Vermont recording consent law for interviews: no wiretap statute, but not no rules

Vermont has no general state statute on recording conversations, so the federal rule decides most interviews: under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), a person who is "a party to the communication" may record it unless the purpose is "committing any criminal or tortious act." That makes Vermont effectively one-party. Two things complicate it as of October 2026. Vermont's voyeurism statute, 13 V.S.A. § 2605(d), prohibits recording a person "in any format" without their "knowledge and consent" while they are in a private place within a home, which is where many candidates sit for video interviews. And Vermont's neighbors, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, are all-party states.

Comparing Vermont with the candidate's state? Use the consent checker.

This page covers what Vermont's statutes do and do not contain, the federal rule that fills the gap, the voyeurism provision, Vermont court decisions on recording, formats, cross-border calls and a consent line.

Does Vermont have a recording consent law?

Not a general one. Most states put their wiretap or eavesdropping law in the criminal code. Vermont's criminal code is Title 13, and its chapter list runs from general provisions through computer crimes and criminal procedure without a chapter on wiretapping, eavesdropping or interception of communications. We found no other Vermont statute that sets a consent rule for private people recording conversations.

The one Title 13 chapter with "electronic communication" in its name is chapter 232, the Vermont Electronic Communication Privacy Act. It is about the police. Section 8102 says "a law enforcement officer shall not compel the production of or access to protected user information from a service provider" except in listed situations, and section 8108 says "a law enforcement officer shall not use a device" that intercepts communication content from a user's device in real time, with one fugitive exception. It does not address employers.

What does federal law allow in a Vermont interview?

With no state rule, the federal wiretap act sets the baseline. It applies to "any wire, oral, or electronic communication," which covers phone screens, video calls and in-person interviews.

• The consent rule. It is not unlawful for a person "not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic 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.
• What counts. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(4), intercept means "the aural or other acquisition of the contents" of a communication through a device, so transcription counts as well as audio.
• Penalties. An unlawful interception is punishable under § 2511(4) by a fine or "not more than five years," and 18 U.S.C. § 2520 gives the person recorded a civil claim with statutory damages of "the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000."

For an interviewer, that means you may record an interview you take part in, and a colleague who is not on the call needs a participant's prior consent.

Why does Vermont's voyeurism law matter for video interviews?

13 V.S.A. § 2605 is titled "Voyeurism," and most of it is about intimate images. Subsection (d) is broader:

"No person shall intentionally conduct surveillance or intentionally photograph, film, or record in any format a person without that person's knowledge and consent while the person being surveilled, photographed, filmed, or recorded is in a place where the person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy within a home or residence."

The section defines a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy to include "a place in which a reasonable person would expect to be safe from unwanted intrusion or surveillance." A candidate on a video interview from their living room has invited you to see and hear them live; whether that covers a recording they do not know about is a question the statute does not answer and we found no court has decided. It is a voyeurism statute, and a court may read it in that light. But its words, "record in any format a person without that person's knowledge and consent," fit a secret recording of a candidate at home closely enough that we would not rely on reading them narrowly.

The penalty for a first offense involving an adult is up to two years in prison, a $1,000 fine, or both, under § 2605(j)(1). The fix costs nothing: tell the candidate you are recording, and get a yes, and the "knowledge and consent" element is met.

Do Vermont court decisions on secret recording apply to employers?

Not directly. The best-known Vermont case, State v. Geraw, 173 Vt. 350 (2002), held that Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution prohibits police from secretly recording interviews in a person's home without a warrant. Article 11 limits government searches. It shapes how police and other state agents may record, but it does not create a consent rule for a private employer or staffing agency interviewing a candidate.

Does the format of the interview matter?

What if the candidate is in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York or Quebec?

Vermont recruiters work in a small region with very different rules. New Hampshire, across the Connecticut River, makes recording without every party's consent a class B felony; see New Hampshire recording consent law for interviews. Massachusetts, to the south, bans secret recording without every party's prior authority; see Massachusetts recording consent law for interviews. New York is a one-party state. Candidates in Quebec fall under Canada's Criminal Code, which allows a participant to record, and Quebec's own privacy law, which adds duties for organizations.

A recruiter in White River Junction calling a candidate in Lebanon, New Hampshire, a few miles away, is calling into an all-party state. Do not assume Vermont's lack of a statute travels with the call; courts in all-party states have applied their own law to calls recorded elsewhere, as described in recording calls across state lines. The all-party states are listed on two-party consent states, and the AI and notice rules that sit on top of recording law are in is it legal to record a job interview.

A consent line for Vermont interviews

"Before we start: 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 rather I didn't, or you're calling
from out of state and want to check first, tell me and I'll take notes
by hand. It won't affect your application. Is that OK with you?"

[Clear yes: start capture. No or unsure: leave it off.]

The line gives a candidate at home the knowledge and the choice that § 2605(d) refers to, and it satisfies New Hampshire and Massachusetts. More versions are in the interview recording consent script.

Checklist for Vermont interviews

1. Ask every candidate before capture starts, even though Vermont has no wiretap statute.
2. Treat video interviews with candidates at home as needing knowledge and consent.
3. Never record an interview you are not in without a participant's prior consent.
4. Plan for all-party rules on every call into New Hampshire or Massachusetts.
5. Treat transcripts and AI notes the same as audio.
6. Recheck the policy if the Vermont Legislature adds a recording statute.