Oregon Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)

Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Oregon, but using them to record audio of any in-person conversation triggers Oregon's strict notice requirement under ORS 165.540(1)(c): every participant must be specifically informed that the conversation is being recorded before recording begins. Video-only recording in public spaces is generally lawful. The audio rule applies the moment you capture spoken words.

Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Oregon?

Smart glasses are legal consumer electronics in Oregon. There is no state law banning ownership or use of devices such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. Oregon does not regulate the device itself.

What Oregon does regulate is what you do with those glasses when they are recording. Specifically, the state's wiretap and eavesdropping statute (ORS 165.540) places firm legal requirements on audio capture. The physical form of the recording device does not matter. The fact that the glasses look like ordinary eyewear does not create any legal exception.

Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces

Public spaces: Video-only recording in a public space is generally lawful in Oregon. Streets, sidewalks, parks, shopping centers, and other areas where people are visible to the general public do not give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed. A person walking down a Portland street has no legal right to stop a bystander from filming them.

Private and semi-private spaces: The legal analysis changes as soon as the space creates a reasonable expectation of privacy. Private residences, medical offices, hotel rooms, and similar spaces carry strong privacy expectations. Oregon courts apply the Katz v. United States two-prong test: (1) the person must have a subjective expectation of privacy, and (2) society must recognize that expectation as objectively reasonable.

Hybrid spaces: The hardest cases for smart glasses users are semi-public spaces such as a restaurant booth, an office conference room, a break room, or a one-on-one conversation in a coffee shop. A person in a coffee shop may be visible to passersby, but a quiet conversation at a corner table is still a private communication whose contents the speakers expect to remain private. It is in exactly these hybrid spaces that smart-glasses audio recording creates legal danger.

Absolutely prohibited locations: Recording any person's intimate areas in a location where they reasonably expect privacy from being seen is a crime under ORS 163.700 regardless of consent, context, or device type. Restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, tanning booths, and similar spaces are categorically off-limits. No consent can legalize recording someone's private areas in these locations.

Recording Audio: Oregon's In-Person All-Party Notice Rule

This is the critical section for smart glasses users in Oregon.

ORS 165.540(1)(c) makes it unlawful to obtain any part of a conversation "if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained." There is no exception for the person doing the recording being a participant. There is no exception based on where the conversation takes place.

The practical consequence is straightforward: before you start recording an in-person conversation with your smart glasses, every person in that conversation must know you are recording. The statute uses the word "specifically." General awareness that smart glasses can record is not sufficient. An explicit, contemporaneous disclosure is required.

This is the exact scenario smart glasses create. The glasses look like ordinary eyewear. There is no obvious camera pointed at anyone. The Meta Ray-Ban capture LED is small and may not be visible or understood by a person facing you. Oregon law requires more than a chance for a bystander to notice an LED: it requires that every participant be specifically told the conversation is being recorded.

Why the in-person rule is stricter than the telephone rule: Oregon draws a deliberate distinction between in-person conversations and telephone communications. Under ORS 165.540(1)(a), recording a phone call requires only that one participant consent. You, as the person wearing the glasses and recording the call, are that one participant. You can legally record phone conversations you are part of without telling the other party. That same rule does not apply when you are in the room with someone. In-person conversations receive a higher level of legal protection under Oregon law.

Exceptions that do not apply to most smart glasses use:

ORS 165.540(5) lists several exceptions to the in-person notice requirement:

• Recording a felony that endangers human life
• Recording a law enforcement officer performing official duties, openly and in plain view
• Recording at a public or semipublic meeting or event with an unconcealed device
• Certain law enforcement and criminal investigation uses

None of these exceptions apply to ordinary personal or business use of smart glasses. The public meeting exception covers formal public proceedings, not casual conversations in public spaces. The open-display exception requires that the device itself be unconcealed in a manner that effectively provides notice. Smart glasses worn as ordinary eyewear do not satisfy this standard.

Phone calls recorded via smart glasses: If you use your smart glasses to record a phone call that you are a party to, Oregon's one-party rule applies under ORS 165.540(1)(a). You may record the call without notifying the other party. The in-person all-party notice rule does not govern telephone communications.

Penalties for Violating Oregon's Recording Law

Criminal: Violating ORS 165.540(1) or (2)(b) is a Class A misdemeanor under ORS 165.540(9). Oregon Class A misdemeanors carry a maximum of 364 days in jail and a fine up to $6,250. A criminal conviction for illegal recording is a matter of public record.

Civil: Under ORS 133.739, any person whose communications were unlawfully intercepted may bring a civil action for:

• Actual damages, but no less than $100 per day of violation or $1,000 (whichever is greater)
• Punitive damages at the court's discretion
• Reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party

The minimum civil recovery of $1,000 per violation means that a single in-person conversation recorded without the required notice can produce civil liability with no need to prove specific financial harm. The civil remedy exists in addition to, not instead of, the criminal penalty.

Enhanced exposure from the covert nature of smart glasses: Oregon law does not create a separate category for concealed recording devices. However, the covert nature of smart glasses is directly relevant to both criminal intent and civil damages. Recording a conversation while appearing to be wearing ordinary eyewear demonstrates a deliberate choice to avoid providing the required notice. This strengthens both the criminal case and any argument for punitive civil damages.

Constitutional note: Oregon's in-person notice requirement has survived federal constitutional challenge. The Ninth Circuit upheld ORS 165.540(1)(c) en banc in January 2025, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in October 2025. The law is settled and enforceable.

Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism and Unlawful Surveillance

ORS 163.700 (invasion of personal privacy in the second degree) prohibits knowingly making or recording visual media of another person's intimate areas without consent in any location where the person reasonably expects privacy from visual observation of that area. This includes restrooms, dressing rooms, enclosed locker rooms, tanning booths, and any enclosed space where undressing occurs.

This law applies to smart glasses exactly as it applies to hidden cameras. The fact that the recording device looks like ordinary eyewear is not a defense. It is an aggravating circumstance that demonstrates the recording was intentional and covert.

Penalties under ORS 163.700 and ORS 163.701:

Oregon has two tiers of criminal liability for voyeuristic recording:

• Class A misdemeanor under ORS 163.700 (second degree): knowingly recording intimate areas without consent where the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy, or observing another person's nudity for sexual gratification without consent in a private setting.
• Class C felony under ORS 163.701 (first degree): two independent paths. ORS 163.701(1)(a) makes recording another person's nudity without consent in a location where the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy a first-degree offense directly, with no prior conviction required. ORS 163.701(1)(b) separately elevates any violation of ORS 163.700 to first-degree status when the person has a prior conviction for invasion of personal privacy in any degree, public indecency, private indecency, or a sex crime.

A person who records intimate areas with smart glasses in a locker room or restroom faces a Class C felony on the first offense under ORS 163.701(1)(a), not merely a misdemeanor. The court may also designate a first-degree conviction as a sex crime requiring registration and reporting under ORS 163A.005 if the circumstances warrant it. This rule is absolute. No consent rule, no recording exception, and no device form factor changes this analysis.

Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy

Oregon does not have a standalone biometric privacy statute comparable to Illinois BIPA (740 ILCS 14) or Texas CUBI (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.001). If you are in Oregon and use smart glasses with facial recognition software, you are not subject to a state-specific biometric consent statute.

However, if you are using facial recognition in a context that reaches across state lines, or if your application collects and stores biometric data in a state with a biometric privacy law, those laws may apply to you. Illinois BIPA, in particular, has been applied broadly to data collected outside Illinois when the data subject is an Illinois resident.

Oregon's Consumer Privacy Act (ORS 646A.570 et seq.), effective July 1, 2024, creates rights for consumers related to their personal data. Facial geometry or biometric data collected by a commercial smart glasses application for the purpose of identifying individuals may qualify as sensitive personal data under the Oregon Consumer Privacy Act, triggering disclosure and consent obligations. This is a developing area of law and legal counsel should be consulted for commercial applications.

The I-XRAY demonstration in October 2024, in which Harvard students used Meta Ray-Ban glasses combined with facial recognition software to identify strangers on the street in real time, illustrates exactly the kind of use case that raises biometric and privacy concerns under both state and federal law.

Practical Tips for Oregon Smart Glasses Users

For in-person conversations:

• Before starting any recording, clearly state out loud: "I am recording this conversation." Do not rely on the capture LED or any assumption that the other person noticed the glasses.
• In business contexts, consider a written disclosure or a pre-meeting statement if recording is anticipated. Written consent is stronger than oral notice.
• If anyone objects to being recorded, stop immediately. Continuing after an objection is both criminal and strong evidence of intent for civil purposes.

For phone calls:

• You may record phone calls you are a party to without disclosure to the other party under Oregon's one-party rule. However, if the other party is in a two-party consent state such as California, Washington, or Florida, the stricter state's law governs. Err toward disclosure for interstate calls.

The capture LED is not a legal substitute for notice:

Meta's official guidance states that users should "let that capture LED light shine" and stop recording if anyone objects. The LED is designed as a courtesy notice mechanism. Under ORS 165.540(1)(c), it does not satisfy the "specifically informed" requirement. Oregon law requires explicit, affirmative notice to each participant, not a small LED that may go unnoticed.

Avoid recording in private spaces:

Never use smart glasses to record in restrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, or any space where a person reasonably expects privacy from being seen. The penalty risk ranges from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class C felony with sex offender registration. No use case justifies this exposure.

Personal and business use:

If you wear smart glasses regularly, develop a consistent practice of announcing recording before it starts. This is the simplest and most effective way to stay compliant with Oregon law. Most people, when told they are being recorded and given the chance to object, will either consent or make clear they do not want to be recorded. Either outcome gives you a clear legal path forward.

More Oregon Laws

• Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules
• Oregon Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights Under Split Consent
• Oregon Biometric Privacy Laws: Collection, Consent & Penalties (2026)
• Oregon AI Meeting Recording Laws: Split Consent and Video Conferencing Exception (2026)