Oregon Audio Recording Laws: Split Consent Rules for Conversations and Calls

Oregon's audio recording laws operate under a split consent framework that treats telephone communications and in-person conversations differently. Under ORS 165.540, recording a phone call you participate in requires only one-party consent. Recording an in-person conversation, however, requires that every participant be specifically informed before the recording starts.

This guide explains how Oregon's audio recording laws work in 2026, covering both sides of the split consent framework, the exceptions that apply, recent court decisions that reinforced the law, and the penalties for violations.

Understanding Oregon's Split Consent Framework for Audio

Two Different Rules for Two Types of Communication

Oregon's recording statute draws a clear line between electronic and oral communications. The distinction is not about the recording device you use. It is about how the conversation happens.

Telephone and electronic communications are governed by ORS 165.540(1)(a). This subsection prohibits intercepting telecommunications or radio communications without consent from at least one participant. If you are a party to the call, your own consent is enough. This is standard one-party consent.

In-person oral conversations are governed by ORS 165.540(1)(c). This subsection prohibits obtaining or attempting to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine, or apparatus, unless all participants are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained. This is an all-party notification standard.

The split means the same recording device, such as a smartphone, can be legal or illegal to use depending entirely on whether you are capturing a phone call or a face-to-face conversation.

Why Oregon Adopted This Split Framework

Oregon's legislature chose to protect in-person conversational privacy more strictly than electronic communication privacy. The reasoning is that people speaking face-to-face have a heightened expectation that their words remain private. Telephone calls, by contrast, travel through networks and infrastructure that inherently reduce that expectation.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals validated this legislative choice in its January 2025 en banc ruling in Project Veritas v. Schmidt. The court found that Oregon's notification requirement for in-person conversations serves a substantial government interest in protecting conversational privacy and is content-neutral, meaning it does not target any particular topic or viewpoint. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in October 2025, leaving the Ninth Circuit's ruling in full effect.

Audio Recording of In-Person Conversations

The All-Party Notification Requirement

Under ORS 165.540(1)(c), you must specifically inform every participant before recording an in-person conversation. Key details about this requirement:

• Notification must happen before recording begins, not during or after
• The notification must be specific and clear, not vague or implied
• Every person in the conversation must be informed, not just some
• The requirement applies in both public and private settings
• Even if you are a participant in the conversation, you cannot secretly record it

What Counts as "Specifically Informed"

The statute uses the phrase "specifically informed" rather than "consent." This means you need to tell people you are recording, but you do not necessarily need their affirmative agreement. If you announce that you are recording and a person continues the conversation, that person has been notified. Whether they choose to leave or stay is their decision.

However, there is a practical nuance. If someone objects to recording and asks you to stop, continuing to record could create complications. While the statute technically requires only notification, not consent, recording over someone's explicit objection could be used as evidence of bad faith in any subsequent legal dispute.

Settings Where the Notification Rule Applies

The all-party notification rule covers in-person conversations in virtually every setting:

• Private residences: Conversations in someone's home
• Workplaces: Meetings, hallway conversations, break room discussions
• Public spaces: Parks, sidewalks, restaurants, coffee shops
• Vehicles: Conversations between passengers in a car
• Stores and businesses: Customer interactions, sales conversations
• Outdoor spaces: Any face-to-face conversation regardless of location

The Ninth Circuit's 2025 en banc decision confirmed that Oregon's notification requirement extends to public settings. Recording a conversation on a public sidewalk still requires all-party notification.

Audio Recording of Phone and Electronic Communications

One-Party Consent Standard

For telephone and electronic communications, Oregon follows the majority rule in the United States. Under ORS 165.540(1)(a), you can record any phone call or electronic communication you participate in without telling the other party.

This covers:

• Landline and cell phone calls
• VoIP calls through Zoom, Teams, Google Meet, Skype, and similar platforms
• Video calls with audio (FaceTime, WhatsApp Video)
• Conference calls with multiple participants
• Any communication transmitted through electronic means

Video Conferencing Exception

Oregon law includes a specific provision for video conferencing. Under ORS 165.540(6)(b), recordings obtained through a video conferencing program are exempt from the in-person notification requirement. This means that even though a video call has some characteristics of a face-to-face conversation, Oregon law treats the recording as an electronic communication.

Built-in recording features in Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and similar platforms are therefore legal under the one-party consent standard. You do not need to notify all participants to use platform recording features, though many platforms display a recording indicator as a default setting.

Exceptions to Oregon's Audio Recording Rules

Unconcealed Recording Devices

ORS 165.540(2) provides an exception for unconcealed recording devices at certain events. If your recording device is not hidden, you may record at:

• Public or semipublic meetings, hearings, and trials
• Press conferences and public speeches
• Rallies, sporting events, and public demonstrations
• Regularly scheduled classes and seminars
• Private meetings where all participants knew or reasonably should have known recording was occurring

This exception is important for journalists, students, and anyone attending public events. However, it applies only when the device is visible and the setting fits one of the listed categories.

The Narrow Felony Exception

ORS 165.540(5)(a) permits a person to record a conversation during a felony that endangers human life without providing notification to all participants. This exception is extremely narrow:

• It applies only during the actual commission of a qualifying felony
• The felony must endanger human life, not just any felony
• It does not create a general right to gather evidence of suspected criminal activity
• Recording a heated argument, a workplace dispute, or a property crime does not qualify
• Oregon courts interpret this exception strictly

Relying on this exception outside of genuine life-threatening felony situations exposes you to criminal and civil liability.

Law Enforcement Exception

ORS 165.540(5) also permits recording when a law enforcement officer participates in the conversation and certain statutory conditions are met. Additionally, a person acting in coordination with law enforcement, an attorney, or a regulatory entity may record through a video conferencing program to capture alleged unlawful activity.

Audio Recording Devices and Technology

Smartphone Recording

Smartphones are the most common audio recording devices. In Oregon, using your phone to record follows the split consent framework:

• Recording a phone call on your smartphone: One-party consent applies. Legal if you are a participant.
• Recording an in-person conversation with your phone's voice recorder: All-party notification required. Every person must be specifically informed.

Dedicated Voice Recorders and AI Devices

Standalone voice recorders, AI voice assistants with recording capabilities, and wearable audio devices all follow the same rules. The type of device does not change the legal analysis. What matters is whether you are recording a telephone/electronic communication or an in-person conversation.

AI-powered transcription tools like Otter.ai, Fireflies.ai, and similar services can record and transcribe in real time. For phone calls, these tools are legal under one-party consent. For in-person conversations, you must notify all participants before activating the AI recording tool.

Smart Speakers and Home Assistants

Smart speakers like Amazon Echo and Google Home continuously listen for wake words but do not typically record conversations. However, if you use a smart speaker feature that intentionally records a conversation with someone in your home, the all-party notification rule applies because the conversation is happening in person.

Penalties for Illegal Audio Recording in Oregon

Criminal Penalties

Violating ORS 165.540 by making an unauthorized audio recording is a Class A misdemeanor. Under ORS 161.615 and ORS 161.635:

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

Civil Liability

Under ORS 133.739, a person whose communications are willfully intercepted can sue for:

• Actual damages, with a minimum of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater
• Punitive damages at the court's discretion
• Reasonable attorney fees for the prevailing party

Evidentiary Consequences

Under ORS 41.910, audio recordings obtained in violation of Oregon law are inadmissible in any Oregon court proceeding. An illegally recorded conversation cannot be used as evidence, regardless of how relevant or important the recording might be.

Audio Recording and the First Amendment

The Project Veritas v. Schmidt Timeline

Oregon's audio recording law faced a significant First Amendment challenge that is now fully resolved:

• July 2023: A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel struck down the all-party notification requirement as an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech
• January 2025: The full Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc with all judges, reversed the panel decision 10-2 and upheld the law as content-neutral
• October 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case

The en banc court applied intermediate scrutiny and found that Oregon's interest in protecting conversational privacy is substantial and that the statute is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The law does not restrict what people can say or discuss. It only requires that people be told when their words are being recorded.

Recording as Protected Activity

While Oregon's notification requirement limits secret recording, the broader act of recording is still protected under the First Amendment in many contexts. You can record in public spaces, record government officials performing their duties, and record at public meetings. The notification requirement simply means you must inform people when you are recording their conversations.

Oregon Recording Laws by Topic

Phone Call Recording | Audio Recording | Video Recording | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras

Back to Oregon Recording Laws