I think a small add on is that the decision has been made and providing feedback is time and energy they don't want to spend on someone who is not a member of the company.

If there's a no and a reason is provided, you'll then have to defend it. Lessons from my marriage... if my wife says whether I want to do something, I simply say "No." I've even said one time I didn't feel like it and was corrected on why I shouldn't feel that way >.>

The OP also needs to understand that their implied concerns about the unfairness of the decision are not going to be addressed. The decision could really be unfair, and the assessor's evaluation poor quality for any number of reasons. We have no reason to suspect that other than it is really common. However, some other answers here that imply the assessments have some higher quality, are more correct, or have hours invested are making the opposite mistake of assuming good faith and competent assessments. The world of recruitment is full of counterexamples, sadly.

In case the decision really was unfair or of poor quality, the company would have even more incentive to hide this.

Is your first point even true? I hear this a lot here, but I think that is more an urban myth than having a real foundation in reality. Lack of interview feedback is also true in societies that don't have the US-style "lets sue everyone for any reason"-ethos.

@MarkRotteveel, I can't speak to whether feedback really creates opportunities for legal action, but I do know that managers worry about it. I have heard several managers at multiple companies (in the US) cite it as a concern around interviewing. Even if their concern is baseless, it is a reason that many companies will not give feedback after an interview.

@MarkRotteveel Say you have a general policy of giving people feedback (whether written or unwritten) then you have one cadidate who does poorly and also makes a sexual harassment complaint. What do you do? If you don't give them feedback or give them bad feedback, you risk them alleging that was retaliation for the complaint.

One additional point to cover here, is that they will almost certainly give the same coding problem to many candidates (perhaps depending on target area and seniority level). If they give really detailed feedback on what was wrong to the OP, and then their friend applies the OP can give some very useful tips.

@DavidSchwartz Again, lack of feedback also commonly exists in societies that don't have the litigiousness of - for example - the US, so I don't think it is a reason grounded in reality.

@MarkRotteveel Your reasoning makes no sense. Imagine if there's a strategy that's slightly inferior to another strategy in nearly all games but in Chess it's disastrous because of the stalemate rule. People wouldn't use that strategy in Chess because it's disastrous in Chess. It would be quite silly to say "well, people don't use it in other games that don't have the stalemate rule so the stalemate rule can't be the reason people don't use that strategy in Chess".

From a UK perspective, this solicitor's site actually advises giving feedback in order to avoid a potential legal case cleggssolicitors.com/2017/08/10/interview-feedback-shouldnt-‌​say . My current UK employer certainly does give feedback.

@DavidSchwartz I don't follow your argument. I'm saying the "because lawsuits" argument is likely specious, because the same lack of feedback exists in other cultures, which means the lack of feedback more likely stems from other reasons (e.g. not wanting to deal with or waste time on counterarguments and debates). The "because lawsuits" reason feels like an ex post facto.

@mattfreake That solicitor suggests that, but all I've ever seen is that to make a discrimination claim stick you need a folder full of evidence. And big chunks of that folder will be correspondence with the potential employer. No correspondence, no evidence. If you look everywhere other than that site, that is what you find.

Just because something is repeated everywhere, doesn't make it correct. I'm still curious to read about an actual UK legal case where it happened. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, just that I've never seen anyone actually cite one, which makes me suspicious.

@MarkRotteveel That argument is invalid for the reason I explained. Many Americans don't eat grapefruit because they don't like it. I don't eat grapefruit for medical reasons. Many people can have a minor reason for some policy while some subset of people can have a much better reason for doing that same thing. I also don't like grapefruit, but I wouldn't eat it even if I liked it. For me, the medical reason is the greater, overriding reason.

@mattfreake I have personally had a candidate threaten legal action on the basis of racial discrimination after they were given feedback. While this didn't get as far as actual legal action, it definitely wasted the time of some senior people at my employer, and probably directly money as our solicitors were outsourced.

It seems obvious to me that the actual risk of legal trouble doesn't matter here, and it's just the perceived risk of legal trouble.

@MarkRotteveel you can think whatever you want, at least in larger companies you are wrong and fear of lawsuits is absolutely a real thing. It is monumentally easier to have a blanket policy of no feedback than it is to train every person involved on what exactly can be said and what can't. And besides that even baseless lawsuits can cost money and hurt the image of the company. Even if they don't go the lawsuit route, they can plop the response on social media and it doesn't take much to whip up a PR nightmare. So the company has nothing to gain and potentially a lot to lose.

@GregoryCurrie nonsense, these policies didn't pop out of thin air, they were developed because of lawsuits that occurred which made companies realize they were opening themselves up to risk for no gain. Even if the risk is small, it makes no sense to take it when the "reward" is 0 or negative.

@eps [citation needed]

@eps I'm not making any suggestion if the perception is correct or incorrect.