Beyond just the legal, one reason is simply efficiency and time. If you have team members that are spending time explaining reasons someone wasn't hired, that i

Beyond just the legal, one reason is simply efficiency and time. If you have team members that are spending time explaining reasons someone wasn't hired, that is time that isn't productive. For programming interviews, the tech interviewer has to tell the hiring manager, then the manager tells HR/recruiting, and then recruiting shares the reason with the candidate. I'm not trying to justify the morality of no feedback, as I personally think all interviewed candidates deserve an answer with a reasonable explanation, but when a client says "not a fit" I know it's because they either don't want to spend the time or they don't want to say the reason (usually would be something personal - how do you say "we don't like you" in a non-offensive way?). Another reason for limited feedback is something you might not realize unless you have been in a position to deliver feedback thousands of times - when you give the reasons you didn't hire someone, they often disagree and may become argumentative. This takes up even more time and becomes a potential PR issue. One disgruntled applicant tells a friend that $COMPANY$ doesn't have a fair hiring process, and word starts to travel. Generic answers like "not a fit" are not helpful, but they are difficult to argue and aren't likely to turn an applicant into someone spreading negative info about your hiring practices. I still genuinely believe that being as honest as possible is the best way to handle it, and my clients that give actionable feedback often see rejected applicants applying again once they gain more experience.