Oregon

Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules

By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 202611 min read

Oregon recording law splits by medium under ORS 165.540: telephone and electronic communications require only one-party consent, while in-person oral conversations require specific notice to all participants before recording begins. Violating either rule is a Class A misdemeanor carrying up to 364 days in jail and a $6,250 fine, plus civil liability under ORS 133.739.

Oregon recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule (phone calls)	One-party consent (ORS 165.540(1)(a))
Consent rule (in-person)	All-party notice required (ORS 165.540(1)(c))
Main statute	ORS 165.540
Criminal penalty	Class A misdemeanor
Max jail	364 days
Max fine	$6,250
Civil remedy	Actual damages (min $100/day or $1,000), punitives, attorney fees (ORS 133.739)
Hidden cameras / voyeurism	ORS 163.700 (Class A misd.) / ORS 163.701 (Class C felony: nude recording without consent, or second-degree with prior conviction)
Recording police	Permitted when open, plainly visible, officer performing official duties, in a lawful location (ORS 165.540(5)(b))
Constitutional status	En banc Ninth Circuit upheld ORS 165.540(1)(c); SCOTUS cert denied Oct. 6, 2025

For a deeper look at how these rules work by scenario, see the in-depth guides below.

Recording in-person conversations in Oregon

Oregon over-the-shoulder crop of two people seated across a small table mid-conversation

ORS 165.540(1)(c) prohibits obtaining any part of an in-person oral conversation by means of any device unless all participants are specifically informed that recording is occurring. This is an all-party notice requirement: every person in the conversation must be told before you start recording, not after.

The statute uses "informed," not "consented." A participant who objects after being notified may leave, but the law does not give any individual a veto once proper notice is given. Implied or vague indications are not enough; the notice must be specific.

This rule applies in public and private settings alike. A conversation in a park, a restaurant, or on a sidewalk requires the same notice as one in a living room. The Ninth Circuit's January 2025 en banc ruling confirmed that Oregon's conversational privacy interest extends to public spaces.

Key exceptions to the all-party notice rule:

Unconcealed device at certain public events (ORS 165.540(6)(a)): If you use a clearly visible, unhidden recording device, the notice requirement does not apply at public or semipublic meetings such as government hearings, trials, press conferences, public speeches, rallies, and sporting events; at regularly scheduled classes or seminars; or at private meetings where all participants knew or reasonably should have known recording was occurring.
Felony exception (ORS 165.540(5)(a)): A person may record a conversation during a felony that endangers human life without giving notice. Oregon courts interpret this exception strictly. It does not apply to workplace disputes, neighbor arguments, or landlord-tenant conflicts.
Law enforcement coordination (ORS 165.540(6)(b)): The in-person notice rule does not apply when a person, intending to capture alleged unlawful activity through a video-conferencing program, is a participant or has participant consent, and is either: (A) a law enforcement officer or acting in coordination with one; (B) acting in coordination with an attorney or enforcement/regulatory entity; or (C) reasonably believes the recording may be used as evidence in a judicial or administrative proceeding.
Law enforcement officer as participant (ORS 165.540(5)(b)): You may record a conversation in which a law enforcement officer is a participant if the recording is made openly and in plain view, the conversation is audible by normal hearing, and you are in a place where you may lawfully be.

Note on the video-conferencing exception: ORS 165.540(6)(b) is a narrow, purpose-specific carve-out requiring intent to capture alleged unlawful activity plus one of three qualifying conditions. It is not a general exemption for all recordings made through Zoom or similar platforms. Routine video calls do not fall within this exception.

Recording phone calls in Oregon

Oregon hands typing on a mechanical keyboard from above

Oregon is a one-party consent state for telephone and electronic communications. Under ORS 165.540(1)(a), obtaining a telecommunication is prohibited only if you are not a participant and no participant has consented. If you are on the call, your own consent is sufficient. You do not need to notify the other party.

This means you can record mobile calls, landline calls, and VoIP calls you participate in without telling the other side.

Interstate calls: When you call or receive a call from someone in a stricter state, that state's rules generally apply. A call between Oregon and California, Washington, or another all-party state should be treated under the stricter rule. When in doubt, disclosing at the start of the call eliminates exposure in every jurisdiction. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2511 sets a one-party floor that Oregon's phone rule meets.

For a detailed guide to phone call recording, see Oregon Phone Call Recording Laws.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Oregon's audio recording statute (ORS 165.540) does not cover silent video. A security camera that captures only video is generally lawful in public areas and business common spaces, provided it is not placed where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Adding audio to a video recording activates ORS 165.540. A nanny cam or doorbell camera that captures conversations triggers the all-party notice rule for in-person recordings, or the one-party rule if it is capturing a phone call.

Video voyeurism statutes:

ORS 163.700 (Invasion of Personal Privacy, Second Degree) makes it a Class A misdemeanor to knowingly record another person's intimate areas without consent when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, including in bathrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, under clothing, and similar enclosed spaces.

ORS 163.701 (Invasion of Personal Privacy, First Degree) elevates the offense to a Class C felony when the recording captures another person in a state of nudity without consent where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, or when the perpetrator commits the second-degree offense with a prior conviction for invasion of personal privacy, public indecency, private indecency, or a sex crime under ORS 163A.005. A Class C felony carries up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $125,000. The court may also designate this as a sex crime requiring registration under ORS 163A.005.

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

For detailed guidance, see Oregon Security Camera Laws and Oregon Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws.

Penalties for illegal recording in Oregon

hands typing on a mechanical keyboard from above

Criminal penalties:

Penalty	Maximum
Jail	364 days (ORS 161.615)
Fine	$6,250 (ORS 161.635)
Probation	Up to 5 years

Violation of ORS 165.540(1) or (2)(b) is a Class A misdemeanor under subsection (9). Actual sentences depend on the circumstances, prior criminal history, and judicial discretion.

SB 1121 (Or Laws 2025, ch. 417) created a separate 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. The maximum for that adjacent offense is 6 months and a $2,500 fine. It does not amend ORS 165.540.

Civil liability under ORS 133.739:

A person whose communications were willfully intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of the statute may sue for:

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 to the prevailing party (courts may not award fees to a prevailing defendant in a class action)

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

Evidentiary bar: Under ORS 41.910, communications intercepted in violation of ORS 165.540 are inadmissible in any Oregon court proceeding.

Recording the police in Oregon

Oregon law expressly permits recording law enforcement under ORS 165.540(5)(b) when four conditions are met: the recording is made while the officer is performing official duties, the recording is made openly and in plain view of the participants, the conversation is audible to the person by normal unaided hearing, and the person is in a place where they may lawfully be.

The First Amendment independently protects the right to record government officials carrying out public duties. The Ninth Circuit has recognized this right, and Oregon's statutory exception aligns with it. Officers cannot lawfully order you to stop recording or seize your device solely because you are recording, as long as you are not physically interfering with police activity.

Oregon's public meetings laws also support recording at government proceedings. ORS 165.540's unconcealed-device exception in (6)(a) has always covered government hearings, trials, and legislative proceedings.

For more detail, see Oregon Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Oregon

Project Veritas v. Schmidt: constitutional history

Oregon's all-party notice rule was challenged in federal court from 2022 through 2025. In July 2023, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled ORS 165.540(1)(c) unconstitutional as a content-based speech restriction. On January 7, 2025, the full Ninth Circuit sitting en banc reversed that ruling 10-2, holding the statute is content-neutral and survives intermediate scrutiny. The opinion is at 9th Cir. No. 22-35271. On October 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. The statute is constitutionally settled in the Ninth Circuit. The 2021 amendment extending ORS 165.540 to video-conferencing contexts has not been separately tested at the federal appellate level.

Workplace recording and NLRB

Phone calls at work follow the one-party rule. In-person meetings, performance reviews, and break-room conversations require all-party notice. Under NLRB Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), employer no-recording policies are presumptively unlawful if they have a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising NLRA-protected rights, including discussing wages, working conditions, or union organizing. Oregon employers must ensure their policies are narrowly tailored to a legitimate business interest.

Collective bargaining (NLRB GC Memo 25-07)

NLRB Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued GC Memo 25-07 in June 2025, stating 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) and 8(b)(3). Oregon's ORS 165.540(1)(c) independently prohibits unannounced recording of in-person bargaining sessions. Both layers apply independently.

SB 1121 (2025): adjacent disclosure crime

SB 1121 (Or Laws 2025, ch. 417) did not amend ORS 165.540. It created a new Class B misdemeanor for knowingly disclosing personal information without consent and with intent to harass or injure, where disclosure results in actual harm. A person who illegally records someone and then shares the recording to harass the subject could face exposure under both ORS 165.540 and SB 1121.

Federal overlay: ECPA and FCC

The Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2511) sets a one-party consent floor. Oregon's phone rule meets that floor; Oregon's in-person rule is stricter. Under 47 CFR 64.501, telephone service providers and businesses using common-carrier lines must give all parties notice before recording, through a verbal announcement, an audible beep tone, or prior written consent. This obligation applies to carriers and businesses, not to private individuals recording personal calls.

Recent legal developments

January 7, 2025: Ninth Circuit en banc (10-2) upholds ORS 165.540(1)(c) as content-neutral and constitutional under intermediate scrutiny (Project Veritas v. Schmidt, No. 22-35271).
October 6, 2025: U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari; Oregon's all-party notice requirement for in-person conversations is constitutionally final in the Ninth Circuit.
2025: SB 1121 (Or Laws 2025, ch. 417) creates adjacent Class B misdemeanor for harmful disclosure of personal information; does not amend ORS 165.540.
2023: ORS 165.540 amended (c.234, s1) to add subsection (5)(e) regarding Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology device recordings during deployment.

Oregon recording laws in depth

Oregon wooden gavel on a sound block on a judge's bench

By type of recording:

By place or relationship:

More Oregon laws

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Recording laws change and apply differently to each situation. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed Oregon attorney.

More Oregon Laws

Sources and References

ORS 165.540 -- Obtaining contents of communications(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
ORS 165.540 -- Oregon Public Law (statutory aggregator)(oregon.public.law)
ORS 133.739 -- Civil damages for willful interception(oregon.public.law)
ORS 161.615 -- Maximum terms of imprisonment for misdemeanors(oregon.public.law)
ORS 161.635 -- Fines for misdemeanors(oregon.public.law)
ORS 163.700 -- Invasion of personal privacy in the second degree(oregon.public.law)
ORS 163.701 -- Invasion of personal privacy in the first degree(oregon.public.law)
ORS 41.910 -- Certain intercepted communications inadmissible(oregon.public.law)
18 U.S.C. 2511 -- Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
Project Veritas v. Schmidt, No. 22-35271 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2025) (en banc)(cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov).gov
U.S. Supreme Court turns down Project Veritas case -- Oregon Capital Chronicle (Oct. 6, 2025)(oregoncapitalchronicle.com)
Ninth Circuit Upholds Oregon Conversational Privacy Statute -- Barran Liebman LLP (Jan. 2025)(barran.com)
SB 1121 (83rd Oregon Legislative Assembly, 2025) -- Or Laws 2025, ch. 417(olis.oregonlegislature.gov).gov
NLRB GC Memo 25-07 -- Surreptitious Recording of Collective-Bargaining Sessions (June 25, 2025)(nlrb.gov).gov
Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) -- NLRB New Standard for Workplace Rules(nlrb.gov).gov
47 CFR 64.501 -- FCC Telephone Recording Notification Rule(ecfr.gov).gov
HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules -- HHS OCR (45 CFR Parts 160, 164)(hhs.gov).gov