Can You Record Your Own Interview or Bring a Notetaker?

What does the law actually say about recording your own interview?

Start with the federal baseline. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2511, it is not unlawful for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where that person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties has consented, unless the interception is for a criminal or tortious purpose ¹. In plain terms, if you are on the call, federal law generally lets you record it without telling anyone.

State law can add a requirement federal law does not, and this is where the actual complexity lives. Several states, California among them, require every party's consent, not just one, before a private conversation can be recorded. California's statute makes recording a confidential communication without everyone's consent an offense, where a confidential communication is one the circumstances reasonably indicate a party wants kept between the parties to it ².

An interview conducted over video with the interviewer physically sitting in California can trigger that rule even if you are calling from a one-party state, since it can be the interviewer's location, not only yours, that determines which state's law reaches the call. Two people on the same video call can genuinely be governed by two different statutes at once, and neither party is likely to know the other's location with certainty.

A remote interview can span two regimes this way without either person intending it. If you are unsure which side of that line you and your interviewer fall on, the safer and simpler move covered next avoids the question entirely rather than requiring you to research two states' statutes before a first-round call.

Does an AI notetaker count the same as recording?

Yes. A notetaker sitting in a calendar invite is functionally a recording device, transcribing and often storing audio, and the same consent rules that apply to hitting record on your phone apply to opening one during an interview. It does not become a different, lighter-weight act just because the interface looks like a scheduling tool rather than a recorder, and a state's all-party rule does not carve out an exception for software that takes notes instead of storing raw audio.

What is different, and worth knowing, is that an employer's own notetaker running without your knowledge is the identical act in the other direction, governed by the identical law. Nothing in a typical hiring process confirms this runs symmetrically, so it is fair to ask early, plainly: is this call being recorded or transcribed by anything on your side, and will one be running on mine. A work sample later in the process raises a related question about what an employer has to tell you before recording your screen, which is worth reading if screen capture, not just audio, ever comes up.

Just ask before you record.

One sentence at the start of the call does almost all the work: "Would it be alright if I record this, or bring a notetaker, so I can focus on the conversation instead of taking notes?" Framed that way, as a tool for paying attention rather than as a challenge to what gets said, the request is an ordinary one, and an interviewer can grant it or decline it in a sentence.

Asking first, out loud, is a materially different act from recording quietly and hoping nobody asks, even in a one-party state where the quiet version would be lawful. It costs you nothing, it resolves the state-law question without you having to research it, and it leaves you with a clean, uncontested record if you ever need one, rather than a recording whose legality depends on a jurisdictional question you never actually checked.

A no ends it: say thank you and take notes the ordinary way. A declined request is not a red flag on its own, and pressing the point after a clear no costs you far more than the recording would have been worth.

Why is your own notetaker worth having at all?

Two real reasons, beyond simple peace of mind. If you need an accommodation, a personal recording or transcript can matter for accuracy and for a later request. In the Job Accommodation Network's survey of employers who had contacted it for accommodation help, 61% of the 1,425 who shared cost information said the accommodation cost nothing to implement, and 33% reported a one-time expense with a median cost of $300 ³.

That figure is worth having in your pocket if a request for a recording or a transcript aid ever gets treated as an unusual imposition rather than the ordinary, low-cost request it typically is. The second reason is plainer: an offer conversation carries real terms, a start date, a salary figure, a title, and memory is not a reliable place to keep any of them. A transcript settles a later disagreement about what was actually said far better than two people's competing recollections do.

What does the employer owe you before their notetaker runs?

Roughly the same thing you owe them. In at least one state, Illinois, a law in force since 2020 requires that an employer using AI to analyze a recorded video interview for an Illinois-based position must notify you beforehand, explain in general terms how the AI works and what it evaluates, and get your consent before analyzing it at all, with no evaluation permitted for an applicant who has not consented ⁴.

On request, that same law requires the employer to delete your interview video within 30 days and instruct every other party who received a copy to delete it too, backups included ⁵. The act covers AI analysis of recorded video interviews specifically, not every notetaker, so read it as the closest named duty rather than a rule that reaches all of this ground. That right exists on paper independent of whether anyone actually exercises it, which is worth knowing even outside Illinois, since it names the kind of request a reasonable employer anywhere should be able to honor.

The employer side of exactly this question walks through where federal and state consent law lands for a company running its own AI notetaker, and the honest read there matches this one: the rule runs in both directions, or it is not really a rule at all. If your interviewer's notetaker is running with no mention of it, asking who reads the transcript and how long it is kept is a fair, ordinary question, not a confrontational one.

Read the evidence >