Washington recording consent law for interviews: RCW 9.73.030

Washington requires the consent of every participant before a private phone call or private conversation is recorded. The rule is in RCW 9.73.030, and it comes with a feature most all-party states lack: consent is treated as obtained when one party announces to everyone, "in any reasonably effective manner," that the conversation is about to be recorded, provided the announcement is itself captured on the recording. For interviewers that makes Washington one of the easier all-party states to comply with, as long as the announcement happens every time, at the start, before anything is captured.

To check a call between two locations, use the consent checker.

What RCW 9.73.030 says

The statute makes it unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation or association to intercept or record:

• a "private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication," without "first obtaining the consent of all the participants" (subsection (1)(a)); or
• a "private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation," without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in it (subsection (1)(b)).

Two things stand out. The statute names corporations and partnerships, so a recruiting firm as well as an individual recruiter can be the one that violates it. And the phrase "between points within or without the state" means the text itself contemplates calls that cross the state line.

The announcement rule

Subsection (3) is the part interviewers should know word for word:

"Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded."

What that means in practice:

The last element creates a practical problem for transcription tools that start only after the notice. If your tool keeps a transcript, make sure the transcript begins with the announcement. If it does not, the record you would rely on to show consent is missing the one line that matters. Adding a direct question ("Is that OK with you?") costs nothing and gives the candidate an obvious way to decline, which is where the announcement rule and good candidate experience meet.

Is an interview a "private" conversation?

The statute protects private communications and conversations. The Washington Supreme Court set out the test in State v. Kipp, 179 Wn.2d 718 (2014): a communication is private when the parties manifest a subjective intention that it be private and that expectation is reasonable. On reasonableness, courts look at the duration and subject matter of the conversation, its location, the presence or potential presence of third parties, and the role of the nonconsenting party and their relationship to the consenting party. The intention does not have to be stated out loud; it can be inferred from the circumstances.

Run a typical interview through those factors: a scheduled one-to-one or small panel, behind a closed door or on a private link, about the candidate's work history, pay and reasons for leaving. It would be unwise to assume it is not private. Build your process on the assumption that the statute applies.

Penalties, damages and evidence

• Criminal. A person who violates RCW 9.73.030 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor (RCW 9.73.080).
• Civil. Under RCW 9.73.060, a person injured by a violation can recover actual damages, "including mental pain and suffering," or liquidated damages "computed at the rate of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation, not to exceed one thousand dollars," plus a reasonable attorney's fee and other costs of litigation.
• Evidence. Under RCW 9.73.050, information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030 is generally inadmissible in civil and criminal cases in Washington courts, with limited exceptions. A recording made without consent may be of no use to you in a later dispute about the hiring decision.

Remote recruiters and calls across state lines

Washington matters to recruiters who never think of themselves as Washington-based. Two groups in particular:

• Recruiters who live in Washington but work for an agency headquartered in a one-party state. Their location during the call is what counts for what they do; the employer's headquarters does not change it.
• Recruiters elsewhere calling Washington candidates. The statute's text reaches communications "between points within or without the state," and a candidate in Washington can be expected to rely on it.

How courts resolve a clash between Washington's rule and a one-party state's rule depends on the court. The case law from other states is in recording calls across state lines, and the reasons one-party consent does not travel are in one-party consent states.

In-person interviews and panels

Subsection (1)(b) covers private conversations recorded by "any device," so the rule is not limited to calls. An interviewer who leaves a phone recording on the table, or runs a note-taking app on a laptop during an in-person interview, needs the same announcement. Two situations come up often:

• Panels. Every person engaged in the conversation is a participant whose consent is needed, including other interviewers. Agree internally before the candidate arrives, so nobody objects in front of them.
• Candidates who want to record. The statute applies to candidates too. If a candidate asks, answer in line with your policy and give every candidate the same answer; if you agree, the announcement rule runs both ways and should be captured on their recording.

If the candidate declines, the transcript you would otherwise have had becomes handwritten notes. Leave time after the interview to write them up properly, and record the refusal neutrally, without comment, so it plays no part in the assessment.

A Washington consent line that satisfies the statute

Start capture, then say this as the first words, so the announcement is on the record. If the candidate declines, stop and delete the few seconds captured.

"I've just started [recording / transcription]. Everything we say from here is
being [recorded / transcribed] by [tool] so I have accurate notes for the
[role] position. It's seen by [who] and kept for [period]. If you'd rather I
didn't, say so now and I'll switch it off and take notes by hand; it won't
affect your application. Is that OK with you?"

That wording meets the announcement rule and adds an explicit yes. The other scripts, including panel wording and what to do when someone joins late, are in the interview recording consent script.

Checklist

1. Announce before or at the moment capture begins, every call.
2. Make sure the recording or transcript contains the announcement.
3. Repeat it when anyone joins.
4. Ask a yes-or-no question as well as announcing.
5. Stop on a no, and say that you have.
6. Treat a transcription tool the same as a recorder.
7. If you work from Washington, apply this to every call you make, wherever the candidate is.

The consent rules for the other all-party states are in the two-party consent states table.