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

Oregon audio recording law splits by conversation type under ORS 165.540. Phone calls follow one-party consent, so you can record any call you participate in. In-person conversations and video calls generally require all-party notification, meaning every participant must be informed before recording begins.

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 or a video call, 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 telephone or radio communications and conversations. The distinction is not about the recording device you use. It is about how the conversation happens.

Telephone and radio 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. Under ORS 165.535, a communication through a video conferencing program is not a telecommunication or radio communication, so video calls fall outside this rule.

In-person oral conversations and video calls 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. ORS 165.535 defines a conversation to include a communication occurring through a video conferencing program. 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 or video-call conversation.

Why Oregon Adopted This Split Framework

Oregon's legislature chose to protect in-person conversational privacy more strictly than telephone 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 denied certiorari on October 6, 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 unless an exception applies, such as the home exception below

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 else's home (recording in your own home may fall under the ORS 165.540(3) home exception described below)
• 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 Calls

One-Party Consent Standard

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

This covers:

• Landline and cell phone calls
• Telephone conference calls with multiple participants

This rule does not cover video calls. Under ORS 165.535, a communication through a video conferencing program (such as Zoom, Teams, Google Meet or FaceTime video) is a conversation, not a telecommunication or radio communication.

Video Calls and the Video Conferencing Exception

An ordinary video conferencing call is treated as a conversation under ORS 165.540(1)(c) by default, so recording it secretly risks a Class A misdemeanor, even using a platform's built-in recording feature.

A narrow exception under ORS 165.540(6)(b) allows recording a video call without notifying every participant only when the person recording intends to capture alleged unlawful activity, is a participant in the call or has the consent of at least one participant, and is a law enforcement officer or acting in coordination with one, is acting in coordination with an attorney or a regulatory entity, or reasonably believes the recording may be used as evidence in a judicial or administrative proceeding. Routine recording of a video call for ordinary purposes does not qualify for this exception, so you still need to notify all participants before using platform recording features.

Exceptions to Oregon's Audio Recording Rules

Unconcealed Recording Devices

ORS 165.540(6)(a) 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.

Recording in Your Own Home

ORS 165.540(3) says the notification rule does not apply to "subscribers or members of their family" who record in their own homes. In State v. Rainey (2018), the Oregon Court of Appeals applied that exception to a face-to-face argument outside the house that was recorded from an upstairs window, holding that what matters is where the recording happens, not where the conversation happens.

The statute does not define "subscriber," so whether the exception covers tenants, roommates or guests is unsettled. The exception never covers recording in someone else's home, so announcing the recording is the safer course.

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 unless it becomes a felony that endangers human life

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, if that person is a participant or at least one participant consents.

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.
• Recording a video call on your smartphone: All-party notification required, unless a narrow statutory exception applies.

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 phone call or a conversation, which includes an in-person conversation or a video call.

AI-powered transcription tools like Otter.ai, Fireflies.ai, and similar services can record and transcribe in real time. For ordinary phone calls, these tools are legal under one-party consent. For in-person conversations and video calls on platforms like Zoom, Teams or Google Meet, 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. If you use a smart speaker feature that intentionally records an in-person conversation, the all-party notification rule generally applies. ORS 165.540(3) exempts subscribers and their family members recording in their own homes, but the statute does not define "subscriber," so telling guests and other household members before recording remains the safer practice.

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:

Civil Liability

Oregon's recording statute does not give the person recorded a statutory damages claim. The civil action in ORS 133.739, with its minimum of $100 a day or $1,000, applies only to violations of ORS 133.724 and 133.737, the court-ordered law enforcement interception provisions.

A person recorded in violation of ORS 165.540 would instead sue for common-law invasion of privacy, a remedy ORS 133.739(3) expressly preserves.

Evidentiary Consequences

Under ORS 41.910, audio recordings obtained in violation of ORS 165.540 are generally inadmissible in Oregon courts. An illegally recorded conversation generally cannot be used as evidence, however relevant it is, except to prove the unlawful recording itself or in limited police body-camera situations.

Audio Recording and the First Amendment

The Project Veritas v. Schmidt Timeline

Oregon's audio recording law survived a significant First Amendment challenge:

• July 2023: A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel held the all-party notification requirement a content-based restriction on speech and reversed the dismissal of Project Veritas's challenge; that decision was vacated when the full court reheard the case
• January 2025: The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, voted 9-2 to affirm the dismissal of Project Veritas's challenge, with the majority opinion holding the law 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

More Oregon Recording Topics

• Oregon Biometric Privacy Laws
• Surveillance Camera Laws

More Oregon Laws

• Oregon AI Meeting Recording Laws
• Oregon Dashcam Laws
• Oregon Data Privacy Laws
• Oregon Deepfake Laws
• Oregon Employee Monitoring Laws
• Oregon GPS Tracking Laws
• Oregon Police Bodycam Laws
• Oregon Smart Glasses Recording Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I audio record a conversation in Oregon without telling everyone?

It depends on the type of conversation. For phone calls, Oregon follows one-party consent, so you can record without telling the other person. For in-person conversations and video calls, every participant generally must be specifically informed before recording under ORS 165.540(1)(c).

What is Oregon's split consent framework for audio recording?

Oregon treats phone calls and conversations under different rules. Phone calls require only one-party consent under ORS 165.540(1)(a). In-person conversations and video calls require all-party notification under ORS 165.540(1)(c). The type of communication determines which rule applies, not the recording device used.

Can I use an AI voice recorder for in-person conversations in Oregon?

You can use any recording device for in-person conversations in Oregon, including AI voice recorders, as long as you notify all participants before recording begins. The device itself does not change the legal analysis. The all-party notification requirement applies regardless of what tool you use.

Is Oregon's all-party notification requirement constitutional?

Yes. The Ninth Circuit upheld ORS 165.540(1)(c) in a 9-2 en banc ruling in January 2025 in Project Veritas v. Schmidt. The court found the law is content-neutral and narrowly tailored to protect conversational privacy. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in October 2025.

What happens if I illegally audio record someone in Oregon?

Illegal audio recording is a Class A misdemeanor carrying up to 364 days in jail and a $6,250 fine. There is no statutory damages claim for the person recorded (ORS 133.739 covers only law enforcement interception violations), but a common-law invasion of privacy suit is possible. The recording is generally inadmissible as evidence under ORS 41.910.