The question comes up every time a team considers keeping a trace of its interviews, through an audio recording or a transcript: are you allowed to? The short answer fits in one sentence. Yes, you can record a job interview, provided you inform the candidate beforehand, give them the option to refuse, and never do it without their knowledge.
Everything else follows from this basic rule, set out by the French Labour Code and clarified by the CNIL in its recruitment guide. A recording made on the sly is not just a formal lapse: it makes the collection unfair, and therefore unlawful, and it exposes both the employer and the agency that ran the interview.
This article walks through the framework point by point, each statement linking back to its official source, then translates it into practice for a recruitment team: how to phrase the request, when to make it, what to do if the candidate refuses, and what changes when an AI transcript enters the loop.
The legal framework, point by point
Recording without the candidate's knowledge is prohibited
The starting point is article L1221-9 of the French Labour Code: no information concerning a candidate personally may be collected through a method that has not been disclosed to them beforehand (article L1221-9, Légifrance). A microphone left running or a transcription tool switched on without the candidate's knowledge falls squarely within this prohibition.
The CNIL applies this principle to the interview itself. In its recruitment guide, it holds that filming a job interview without informing the candidate does not amount to fair and transparent data collection (recruitment guide, CNIL). It adds, on the subject of assessment methods, that using techniques carried out without the candidates' knowledge is not compliant with the regulation. Audio recording follows the same logic as video capture: it is a collection of personal data, subject to the same fairness requirements.
The legal basis is not consent
This is the most counter-intuitive point, and the one many teams get wrong. People assume that asking the candidate for their agreement is enough to be compliant. The GDPR sets a condition for valid consent: it must be freely given. Between a candidate and the recruiter who decides on their hiring, the imbalance of power undermines that freedom. A candidate who fears jeopardising their application does not give a fully free "yes".
The CNIL draws a clear conclusion in its guide: neither consent nor the performance of pre-contractual measures can, as a general rule, provide a valid basis for the processing, and it falls to the recruiter to rely on a legitimate interest within the meaning of the GDPR that respects the rights of the individuals concerned (recruitment guide, CNIL). In other words, you record on the basis of your legitimate interest in documenting the interview, not on the basis of a consent form you would have the candidate sign.
Prior disclosure is mandatory
Legitimate interest does not excuse you from disclosure. The candidate must be informed before the interview, and in full. The CNIL lists the expected information: the identity of the controller of the recruitment file, the contact details of the data protection officer if there is one, the purpose pursued, the legal basis chosen, the retention period, and the rights available to the candidate (recruitment and personal data, CNIL).
For interviews conducted via a videoconferencing tool, the CNIL states in its guide that this information must necessarily be provided to candidates before the processing operations are carried out, and must clearly indicate the terms, in particular when recording and deferred viewing are envisaged.
The candidate stays in control: refusal and withdrawal
Since recording does not rest on consent, the candidate does not have to "sign" to authorise it. On the other hand, prior disclosure would mean nothing if it did not open the door to refusal. A candidate who does not wish to be recorded must be able to say so without it weighing on the assessment of their application. The CNIL stresses this right to object easily, without having to give any reason other than their wish, in the related situations of retaining candidate data (recruitment guide, CNIL). Beyond the interview, the candidate keeps their rights of access, rectification, and erasure over the data concerning them.
The retention period recommended by the CNIL
Two periods that should not be confused. On one side, the raw audio or video recording: the CNIL holds that retaining the streams does not appear necessary for interviews, and that this data need not be kept beyond the date of the hiring decision, unless the recruiter specifically justifies the need. On the other side, the information from the process that you want to reuse later, to feed a talent pool: the CNIL recommends that its retention period should as a rule not exceed two years from the last contact with the person (recruitment guide, CNIL). This same two-year period appears on the CNIL page dedicated to retention periods (retention periods, CNIL).
These two years are a recommendation, a documented benchmark the recruiter can depart from by justifying the choice, not a deadline carved into law. The CNIL also flags another benchmark: article L1134-5 of the French Labour Code sets a five-year limit for bringing an action to remedy harm caused by discrimination, running from when the discrimination is revealed, which can justify keeping certain data for evidentiary purposes.
In practice for a recruitment team
Once translated into a process, the legal framework boils down to three simple actions.
How and when to make the request
Provide the information before the interview, not at the moment you press "record". A single line in the invitation email or the appointment confirmation is enough, something like: "This interview will be recorded and transcribed to help us with our report and the follow-up on your application. You can let us know if you prefer that we take notes without recording; this will have no bearing on your application." An honest wording beats a clause buried in terms and conditions: the candidate must understand what will be captured, why, and how long the data will be kept.
Announcing the capture at the start of the interview, when the person is already seated across from you, puts the candidate in a position where refusal becomes socially costly. It is this imbalance that the framework seeks to neutralise. Disclosure upstream leaves real room for a decision.
What to do if the candidate refuses
A refusal is no kind of incident. You go back to taking notes the usual way for that interview, without penalising the candidate, and without nudging them to change their mind. It is as simple as that. A robust process plans for the alternative from the outset, so that no one on the team ends up improvising.
Where to store the data and who has access
The CNIL reminds us that access to candidate data is limited to authorised people, within the scope of their duties and under an obligation of confidentiality (recruitment guide, CNIL). In plain terms, an interview report is not meant to circulate freely: it is accessible to the recruiters and managers involved in the role, not to the whole company. Also give thought to where the data is hosted, a subject we address from the angle of AI compliance in a dedicated guide.
The case of AI transcription
Having an interview transcribed automatically by an AI tool does not change the basic rules: prior disclosure, the option to refuse, and a controlled retention period stay the same. But it adds an actor to the chain. The transcription tool is a processor within the meaning of the GDPR, the interview data passes through it, and your disclosure to the candidate must account for this. On top of that comes the part specific to artificial intelligence, from the right to an explainable assessment to the rules governing decision-support systems, which we detail in our guide on AI in recruitment and the AI Act.
Hirify, the publisher of this guide, is one of these tools: the interview transcription is hosted with a French provider, in a Paris datacenter, and the report then enriches the candidate profile. On the process side, simply plan for the candidate's disclosure and the option to refuse upstream, as you would for any recording. It is this process, not the tool, that keeps you compliant.
Frequently asked questions
Can you record a job interview without telling the candidate?
No. The French Labour Code prohibits collecting information about a candidate through a method that has not been disclosed to them beforehand. The CNIL treats recording an interview without informing the candidate as unfair collection.
Can the candidate refuse to be recorded?
Yes. Recording generally rests on the recruiter's legitimate interest, not on consent, but the candidate must be able to refuse without it penalising their application. If they refuse, you go back to taking notes the usual way.
How long can interview data be kept?
The CNIL recommends that retention in a candidate pool should as a rule not exceed two years from the last contact. The raw audio or video recording, for its part, need not be kept beyond the hiring decision, unless justified.
Do you need written consent from the candidate to record an interview?
No signed consent form is required to record. What is mandatory is prior disclosure. Keeping a written trace of that disclosure is good record-keeping, not a legal consent requirement.
Key takeaways
- Recording an interview is allowed, never without the candidate's knowledge: prior disclosure is mandatory (French Labour Code, CNIL).
- The legal basis is legitimate interest, not consent, because the candidate-recruiter relationship undermines an agreement given freely.
- The candidate must be able to refuse without penalty, and keeps their rights of access, rectification, and erasure.
- The CNIL recommends not keeping talent pool data beyond two years after the last contact; the raw recording, for its part, need not survive the hiring decision.
- An AI transcript adds a processor: adapt your disclosure to the candidate and stay in control of where the data is hosted.