Oregon Recording Laws: Hybrid Consent, SCOTUS Final, Penalties

Quick Answer: Oregon's Hybrid Recording Rule

Oregon is not a standard one-party or two-party consent state. The state applies different rules depending on the type of communication being recorded. Understanding this split is essential before recording any conversation in Oregon.

Phone calls and electronic communications: Oregon follows one-party consent under ORS 165.540(1)(a). If you are a participant in a telephone call or electronic communication, your own consent is sufficient to record it. You do not need to inform the other party.

In-person oral conversations: Oregon requires all-party notice under ORS 165.540(1)(c). Every participant must be specifically informed that recording is occurring before the recording begins. This is Oregon's stricter standard, and it applies regardless of whether the setting is public or private.

This hybrid structure is the opposite of Connecticut, which requires all-party consent for phone calls but applies different rules to in-person recording. Competitors who label Oregon simply as a "two-party consent state" are incorrect and misleading.

Oregon Recording Law Summary

Key Point	Answer
Telephone Calls	One-party consent (ORS 165.540(1)(a))
In-Person Conversations	All-party notice required (ORS 165.540(1)(c))
Video Conferencing	Exception applies; constitutionality of 2021 extension untested at federal appellate level
Key Statute	ORS 165.540
Civil Remedies Statute	ORS 133.739
Criminal Penalty	Class A misdemeanor
Maximum Jail Time	364 days
Maximum Fine	$6,250
Constitutional Status	Upheld by 9th Cir. en banc Jan. 7, 2025; SCOTUS cert denied Oct. 6, 2025

ORS 165.540: The Statutory Foundation

Oregon's recording laws are codified primarily in ORS 165.540, titled "Obtaining contents of communications." The statute was last amended in 2023 (c.234, ss1). No 2025 or 2026 amendments to ORS 165.540 have been identified.

The statute covers two distinct categories that carry different consent requirements.

Telephone and electronic communications are governed by ORS 165.540(1)(a), which prohibits obtaining communications "to which the person is not a participant" without at least one-party consent. This subsection is the legal foundation for Oregon's one-party phone rule. A participant to the call who consents on their own behalf satisfies the statute.

In-person oral conversations are governed by ORS 165.540(1)(c), which prohibits obtaining any part of a private conversation by means of any device unless all participants are specifically informed that their conversation is being recorded. This is the all-party notice requirement that distinguishes Oregon from most other states.

Note on subsection numbering: The dossier flagged a conflict between research sources regarding the precise language of ORS 165.540(1)(b) (described in some sources as covering telegraph and telephone communications with an "all parties" standard) and the numbering of the video-conferencing exception (some sources cite (6)(a); others cite (6)(b) for a video-conferencing variant). This article relies on (1)(a) as the foundation for the one-party phone rule, and on (1)(c) for the in-person all-party notice rule. Readers who need to cite specific subsections for legal or compliance purposes should verify current subsection numbering directly against the live text at ORS 165.540 on oregon.public.law or the Oregon Legislature's official ORS Chapter 165.

Notice vs. consent: ORS 165.540(1)(c) uses the word "informed," not "consent." All participants must be told that recording is occurring, but the statute does not require them to agree or sign anything. A person who objects to being recorded may leave the conversation, but the law does not give any individual participant a veto over another participant's right to record once notice is given.

Civil damages for willful interception are available under ORS 133.739. Intercepted communications obtained in violation of ORS 165.540 are inadmissible in Oregon court proceedings under ORS 41.910.

Project Veritas v. Schmidt: Three-Milestone Timeline

Oregon's all-party notice requirement was the subject of a major federal constitutional challenge from 2022 through 2025. The case is now fully resolved. Older sources may reflect an earlier and now-reversed stage of the litigation.

Milestone 1 -- July 2023 (Panel, 2-1): A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in Project Veritas v. Schmidt, No. 22-35271, that ORS 165.540(1)(c) was an unconstitutional content-based speech restriction under the First Amendment, applying strict scrutiny. The panel decision temporarily appeared to strike down the all-party notification requirement for conversations in public settings. This decision was later reversed in its entirety.

Milestone 2 -- January 7, 2025 (En Banc, 10-2): The full Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed the three-judge panel in a 10-2 decision. The en banc majority held that ORS 165.540(1)(c) is content-neutral because it does not discriminate based on viewpoint or restrict discussion of any particular subject matter. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court found that Oregon has a significant interest in protecting conversational privacy and that the notice requirement is narrowly tailored to serve that interest while leaving ample alternative channels for investigative journalism and other expressive activity. The opinion is available at 9th Circuit PDF.

Milestone 3 -- October 6, 2025 (SCOTUS cert denied): The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision as final and binding. Oregon's Attorney General responded: "This decision reaffirms that Oregonians have a right to know when they are being recorded and to choose the manner in which their words are shared." Petitioner attorney Benjamin Barr stated that he would "keep bringing these challenges nationwide," but no immediate follow-on Oregon challenge has been identified. Source: Oregon Capital Chronicle, Oct. 6, 2025.

Open constitutional question -- video conferencing: The en banc court addressed only in-person oral conversations. The 2021 amendment that extended ORS 165.540 to video-conferencing platforms (Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet) has not been tested at the federal appellate level. Whether intermediate scrutiny would sustain the video-conferencing extension against a First Amendment challenge remains an open question. Anyone relying on the video-conferencing exception should understand that its constitutional status differs from the now-settled in-person rule.

Practical bottom line: Oregon's all-party notice requirement for in-person conversations is enforceable and has been upheld by the highest federal court to consider it. There is no current legal basis to disregard ORS 165.540(1)(c) for in-person recordings.

Recording Phone Calls in Oregon

Can You Record Phone Calls in Oregon?

Yes. Oregon is a one-party consent state for telephone recordings. Under ORS 165.540(1)(a), you can legally record a telephone conversation as long as at least one party to the call consents. If you are a participant in the call, your own consent is sufficient. You do not need to inform the other party.

This means:

• You can record calls you are participating in without telling the other party.
• A third party can record a call if at least one participant has given consent.
• This rule applies to mobile calls, landline calls, and electronic communications.

Recording Calls Across State Lines

When you make or receive calls between Oregon and another state, the stricter state's rules generally apply. For example:

• If you call someone in a two-party consent state like California or Washington, you should follow that state's all-party requirements.
• Oregon's one-party consent for phone calls does not override another state's stricter law.
• When in doubt, giving notice to the other party eliminates legal exposure in every state.

Federal wiretapping law under 18 U.S.C. 2511 also requires one-party consent as a baseline, so Oregon's phone recording rules align with the federal floor.

Business Call Recording

Oregon businesses can legally record phone calls under the one-party consent framework. Best practices include:

• Playing an automated disclosure at the start of customer service calls.
• Training employees on when and how recordings may be made.
• Establishing written policies that document consent procedures.
• Retaining recordings in compliance with applicable data retention requirements.

Note that FCC notification rules under 47 CFR 64.501 impose separate obligations on telephone service providers and businesses using common-carrier lines -- not on private individuals recording personal calls. See the Federal Law Overlay section below.

Recording In-Person Conversations in Oregon

The All-Party Notice Requirement

For in-person (oral) conversations, Oregon law under ORS 165.540(1)(c) requires that all participants be specifically informed that recording is taking place. This is sometimes called "all-party consent," though the statute technically requires notification rather than signed consent.

Key points:

• Every person involved in the conversation must be told recording is happening before the recording begins.
• The notice must be specific. A vague or implied indication is not sufficient.
• This applies regardless of whether the conversation takes place in a public or private setting.
• Even if you are a participant in the conversation, you cannot secretly record it.

Statutory Exceptions to the Notice Requirement

Oregon law provides several important exceptions where all-party notice is not required.

Unconcealed recording devices. If you use a recording device that is clearly visible and not hidden, the notice requirement does not apply for conversations at public or semipublic meetings, hearings, trials, press conferences, public speeches, rallies, sporting events, regularly scheduled classes or seminars, and private meetings where all participants knew or reasonably should have known that recording was occurring.

Video conferencing. Conversations that occur through a video conferencing program (such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, or Google Meet) are not subject to the notice requirement when the recording is obtained through the video conferencing platform itself. The 2021 amendment that created this exception has not been tested at the federal appellate level on constitutional grounds (see the Project Veritas discussion above). Note on subsection numbering: sources differ on whether this exception appears in (6)(a) or a separate subsection of ORS 165.540; verify the current subsection against the live statute before citing a specific subsection number in legal documents.

Felony exception. A person may record a conversation during a felony that endangers human life without providing notice. Oregon courts interpret this exception strictly. It does not create a general license to record workplace disputes, neighbor arguments, or landlord-tenant conflicts.

Law enforcement exception. Recording is permitted when a law enforcement officer is a participant in the conversation and certain conditions under ORS 165.540 are met, or when a person acts in coordination with law enforcement, an attorney, or a regulatory entity to capture alleged unlawful activity through a video conferencing program.

Rules for Public vs. Private Settings

Oregon's notice requirement applies broadly. Even in a public park, a restaurant, or on a sidewalk, you must inform all parties before recording an in-person conversation. The Ninth Circuit's January 2025 en banc ruling confirmed that Oregon's interest in protecting conversational privacy extends to public settings. The law does not draw a line at the door of a private home.

Federal Law Overlay

Oregon's recording rules operate alongside federal law. Understanding which layer applies -- and where they diverge -- matters for compliance.

Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2511)

The Federal Wiretap Act sets a one-party consent baseline for intercepting wire, oral, and electronic communications. Oregon's phone recording rule is consistent with this federal floor. Oregon's in-person rule under ORS 165.540(1)(c) is stricter than the federal baseline: federal law would permit one-party in-person recording, but Oregon requires all-party notice.

FCC Telephone Recording Notification Rule (47 CFR 64.501)

Under 47 CFR 64.501, telephone service providers and businesses using common-carrier lines must give all parties notice before recording a telephone conversation. Notice may be given through (1) a verbal announcement at the start of the call, (2) an audible beep tone at regular intervals, or (3) prior written consent from all parties. This rule applies to carriers and businesses -- not to private individuals recording personal phone calls. Oregon's ORS 165.540(1)(a) provides the one-party-consent standard for private individuals; the FCC notification rule adds a separate obligation for business and carrier-level recording on common-carrier lines.

FCC AI-Generated Voice Rule (FCC DA 24-17, Feb. 8, 2024)

The FCC declared that calls made with AI-generated voices constitute "artificial or prerecorded" voices under 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B) (TCPA) and therefore require prior express consent before being placed to any telephone number. This applies uniformly to calls made to Oregon numbers. The TCPA governs the calling-and-consent side of the interaction. ORS 165.540 governs the recording and interception side. AI-voice robocalls to Oregonians must comply with both regimes independently.

FCC One-to-One Consent Rule -- Vacated

The FCC's One-to-One Consent Rule, adopted in December 2023 as part of 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(9), required that prior express written consent under TCPA be limited to a single seller at a time. The Eleventh Circuit unanimously vacated this requirement on January 24, 2025 (Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, No. 24-10277), holding that it exceeded the FCC's statutory authority. The FCC formally eliminated the requirement in September 2025. The prior multi-seller consent framework is restored. Any site content or business policy that references the One-to-One Consent Rule as active or pending is now stale. Oregon's ORS 165.540 recording consent requirements are unaffected by this vacatur.

Special Contexts: Workplace, Healthcare, Education, Collective Bargaining

Workplace Recording

Workplace recording in Oregon depends on the type of communication involved.

Phone calls at work: One-party consent applies. An employee can record a work-related phone call they participate in without informing the other party.

In-person meetings and conversations at work: All participants must be specifically informed before recording. A private office discussion, a conference room meeting, a performance review, or a break room conversation all require notice under ORS 165.540(1)(c).

Video conferencing calls: Recordings made through the video conferencing platform itself fall under the statutory exception and do not require all-party notice.

Employer no-recording policies: Employers in Oregon may adopt workplace recording policies to manage compliance with ORS 165.540. However, under the NLRB's standard in Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), employer workplace rules -- including no-recording policies -- are presumptively unlawful if they have a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising rights protected under the National Labor Relations Act. Those protected activities include employees recording discussions of wages, working conditions, or union organizing. Oregon employers must ensure their no-recording policies are narrowly written to serve a legitimate business interest without sweeping in NLRA-protected concerted activity.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) has not issued a formal administrative rule specifically addressing workplace recording consent, but its employer guidance confirms that ORS 165.540 applies in the workplace. Telephone recording remains one-party-consent; in-person workplace meetings remain all-party notice.

Collective Bargaining

In June 2025, NLRB Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued GC Memo 25-07, which addresses surreptitious recording of collective bargaining sessions. The memo states that secretly recording collective bargaining sessions is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith under NLRA sections 8(a)(5) (employer duty) and 8(b)(3) (union duty). Regions were directed to issue complaints whenever investigations reveal that any party engaged in clandestine recording during negotiations. GC Memo 25-07 is Tier 2 enforcement guidance -- it reflects the Acting GC's enforcement priorities but is not a formal Board adjudication. Source: NLRB GC Memo 25-07.

Oregon's all-party-notice rule under ORS 165.540(1)(c) independently prohibits unannounced recording of in-person bargaining sessions. GC Memo 25-07 adds a federal NLRA per se violation layer on top of any state-law penalty for the same conduct.

Healthcare

Audio recordings of conversations between healthcare providers and patients constitute Protected Health Information (PHI) under HIPAA when they identify a patient or relate to a health condition or treatment. Covered entities must obtain patient authorization before recording conversations for non-treatment purposes. Recordings must be stored securely with appropriate access controls. Recording patient conversations without authorization is a HIPAA violation subject to HHS OCR enforcement.

Oregon healthcare providers must satisfy both HIPAA's authorization requirements and ORS 165.540's notice requirement for in-person conversations. For telephone and telehealth calls, ORS 165.540(1)(a) provides one-party consent at the state level, but HIPAA authorization may still apply depending on how the recording will be used. Oregon Health Authority and HHS OCR both have enforcement roles.

Education and FERPA

Classroom audio or video recordings that directly relate to a student and are maintained by the educational institution are "education records" under FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99). Prior written parental consent -- or eligible student consent -- is required before disclosing personally identifiable information from such records. FERPA does not independently regulate the act of recording, but school policies and ORS 165.540 impose additional requirements.

Oregon K-12 schools and universities recording in-person classroom conversations must comply with both FERPA's disclosure requirements and ORS 165.540(1)(c)'s all-participant notice mandate. The video-conferencing exception in ORS 165.540 covers platforms such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams for online courses, reducing friction for remote instruction. Oregon students and faculty on video calls should be aware that the platform-based recording exception does not authorize unrestricted recording outside the platform.

Debt Collection

CFPB Regulation F (12 CFR Part 1006) governs debt collector communications with consumers. When debt collectors record phone calls with Oregon consumers, ORS 165.540(1)(a) applies: the collector's own participation provides sufficient one-party consent under state law. However, if a debt collector records an in-person meeting with an Oregon consumer, ORS 165.540(1)(c)'s all-participant notice requirement applies. Regulation F's prohibitions on harassment and false representations remain independent of state recording consent requirements.

SB 1121 (2025): Adjacent Unlawful-Disclosure Crime

Oregon's 2025 legislative session produced one significant adjacent development for people who handle recordings. SB 1121 (83rd Oregon Legislative Assembly, 2025 Regular Session), enrolled as Or Laws 2025, ch. 417, did NOT amend ORS 165.540 in any way. The recording consent rules discussed throughout this article are unchanged by SB 1121.

What SB 1121 did: it created a new Class B misdemeanor for knowingly disclosing another person's personal information without consent and with intent to stalk, harass, or injure, where the disclosure results in actual harm or harassment. The maximum penalty is 6 months in jail and a $2,500 fine. The bill included an emergency clause and took effect on passage in 2025. Source: SB 1121 -- Oregon Legislature.

Why this matters for recordings: SB 1121 creates an adjacent harassment or doxxing route for anyone who shares recordings obtained without consent and uses them to harm the subject. The disclosure offense is separate from the interception offense under ORS 165.540. A person who illegally records someone and then shares the recording to harass them could face criminal exposure under both statutes -- and also under ORS 163.700-163.702 (invasion of personal privacy) if the recording captured intimate visual content.

SB 1121 does not change when you need to give notice before recording. It addresses what happens after a recording is made if it is weaponized against the subject.

Oregon Video Recording Laws

Video-Only Recording

Oregon's recording statute, ORS 165.540, specifically addresses audio interception and recording. Silent video recording without audio is generally not covered by ORS 165.540. This means:

• Video surveillance cameras that do not capture audio are typically lawful in public areas.
• Security cameras in businesses are generally permitted as long as they are not placed in areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
• Adding audio to a video recording triggers the notice requirements of ORS 165.540.

Invasion of Personal Privacy

Oregon has separate statutes addressing video voyeurism and invasive recordings, independent of ORS 165.540.

ORS 163.700 (Invasion of Personal Privacy in the Second Degree) makes it a Class A misdemeanor to knowingly record a photograph, video, or other visual recording of another person's intimate area without consent when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes recording in bathrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, and tanning booths; recording under or through clothing; and any location where a person undresses in an enclosed space not open to public view.

ORS 163.701 (Invasion of Personal Privacy in the First Degree) elevates the offense to a Class C felony when the recorded images are disseminated or when the victim is under 18 years of age. A Class C felony carries up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $125,000. The court may also designate this offense as a sex crime requiring registration under ORS 163A.005.

No 2025 or 2026 amendments to ORS 163.700 or 163.701 have been identified.

Recording Police Officers in Oregon

Your Right to Record Law Enforcement

Yes, you can record police officers performing their duties in public. The First Amendment protects the right to record government officials, including law enforcement officers, carrying out their public duties. The Ninth Circuit has recognized this right, and Oregon's constitutional framework is consistent with it.

In Oregon:

• You may record police officers during traffic stops, arrests, protests, and other public encounters.
• Officers cannot lawfully order you to stop recording or seize your device solely because you are recording.
• You must not physically interfere with police activity while recording.
• The law enforcement exception in ORS 165.540 also permits recordings when law enforcement officers are participants in conversations and the statutory conditions are satisfied.

Recording Public Meetings

Oregon's public meetings laws support recording at government proceedings. ORS 165.540 has always included exceptions permitting recording at public and semipublic meetings, hearings, trials, and legislative proceedings. Citizens have the right to record city council meetings, school board hearings, and other government functions open to the public.

Penalties for Illegal Recording in Oregon

Criminal Penalties

Violating Oregon's recording laws under ORS 165.540 is a Class A misdemeanor. Under Oregon sentencing guidelines:

Penalty	Maximum
Jail time	Up to 364 days
Fine	Up to $6,250
Probation	Up to 5 years

Sentencing guidelines under ORS 161.615 (maximum imprisonment for misdemeanors) and ORS 161.635 (fines for misdemeanors) set these maximums. Actual sentences depend on circumstances, criminal history, and judicial discretion.

SB 1121 adjacent offense: The new Class B misdemeanor under Or Laws 2025, ch. 417 (discussed above) carries a maximum of 6 months and a $2,500 fine -- separate from and in addition to any penalty under ORS 165.540.

Civil Liability

Under ORS 133.739, a person whose communications are willfully intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of the law may bring a civil lawsuit. Available remedies include:

• Actual damages, but not less than $100 per day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is greater.
• Punitive damages at the court's discretion.
• Reasonable attorney fees may be awarded to the prevailing party.

Good faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization is a complete defense to civil claims under this statute.

Evidentiary Consequences

Under ORS 41.910, intercepted communications obtained in violation of ORS 165.540 are inadmissible as evidence in any Oregon court proceeding. An illegally obtained recording cannot be introduced in court even if it contains highly relevant evidence.

Wearable Recording Devices in Oregon

Body cameras, smart glasses, AI voice recorders, and other wearable recording devices are increasingly common in Oregon. The legality of using these devices depends on whether the recording captures an in-person conversation or an electronic communication. Oregon's hybrid consent framework applies to wearable devices the same way it applies to any other recording tool.

For in-person conversations, wearable devices that capture audio require all-party notice under ORS 165.540(1)(c). If you wear smart glasses, a body camera, or a lapel microphone that records conversations with people around you, every person in that conversation must be specifically informed before you start recording. This rule applies in public and private settings alike. Walking through a farmers market or sitting in a coffee shop with a recording device running does not exempt you from the notice requirement.

Wearable devices used during phone calls or video calls follow different rules. Because Oregon treats telephone and electronic communications under one-party consent, you can use a Bluetooth earpiece recorder, a smartwatch call recorder, or similar device to capture a call you participate in without notifying the other party. The key distinction is whether the communication travels through an electronic medium or happens face-to-face.

The narrow felony exception under ORS 165.540 does not create a general right to gather evidence with wearable devices. It applies only when a person records a conversation during a felony that endangers human life. Recording a workplace dispute, a neighbor's rude behavior, or a landlord-tenant argument does not qualify. Oregon courts interpret this exception strictly.

More Oregon Laws

• Oregon Lemon Laws
• Oregon Dog Bite Laws
• Oregon Statute of Limitations
• Oregon Hit and Run Laws
• Oregon Whistleblower Laws
• Oregon Car Seat Laws
• Oregon Sexting Laws
• Oregon Child Support Laws

Oregon Recording Laws Topic Index

Oregon recording law covers a wide range of contexts beyond the core ORS 165.540 framework. The following subtopic pages address specific scenarios in depth:

1. Oregon Audio Recording Laws -- consent rules for audio-only recordings, voice memos, and dictation devices
2. Oregon Dashcam Laws -- dashcam audio and video rules for Oregon drivers
3. Oregon Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws -- recording rules for rental properties, inspections, and disputes
4. Oregon Medical Recording Laws -- recording healthcare appointments and telehealth sessions in Oregon
5. Oregon Phone Call Recording Laws -- detailed guide to one-party consent for Oregon phone calls
6. Oregon Laws on Recording Police -- First Amendment rights and limits when recording law enforcement
7. Oregon Laws on Recording in Public -- in-person notice requirements in parks, streets, and public spaces
8. Oregon School Recording Laws -- FERPA, ORS 165.540, and recording in K-12 schools and universities
9. Oregon Security Camera Laws -- placement rules, audio capture, and workplace surveillance
10. Oregon Video Recording Laws -- video-only recording, ORS 163.700, and invasion of personal privacy
11. Oregon Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws -- ORS 163.701 felony voyeurism and hidden camera offenses
12. Oregon Workplace Recording Laws -- employee and employer rights, NLRB Stericycle, and no-recording policies