Texas recording consent law for interviews: one-party, with a $10,000 civil claim

Texas is a one-party consent state. Under Penal Code § 16.02(c)(4), a person who is "a party to the communication," or who has a party's prior consent, has a defense to the interception offense, unless the purpose is "committing an unlawful act." An interviewer may therefore record or transcribe their own phone screen or interview under Texas law. The stakes for getting it wrong are high, though: unlawful interception is a second-degree felony, and Texas's civil statute sets damages at $10,000 for each occurrence. And when the candidate is in an all-party state, Texas's rule may not be the one that counts.

For any pairing of states, the consent checker gives the applicable rule.

This page covers the criminal and civil statutes, the situations where Texas's one-party rule does not protect a hiring team, how each interview format fits, cross-state calls, and a consent line Texas teams can use everywhere.

The criminal statute

Penal Code § 16.02(b) makes it an offense to intentionally intercept, or try to intercept, "a wire, oral, or electronic communication." It separately covers intentionally disclosing the contents of a communication while knowing or having reason to know it was intercepted unlawfully, and intentionally using the contents while knowing or being reckless about whether it was.

The defense an interviewer relies on is § 16.02(c)(4). It applies when:

"a person not acting under color of law intercepts a wire, oral, or electronic communication, if: (A) the person is a party to the communication; or (B) one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing an unlawful act"

The definitions come from Article 18A.001 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. "Intercept" means "the aural or other acquisition of the contents" of a communication through an interception device, so a transcription tool acquires contents just as a recorder does. "Oral communication" covers in-person speech by a person "exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying that expectation."

Under § 16.02(f), the offense is a felony of the second degree in most cases, and under Penal Code § 12.33 that carries 2 to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.

The civil statute: $10,000 per occurrence

Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 123 gives "a party to a communication" a claim against anyone who intercepts it, or uses or divulges information they know or reasonably should know was obtained by interception. Section 123.001 defines interception as the aural acquisition of contents through a device "that is made without the consent of a party to the communication," which mirrors the one-party rule.

Section 123.004 sets the remedies:

• an injunction against further interception or use;
• "statutory damages of $10,000 for each occurrence";
• "all actual damages in excess of $10,000";
• punitive damages; and
• reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Per-occurrence damages add up quickly when a practice is repeated across many interviews. That is the main reason a Texas team should be careful about the one situation the one-party rule does not cover: recording a conversation no one on your side is part of.

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

The "unlawful act" limit deserves a moment. An interviewer recording to keep accurate notes for a lawful hiring decision is in ordinary territory. We found no Texas decision applying the limit to hiring, and it is not something to test: keep the interview, and the reason for recording it, job-related.

How the rule applies to interview formats

Calls from Texas to other states

Texas teams hire nationally, and a call is governed by more than the recruiter's state. Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) matches Texas's one-party rule, but it is a floor, not a shield. California's Supreme Court applied California's all-party law to calls a Georgia firm recorded with California clients in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006), and other all-party states protect people on their side of a call. A Dallas recruiter calling candidates in California, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania or Washington should follow the candidate's rule. Florida's is explained in Florida call recording law for recruiters, and the general framework in recording calls across state lines.

What it means for recording or transcribing an interview

1. Participants are covered in Texas; outsiders are not. Make sure whoever sets up capture is on the call, or has a participant's prior consent.
2. Transcription is interception. Use the same consent step for a text-only tool as for an audio recorder.
3. AI analysis is a separate question. Recording law does not address scoring candidates; see Texas AI hiring law and AI hiring laws by state.
4. Ask anyway. It removes the location question, the non-party question and most of the civil exposure at once.

When the candidate records, and when recordings are shared

The one-party rule protects candidates too. A candidate in Texas who is a party to the interview may record it without asking, so assume any Texas interview could be on a recording and keep the questions consistent and job-related. If a candidate asks permission, answer according to a written policy, the same way for everyone.

Sharing is where Texas's civil statute bites for agencies. Chapter 123 reaches a person who "uses or divulges information that he knows or reasonably should know was obtained by interception." If a recording of an interview was made by someone who was not on the call and had no participant's consent, forwarding it to a client, or quoting it in a submittal, can expose the person sharing it as well. Share scorecards and summaries rather than raw files, and only when you know how the recording was made.

A consent line for Texas teams

"Before we get started, I'd like to [record / transcribe] this
interview so my notes for the [role] position are accurate. It's seen
by [who] and 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?"

[Clear yes: start. No: capture stays off.]

Texas does not require this line for a call you are on, but it satisfies the all-party states your candidates may be in. Panel and written versions are in the interview recording consent script.

Checklist for Texas hiring teams

1. Only participants, or people with a participant's prior consent, set up recording or transcription.
2. Ask every candidate before capture starts, whatever their location.
3. Do not forward or reuse a recording you are unsure was made lawfully.
4. Keep interview questions job-related.
5. Check AI scoring tools against AI hiring rules separately from recording law.
6. Write the policy down and date it.

Texas is listed with the other one-party states in one-party consent states.