies.
This is not legal advice. Statute wording below was checked on official legislature and code websites as of September 2026. Courts interpret these statutes, exceptions apply, and the law changes. Confirm the rule for your situation with a lawyer licensed in the relevant state.
What one-party consent actually permits
The model for most state laws is the federal wiretap statute. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), it is not unlawful for a person not acting under color of law 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 interception is for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Three conditions sit inside that sentence, and each one matters in hiring:
- You are a party, or a party consented first. An interviewer on the call qualifies. A recruiter who sets a device to capture a hiring manager's interview they are not attending does not, unless a participant agreed in advance.
- Prior consent. Consent after the fact does not help a non-participant.
- No criminal or tortious purpose. Recording to gather evidence for a lawful hiring decision is ordinary; recording to embarrass someone or to collect information you are not allowed to use is where this limit starts to bite.
Most one-party states copy this structure, including the purpose limit. Texas, for example, makes it an affirmative defense that a person not acting under color of law "is a party to the communication or if one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent," with the same carve-out for criminal, tortious or "any other injurious act" (Tex. Penal Code § 16.02(c)(4)).
The one-party states, with sample statutes
Taking the 14 states our two-party page lists as having an all-party rule for at least some conversations (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington), the remaining states follow a one-party rule for recording by a participant:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming, plus the District of Columbia.
Vermont is included because it is commonly described as having no general recording statute; we could not confirm that on an official source, which is also what our two-party page says. The table shows the consent wording in a sample of the states where recruiters most often sit.
| State | Statute | Consent wording |
|---|---|---|
| New York | Penal Law § 250.00 | Mechanical overhearing is recording a conversation "without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat" |
| Texas | Penal Code § 16.02(c)(4) | Defense where the person "is a party to the communication" or one party gave prior consent, absent a criminal, tortious or injurious purpose |
| Ohio | R.C. § 2933.52(B)(4) | Lawful "if the person is a party to the communication or if one of the parties to the communication has given the person prior consent" |
| North Carolina | G.S. § 15A-287(a) | The offense requires acting "without the consent of at least one party to the communication" |
| Virginia | Code § 19.2-62(B)(2) | Not an offense where the person "is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent" |
| Arizona | A.R.S. § 13-3005 | Offense covers interception "without the consent of a party to such conversation or discussion" |
| Hawaii | HRS § 803-42(b)(3)(A) | Lawful when the person "is a party to the communication" or one party gave prior consent, absent a criminal or tortious purpose |
| District of Columbia | D.C. Code § 23-542(b)(3) | Lawful where "such person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent" |
Hawaii carries a caveat worth knowing: it is one-party for conversations, but a separate offense covers installing recording devices in private places without consent (HRS § 711-1111), so a hidden device in an interview room is a different question from recording your own call.
Three states that are one-party for some calls only
Some lists count Connecticut, Nevada and Oregon as one-party states. That is true for part of what an interviewer does and wrong for the rest, which is why our two-party page lists them as split states:
- Connecticut. The criminal statute is effectively one-party, but the civil statute, Gen. Stat. § 52-570d, gives a right to sue over recording a private phone call without all parties' consent, a recorded notice or a periodic tone.
- Nevada. In-person conversations are one-party. Phone calls are all-party under the Nevada Supreme Court's reading of NRS 200.620 in Lane v. Allstate (1998).
- Oregon. Phone calls are one-party. Conversations, which include "a communication occurring through a video conferencing program," require that all participants be specifically informed, so a Zoom or Teams interview with an Oregon candidate is not one-party.
Why one-party consent rarely settles an interview
The candidate's location can bring in a stricter rule
A recruiter in a one-party state who calls a candidate in California, Florida or Washington may find the stricter state's law applied to the call. In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006), California's Supreme Court applied California's all-party rule to calls recorded in Georgia, a one-party state. Pennsylvania's Superior Court went the other way in Larrison v. Larrison, 750 A.2d 895 (Pa. Super. 2000), applying New York's one-party law to a call recorded in New York with a person in Pennsylvania. Courts do not agree, and you do not choose which court hears a complaint. The detail is in recording calls across state lines.
You often do not know where the candidate is
Area codes follow the phone, not the person, and candidates take calls from cars, client sites and relatives' houses. A one-party process that depends on the candidate being in a one-party state fails silently the first time they are not.
AI rules and data rules sit on top
Recording law asks whether you may capture the conversation. It says nothing about AI analysis, scoring or retention. Illinois requires notice, an explanation and consent before AI analyzes recorded video interviews for Illinois-based positions; New York City requires notice before an automated tool screens candidates; California gives applicants privacy rights over recordings and transcripts. See AI hiring laws by state for the full list.
Transcription counts as recording
The federal definition of intercept is the "aural or other acquisition of the contents" of a communication through a device (18 U.S.C. § 2510(4)). A tool that turns the conversation into text is acquiring its contents whether or not it keeps audio. One-party consent covers that, the same as a recording, but only on the same conditions.
Situations where one-party consent does not help
| Situation | Why one-party consent is not enough |
|---|---|
| Recording an interview you are not attending | You are not a party; you need a participant's prior consent, and the candidate may be in an all-party state |
| A note-taking bot joins a call on behalf of someone absent | The bot's owner is not a party to that call; the same question arises |
| Candidate is in an all-party state | That state's law may be applied to the call |
| Video call with a candidate in Oregon | Oregon treats video calls as conversations that require everyone to be informed |
| Tool analyzes or scores the candidate | AI hiring rules apply regardless of recording consent |
| Your employer or client requires notice | Policy can be stricter than law, and breaching it is a problem on its own |
What to do as an interviewer in a one-party state
- Ask anyway. The sentence takes ten seconds and removes the location question from every call. Wording is in the interview recording consent script.
- Put the notice in the invite. A line in the calendar invitation means the spoken question is not a surprise.
- Never record a conversation you are not in without a participant's agreement and, preferably, everyone's.
- Know what your tool does. Transcribing, recording and scoring are different things with different rules.
- Write down the rule you follow. A team where one recruiter asks and another relies on one-party consent has two policies, and the weaker one is the one that ends up in a complaint.
For the broader question, including UK and EU candidates and the records you create by recording, see is it legal to record a job interview.
Questions people ask
How many one-party consent states are there?
Counting the 14 states with an all-party rule for at least some conversations on our two-party consent page, the other 36 states and the District of Columbia follow a one-party rule. Some lists give a higher number because they count states such as Connecticut, Nevada or Oregon as one-party, which is true only for certain kinds of conversation.
Does one-party consent mean I can record an interview without telling the candidate?
In a one-party state, a participant can generally record their own conversation without the other person's agreement, as long as it is not done to commit a crime or tort. That only settles the recording statute. If the candidate is in an all-party state, AI hiring rules apply, or your employer's policy requires notice, you still need to tell them.
Can I record a panel interview I am not part of in a one-party state?
Not on the strength of your own consent. The one-party rule covers a person who is a party to the conversation, or someone who has the prior consent of a party. A recruiter recording an interview they are not in needs a participant's consent at minimum.
Which state's rule applies if I am in a one-party state and the candidate is not?
Courts have applied the stricter state's law in some cases, most notably California in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, and the recorder's state in others, such as Pennsylvania in Larrison v. Larrison. Because you cannot predict which, the safe practice is to get the candidate's consent.