Utah recording consent law for interviews: one-party under the Interception of Communications Act

Utah is a one-party consent state. Under Utah Code § 77-23a-4(7)(b), a person not acting under color of law "may intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication if that person is a party to the communication or 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 Utah law. Recording one you are not part of, without a participant's consent, is generally a third degree felony, and the civil statute offers damages of at least $10,000 as an alternative to proving actual loss. Utah also borders Nevada, which treats phone calls as all-party.

For a quick answer on any pairing of states, use the consent checker.

This page covers the statute's wording, a definition of "intercept" that is broader than the federal one, penalties and civil claims, interview formats, cross-state calls and a consent line.

What the statute says

Utah's Interception of Communications Act is Title 77, Chapter 23a. Section 77-23a-4(1)(b) covers a person who "intentionally or knowingly intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication," as well as a person who intentionally or knowingly 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 the section.

The participant rule is § 77-23a-4(7)(b):

"A person not acting under color of law may intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication if that person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of state or federal laws."

A broader definition of "intercept"

The definitions are in § 77-23a-3. The federal statute, and many state laws modeled on it, use the phrase "the aural or other acquisition of the contents." Utah's version drops "aural": intercept means "the acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." There is no room to argue that a tool which never plays audio back, and keeps only a transcript or extracted notes, is doing something different. Treat transcription exactly like recording.

"Oral communication" means one uttered by a person "exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying that expectation," which is the in-person category. Wire and electronic communications cover phone calls and transmitted "signs, signals, writings, images, sounds, data, or intelligence," which is where video calls fall.

Penalties and the civil claim

• Criminal. Under § 77-23a-4(10)(a), a violation of subsection (1) is "a third degree felony," apart from certain first offenses involving unscrambled radio communications. Utah's sentencing statutes set a prison term "not to exceed five years" for a third degree felony (§ 76-3-203) and a fine of up to $5,000 (§ 76-3-301).
• Civil. Section 77-23a-11 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 award the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, or "statutory damages of $100 a day for each day of violation, or $10,000, whichever is greater."
• Deadline. A civil action must be brought within two years after the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation (§ 77-23a-11(5)).

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

How the rule applies to interview formats

Calls from Utah to other states

Most of Utah's neighbors (Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona) follow a one-party rule. Nevada is the exception that matters: its in-person rule is one-party, but phone calls are treated as all-party, as explained in Nevada recording consent law for interviews. Utah employers also interview candidates in California, which requires all parties' consent for confidential communications and for calls involving cell phones.

Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) matches Utah's rule but is a floor. 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 stricter state; the general approach is in recording calls across state lines.

Recording law and Utah's AI disclosure rules

Whether you may capture an interview is one question; whether software that talks to or evaluates candidates must be disclosed is another. Utah has a separate generative AI disclosure duty, covered in Utah's AI disclosure duty and hiring. A consent line that names both the recording and any AI analysis handles both questions at once.

What it means for recording or transcribing an interview

1. Only participants start capture. Or someone with a participant's prior consent, given before the call.
2. Notes extracted by software are interception. Utah's definition covers any acquisition of contents, audio or not.
3. Share scorecards, not raw files. Intentional disclosure or use of unlawfully intercepted contents is an offense and a civil claim.
4. Expect candidates to record. A candidate in Utah who is on the call may record it without asking. Keep questions consistent and job-related.

Panels, shared calls and absent interviewers

The one-party rule is easiest to apply when one interviewer records their own call. Panels add two wrinkles. First, the person who starts capture must actually be on the call, or have the prior consent of someone who is; a hiring manager who sets a recording to run on an interview they then skip is no longer a party to it. Second, colleagues on the panel are parties too. Utah law lets any one of them consent, but recording a colleague who objects is a poor start to a hiring process. Agree before the interview who will record, where the file goes and when it will be deleted, then ask the candidate at the start.

A consent line for Utah interviews

"Before we start, I'd like to [record / transcribe] this interview so
my notes for the [role] position are accurate. [If used: An AI tool
will help summarize it.] 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?"

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

Utah does not require this for a call you are on, but Nevada and California may. More versions are in the interview recording consent script.

Checklist for Utah hiring teams

1. Ask every candidate before capture starts.
2. Treat phone screens with Nevada candidates, and calls with California candidates, as all-party.
3. Only participants set up recording or transcription.
4. Do not forward or quote a recording unless you know how it was made.
5. Keep a dated written policy and review it yearly.

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