Virginia recording consent law for interviews: one-party, next door to an all-party state

Virginia is a one-party consent state. Under Code § 19.2-62(B)(2), it "shall not be a criminal offense" to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication where the person "is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent." An interviewer can record or transcribe their own interview under Virginia law. The complication is geography: a large share of Virginia hiring happens in the Washington, D.C., region, and Maryland, a few miles away, requires every party's prior consent and treats a willful violation as a felony.

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

This page covers the statute's wording, penalties, a civil claim with a $4,000 floor, the D.C.-region calls that need the most care, how each interview format fits, and a consent line that works on both sides of the Potomac.

What the statute says

Virginia's interception law is Chapter 6 of Title 19.2. Section 19.2-62(A) makes it a Class 6 felony to intentionally intercept, or procure someone else to intercept, "any wire, electronic or oral communication," and separately to intentionally disclose or use the contents of a communication "knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception" of a communication.

The participant exception is § 19.2-62(B)(2):

"It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception."

Two features of that sentence are worth noticing. First, unlike federal law and many states, it contains no criminal or tortious purpose limit. Federal law still does, so recording for an improper purpose remains risky. Second, it is framed as a criminal-law exception, while the civil claim in § 19.2-69 applies to a communication "intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter." We found no official source addressing whether that difference matters for a participant's own recording. It is one more reason to ask the candidate rather than rely on the exception alone.

The definitions in § 19.2-61 set the reach:

• Intercept means "any aural or other means of acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical or other device." Transcription acquires contents, so it counts.
• Oral communication is one uttered by a person "exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectations." That is the in-person category.
• Wire and electronic communication cover phone calls and transmitted signals, sounds, images and data, which is where video interviews fall.

Penalties and the civil claim

• Criminal. A violation of § 19.2-62(A) is a Class 6 felony. Under § 18.2-10(f), that means "not less than one year nor more than five years" in prison, or, at the discretion of the jury or court, up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500, either or both.
• Civil. Under § 19.2-69, the person whose communication was intercepted, disclosed or used can recover actual damages "but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $400 a day for each day of violation or $4,000, whichever is higher," plus punitive damages and "a reasonable attorney fee." The floor doubles to $800 a day or $8,000 for certain privileged relationships, such as attorney and client, which an ordinary job interview is not.

The D.C.-region problem: Maryland is all-party

A recruiter in Arlington, Reston or Alexandria may interview candidates in three jurisdictions in one afternoon. The rules differ:

Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) follows the one-party model, but it does not prevent a state from protecting people on its side of a call. In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006), California's Supreme Court applied California's all-party law to a firm's recordings, made by employees in Georgia, of calls with California clients. Our Maryland page notes that we found no Maryland appellate decision squarely settling the same question for Maryland, which is a reason to plan for Maryland's rule rather than against it. Candidates also move: someone with a Virginia number may be taking your call from Bethesda.

The broader framework is in recording calls across state lines.

How the rule applies to interview formats

What it means for recording or transcribing an interview

1. Be a participant, or have one's prior consent. A recruiter who sets up capture on a hiring manager's interview without joining is outside § 19.2-62(B)(2) unless a participant agreed first.
2. Transcription counts. A tool that keeps only text still acquires the contents of the conversation.
3. Sharing is a separate act. Disclosing or using a recording with reason to know it was unlawfully made is its own felony and civil claim. Share summaries, not raw files.
4. Policy can be stricter than law. An employer's or client's own rules on recording interviews apply on top of § 19.2-62, and breaching them is a problem on its own.
5. AI analysis is separate. Recording law does not address scoring; check AI hiring laws by state.

When the candidate records, and when a recording travels

The one-party rule works in both directions. A candidate in Virginia who is on the call may record the interview without telling you, and Virginia law does not make that an offense. Assume any interview could exist as a recording somewhere, keep questions consistent and job-related, and answer candidates who ask permission to record from a written policy, the same way every time.

The harder questions come after the call. Agencies routinely pass interview material to clients, and internal teams share it between recruiters and hiring managers. Under § 19.2-62(A)(3) and (4), intentionally disclosing or using the contents of a communication while "knowing or having reason to know" it was obtained through an unlawful interception is itself a Class 6 felony, and § 19.2-69 gives the person recorded a claim against anyone who "intercepts, discloses, or uses" it. Practical rules that follow:

• Record who made each recording, whether they were on the call, and when the candidate agreed.
• If a recording arrives from someone else and you cannot tell how it was made, do not forward or quote it.
• Send clients a scorecard or written summary rather than the raw audio or transcript.
• Delete recordings on a schedule, so there is less to share by mistake.

A consent line for Virginia teams

"Before we start, I'd like to [record / transcribe] this interview so
my notes for the [role] position are accurate. It's only used for this
hiring process, 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 with you?"

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

This line meets Maryland's prior-consent rule as well as Virginia's, so one script works for the whole region. For panels and calendar-invite wording, see the interview recording consent script.

Checklist for Virginia hiring teams

1. Ask every candidate before capture, and do not sort candidates by area code.
2. Treat any call that may touch Maryland as all-party.
3. Never capture an interview you are not on without a participant's prior consent.
4. Do not forward or quote a recording unless you know it was made with consent.
5. Keep a dated written policy and review it yearly.

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