AI notetakers are recording your job interview: what your consent covers

You join a video interview and notice a small bot has joined the call alongside the recruiter, quietly transcribing. Nobody explained what happens to the recording, whether you can decline, or what it means if you agree without asking. That gap between "this is now normal" and "here's what it actually covers" is worth closing before your next interview, not during it. (If the interview itself is AI-graded rather than human-led, our guide to preparing for an AI video interview covers that separate situation.)

The position worth stating early: AI notetakers in interviews have moved fast enough that the platforms recruiters use are actively rebuilding their consent features, and there's an active legal fight over what "consent" for one of these tools should actually mean. Knowing both pieces gives you a concrete basis for deciding what to ask before you agree, rather than guessing in the moment.

Why this changed recently

Ashby, a widely used applicant tracking and interview scheduling platform, shipped a change to its AI Notetaker feature on 18 June 2026 that's worth reading as a signal of where the whole industry is heading. Previously, the tool only supported an opt-out consent model: candidates were notified that an interview might be recorded and could decline if they objected, but recording happened by default unless someone spoke up. The June update lets organisations switch to an opt-in model instead, where recording only happens if a candidate actively agrees, with location-based rules so the default can vary depending on where the candidate is based.

The practical mechanics matter here. Consent can now be captured earlier, through a specific "Interview Recording Consent" question added directly to the job application form, well before a candidate ever reaches a scheduling stage. If a candidate hasn't responded by the time an interview is scheduled on a supported platform (Zoom, Google Meet or Microsoft Teams), a consent prompt appears during scheduling, and organisations can add their own consent messaging directly into the calendar invitation for interviews where affirmative consent hasn't yet been collected.

The reason a platform like Ashby built this now, rather than leaving the older opt-out default in place, is straightforward: organisations are increasingly hiring across jurisdictions with stricter consent requirements than opt-out defaults satisfy, and building the feature into the scheduling workflow is easier than handling it manually per candidate per region.

The lawsuits that make this more than a formality

Separately from any single platform's product decisions, there's a live legal fight over how AI notetaker consent should actually work, and it's specific to the tools rather than to hiring generally. An industry legal analysis published 5 August 2026 covers two active cases, Chamberlain v. Granola and a consolidated Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, both alleging that the respective companies recorded conversations without adequately disclosing that to all participants, and used those recordings to train their AI models without proper consent to do so.

The Granola complaint includes a detail worth knowing on its own merits: the company's own marketing reportedly stated that other call participants "won't know it's there," language that, if accurate, suggests the tool was positioned specifically around not alerting people being recorded. The Granola case also points to a structural issue beyond disclosure: model training on recordings defaults to opt-out rather than opt-in, and the toggle to turn it off belongs to the account holder who set up the call, not to the other participants being recorded, so the people being transcribed often have no way to know there's a setting to object to in the first place. The Otter.AI litigation raises a related concern about training on recordings without adequate consent from everyone on the call, and the underlying design issue, an account-holder-controlled opt-out rather than a participant-level opt-in, is the kind of default that applies broadly across vendors in this category rather than being unique to either company.

The analysis specifically flags why interviews carry more legal exposure than an ordinary internal meeting recorded by the same tools: the candidate being recorded is an external party rather than an employee, protected characteristics like age, pregnancy, disability or accent can surface naturally in an unscripted conversation, and the recording itself can become evidence later if a hiring dispute or discrimination claim arises. None of that is unique to AI notetakers specifically, human interviewers have always had to be careful about the same things, but a stored, searchable, potentially model-training recording raises the stakes considerably compared with a interviewer's private notes.

What a reasonable consent request actually looks like

Given both the product-side shift and the legal exposure driving it, it's worth knowing what a well-handled consent process should include, so you can tell a genuinely careful employer from one that's treating consent as an afterthought.

A specific, upfront disclosure, not a vague mention buried in an offer letter or application terms, ideally before the interview itself, naming the tool and what it's being used for.

A real choice, not a formality. If declining visibly changes how the interview is conducted, or if you sense any pressure to agree, that's worth noting as a signal about the employer generally, not just about the recording specifically.

A stated retention window. A defined, short retention period is a reasonable thing to expect rather than an indefinite one, and a candidate is entitled to ask how long a recording is kept and what happens to it afterward.

Clarity on whether the recording trains a model, separate from whether it's kept for internal reference. These are different uses with different implications, and the active lawsuits above are specifically about companies blurring that distinction.

A worked example: what to actually say

Say a recruiter mentions, thirty seconds before your interview starts, that "we use an AI notetaker for these calls." You don't need to make this adversarial, and declining outright isn't the only reasonable response, but you're entitled to ask a short, specific question before agreeing:

"No problem. Quick question before we start: is the recording kept just for your internal notes, or is it also used to train an AI model? And roughly how long do you keep it?"

A recruiter working with a well-configured, current tool should be able to answer this without hesitation, because platforms like Ashby now build exactly this kind of consent and retention information into the workflow. A recruiter who can't answer, or who seems surprised by the question, isn't necessarily doing anything wrong, but it's a reasonable signal that the organisation hasn't thought through its own policy carefully, which is worth knowing about an employer regardless of the notetaker specifically.

If you'd rather not be recorded at all, you can simply say so: "I'd prefer this interview not be recorded, is that okay?" Declining an AI notetaker is not the same as declining to be evaluated, and a reasonable interviewer will take their own notes instead without treating your answer as a red flag.

A short routine for handling this in your next interview

1. Ask directly if you're unsure, before the interview starts rather than after: "Is this call being recorded, and by what tool?" This is a normal, unremarkable question in 2026, not an unusual one.
2. Ask what the recording is used for, specifically whether it's kept for internal reference only or also used to train an AI model, since the two carry meaningfully different implications for your data.
3. Ask how long it's retained. A specific, short answer suggests a considered policy. A vague or absent answer suggests the organisation hasn't set one.
4. Decline if you're not comfortable, plainly and without over-explaining. A well-run interview process can accommodate a candidate declining a recording tool without friction.
5. Note how the question is received. A calm, specific answer is a good sign about the employer generally. Visible surprise or pressure to agree is worth weighing alongside everything else you're learning about the role during the interview process.

Common questions

Can I decline to be recorded in a job interview?

Generally yes. Platforms like Ashby now build formal opt-in consent options directly into interview scheduling specifically so candidates can decline, and a reasonable interviewer can simply take their own notes instead if you'd prefer not to be recorded.

How do I know if my interview is being recorded by an AI notetaker?

Ask directly if it isn't disclosed upfront. Well-configured tools now surface this through a consent question on the application form, a prompt during scheduling, or a note in the calendar invitation, but if none of that happened, asking before the call starts is a normal, reasonable question.

What do the AI notetaker lawsuits actually allege?

Active cases against Granola and Otter.ai allege the companies recorded conversations without adequately disclosing that to all participants and used those recordings to train their AI models without proper consent. In Granola's case specifically, the training toggle belongs to the account holder who set up the call rather than to the other participants, so the people being recorded have no way to know there's a setting to object to.

Is it a red flag if a recruiter can't explain how a recording will be used?

It's a reasonable, worth-noting signal rather than a definite red flag on its own. A well-configured, current tool makes this information easy to state, so a recruiter who seems unsure hasn't necessarily done anything wrong, but it suggests the organisation may not have a fully considered policy.

Does declining an AI notetaker hurt my chances in the interview?

It shouldn't. Declining a recording tool is a request about how the interview is documented, not a statement about your engagement or suitability for the role, and a reasonable interviewer can accommodate it by taking notes manually instead.

Why do interviews carry more legal risk than an internal meeting recorded the same way?

Because the person being recorded is an external candidate rather than an employee, protected characteristics can surface naturally in conversation, and the recording can become evidence later in a hiring dispute, all of which raise the stakes compared with an ordinary internal meeting recording.

Where ResumeProofed fits, and where it doesn't

ResumeProofed helps with the resume and cover letter side of your application, not the interview itself, so it has no role in whether or how an interview gets recorded. What's covered above is genuinely yours to navigate directly with the employer, and asking a specific, calm question about consent and retention before an interview starts is a reasonable thing to do regardless of what tool the recruiter is using.

Try ResumeProofed free: two tailored applications on the house, no card required.