Oregon AI Meeting Recording Laws: Split Consent and Video Conferencing Exception (2026)

AI meeting recorders are lawful in Oregon for video conferencing under a one-party consent standard. ORS 165.540 splits its requirements: in-person conversations require all participants to receive specific notice before recording begins, but recordings made through video conferencing programs need only one participant's consent.

Oregon's recording consent framework occupies a unique position among U.S. states. Rather than following a simple one-party or all-party consent model, Oregon splits its requirements based on the type of communication and the recording method used. For AI meeting recording tools, this split framework creates both opportunities and obligations that differ significantly from most other states.

Under ORS 165.540, in-person conversations require that all participants be "specifically informed" before recording. But telephone communications and recordings made through video conferencing programs follow a one-party consent standard. This distinction makes Oregon one of the most favorable all-party consent states for AI meeting recording tools used on platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet.

The Ninth Circuit's January 2025 decision upholding this framework's constitutionality, followed by the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case in October 2025, confirmed that Oregon's split consent model is here to stay.

Oregon's Split Consent Framework

ORS 165.540: The Core Statute

Oregon's conversational privacy statute is codified at ORS 165.540. Unlike most state wiretap laws, Oregon's statute creates different consent standards depending on how the communication takes place.

Section 165.540(1)(a) addresses telecommunications. It prohibits obtaining or attempting to obtain the contents of a telecommunication or radio communication without being a participant, unless at least one participant consents. This is a standard one-party consent rule for phone calls and electronic communications.

Section 165.540(1)(c) addresses in-person (oral) conversations. It prohibits obtaining or attempting to obtain any part of a conversation "by means of any device, contrivance, machine, or apparatus" unless "all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained." This is an all-party notice requirement for face-to-face communications.

The critical distinction: Oregon's in-person recording provision requires notice, not consent. Participants must be "specifically informed" that recording is taking place, but the statute does not require them to agree to it. A participant who has been informed and chooses to continue the conversation has effectively accepted the recording. This is a meaningful difference from states like California and Pennsylvania, where affirmative consent (not just notice) is required.

The Video Conferencing Exception

ORS 165.540(6)(a) contains a provision that is directly relevant to AI meeting recording tools. The statute creates exceptions to the in-person notice requirement in subsection (1)(c) for recordings made using an "unconcealed recording device" or through a "video conferencing program."

Specifically, the prohibitions in subsection (1)(c) do not apply to a person who obtains or attempts to obtain a conversation if the person uses an unconcealed recording device in the open, or if the conversation occurs through a video conferencing program, in certain enumerated circumstances. These circumstances include public or semipublic meetings, regularly scheduled classes or educational activities, and private meetings or conferences "if all others involved knew or reasonably should have known that the recording was being made."

For AI meeting tools, the video conferencing exception means that recordings made through platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and similar programs are not subject to the stricter in-person notice requirement. Instead, these recordings fall under the one-party consent standard of subsection (1)(a), which requires only that one participant consent.

This exception makes Oregon significantly more permissive than other all-party notice states when it comes to virtual meetings. An Oregon employee who activates an AI meeting recorder on a Zoom call needs only their own consent (as a participant) to lawfully record the conversation under Oregon law.

Additional Video Conferencing Exception for Alleged Unlawful Activity

ORS 165.540(6)(b) provides a separate exception for recording alleged unlawful activity through video conferencing. A person who, "with the intent to capture alleged unlawful activity," records a conversation occurring through a video conferencing program may do so if they are a participant (or one participant consents) and they meet one of three conditions: they are a law enforcement officer or acting in coordination with law enforcement, they are acting in coordination with an attorney or enforcement entity, or they reasonably believe the recording may be used as evidence in a judicial or administrative proceeding.

The Unconcealed Recording Device Exception

Oregon's unconcealed recording device exception under ORS 165.540(6)(a) provides another path for lawful recording without all-party notice. If a recording device is visible and not hidden, the in-person notice requirement does not apply in certain settings.

For AI meeting tools, this exception is most relevant in in-person meetings where a laptop, phone, or other device running recording software is visible on the table. If the device and its recording function are not concealed, the recording may fall under this exception. However, the safer practice for in-person meetings is to inform all participants, since the boundaries of what constitutes "unconcealed" can be ambiguous when software (rather than a physical recorder) is doing the capturing.

The Ninth Circuit Decision: Project Veritas v. Schmidt

Background

Project Veritas, known for undercover journalism, challenged ORS 165.540(1)(c)'s all-party notice requirement as an unconstitutional restriction on First Amendment rights. The organization planned to conduct secret recordings in Oregon and sought a court declaration that the statute was unconstitutional before proceeding.

The Ruling

On January 7, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued an en banc decision (10-2) in Project Veritas v. Schmidt (No. 22-35271) upholding Oregon's conversational privacy statute. The court found that while secret recording of in-person conversations is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment, Oregon's statute is content-neutral because it regulates all secretly recorded in-person conversations regardless of subject matter.

Applying intermediate scrutiny (the standard for content-neutral speech regulations), the court concluded that Oregon's interest in protecting conversational privacy was substantial enough to justify the notice requirement. The statute survived because it left open alternative channels for obtaining information (including with notice or in public settings) and was narrowly tailored to the state's privacy interest.

Supreme Court Denial

On October 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Project Veritas's petition for certiorari in the same case, by then captioned Project Veritas v. Vasquez (No. 24-1061) because Multnomah County's district attorney's office changed hands between the Ninth Circuit's ruling and the Supreme Court petition, and the successor official was automatically substituted as the named party. This leaves the Ninth Circuit's decision in place as binding law throughout the western United States, including Oregon, California, Washington, and other Ninth Circuit states.

Impact on AI Meeting Recording

The Project Veritas decision reinforces that Oregon's in-person notice requirement is constitutionally sound. For AI meeting tools, this means the in-person notice obligation under ORS 165.540(1)(c) is settled law. Companies cannot argue that the notice requirement violates their First Amendment rights.

However, the decision also highlights the importance of the video conferencing exception. The court's analysis focused entirely on in-person conversations. Virtual meetings conducted through video conferencing programs remain subject to the more permissive one-party consent framework, which was not challenged in this case.

Penalties for Violations

Criminal Penalties: Both ORS 165.540 and ORS 165.543 Are Class A Misdemeanors

Violations of ORS 165.540 are classified as Class A misdemeanors in Oregon. So is ORS 165.543, the related statute covering interception by someone who is not a party to the conversation and has no party's consent. Oregon's misdemeanor sentencing statutes (ORS 161.615 and ORS 161.635) set the maximum penalties as:

Oregon does not elevate either offense to a felony. Oregon caps its misdemeanor maximum jail term at 364 days rather than a full year, a deliberate legislative choice that keeps most misdemeanor convictions below the 365-day threshold that can trigger federal immigration consequences.

This distinction still matters for AI meeting tools. A participant who records without providing the required notice, and a non-participant, such as an AI bot with no human participant's authorization, that intercepts a conversation, both risk Class A misdemeanor liability under Oregon law, plus the civil exposure described below. Neither scenario carries felony risk under Oregon's conversational privacy statutes specifically, though other Oregon laws cover unrelated categories of unlawful recording more harshly. Video voyeurism, for example, is a Class C felony under ORS 163.701 (covertly recording a nude person without consent).

Civil Liability

Oregon provides a statutory civil remedy under ORS 133.739 for unlawful interception, disclosure, or use of a wire, electronic, or oral communication. A prevailing plaintiff can recover actual damages, or statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater, plus punitive damages and, at the court's discretion, reasonable attorney fees. This is a real, if modest, statutory floor: it does not match California's $5,000-per-violation CIPA framework, but it removes the burden of proving actual monetary harm that a pure common-law privacy claim would require. Victims can also pursue common-law claims such as invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress where the facts support them.

Exclusionary Rule

Evidence obtained in violation of ORS 165.540 may be inadmissible in Oregon court proceedings. This applies to AI-generated transcripts, summaries, and any content derived from an unlawfully obtained recording.

Federal Law and National AI Recording Litigation

18 U.S.C. § 2511 and Oregon's Split Framework

Federal wiretap law (18 U.S.C. § 2511) follows a one-party consent standard. For Oregon's telephone and video conferencing recordings, the federal and state standards align: one-party consent is sufficient. For in-person conversations, Oregon's all-party notice requirement is stricter than federal law, meaning Oregon law controls for conversations that take place within the state.

The Otter.ai Litigation

The Otter.ai class action (In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, N.D. Cal., No. 5:25-cv-06911) is relevant to Oregon users despite being filed in California. Several related suits filed in August and September 2025 were consolidated under Judge Eumi K. Lee, with a consolidated complaint filed December 5, 2025. The case's federal wiretap claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 have nationwide reach. Otter moved to dismiss, and the court heard argument on May 20, 2026; as of this update, no ruling has issued and no court has found Otter's recording practices unlawful.

Oregon's video conferencing exception means that Otter.ai and similar tools recording through video platforms like Zoom may have a stronger compliance position in Oregon than in California. Under ORS 165.540, a participant who activates Otter on a video conferencing platform provides sufficient one-party consent. However, the federal "crime-tort" exception could still apply if plaintiffs establish that Otter intercepted communications for the tortious purpose of converting conversational data to train its AI models.

The Ambriz v. Google Capability Test

The Ambriz v. Google ruling from the Northern District of California introduced the "capability test" for AI recording tools. Under this test, if an AI tool has the capability to use intercepted data for its own purposes (model training, analytics), that alone can support a wiretap claim regardless of actual use.

For Oregon users, this precedent applies primarily to federal wiretap claims. Oregon's state-law video conferencing exception provides solid protection for recordings made through platforms like Zoom and Teams, but federal claims based on the capability test could still create exposure for AI tool providers.

AI Meeting Tools and Oregon Compliance

The Video Conferencing Advantage

Oregon's video conferencing exception gives AI meeting tools a compliance advantage that does not exist in most other all-party consent states. For meetings conducted through video conferencing programs, the following analysis applies:

Several of these platforms added participant-facing consent or notice layers of their own in 2026 that go beyond Oregon's one-party floor. That is a platform policy choice, not a change in Oregon law: the underlying legal requirement for video conferencing recordings in Oregon remains one-party consent.

In-Person Meeting Requirements

For in-person meetings in Oregon, AI recording tools must comply with the all-party notice requirement of ORS 165.540(1)(c). All participants must be "specifically informed" that recording is taking place. Simply placing a recording device on the table may qualify under the unconcealed device exception, but the safer practice is to verbally announce that the meeting is being recorded and by what tool.

A company that uses an AI-enabled conference room system (such as a smart speaker or meeting room device with transcription capabilities) should inform participants at the start of the meeting that the system is recording and generating transcripts.

Notice vs. Consent: A Critical Distinction

Oregon's statute requires notice ("specifically informed"), not consent. This means participants do not have to agree to the recording; they only need to know about it. A participant who is informed that an AI tool is recording and continues participating in the conversation has been given the required notice under Oregon law.

This is a meaningful practical difference from California and Pennsylvania, where participants must affirmatively consent. In Oregon, the burden is on the recording party to provide clear notice, but participants cannot "veto" a recording by withholding consent. Their remedy is to leave the conversation.

Employer and Workplace Considerations

Virtual Meetings

Oregon employers gain significant flexibility from the video conferencing exception when conducting virtual meetings. An employer conducting a Zoom or Teams meeting from Oregon can activate AI recording tools with the consent of just one participant (typically the meeting organizer). No notice to other participants is required under Oregon state law, though providing notice remains a best practice.

For employers with multi-state workforces, the presence of participants from stricter states (California, Pennsylvania, Illinois) will override Oregon's permissive video conferencing framework. The strictest applicable law governs the entire recording.

In-Person Workplace Meetings

Oregon employers recording in-person workplace meetings with AI tools must inform all participants. This can be accomplished through posted notices in conference rooms, verbal announcements at the start of meetings, or written disclosures in meeting invitations. The key is that every participant must be "specifically informed" before the recording begins.

Employee Privacy and ORS 165.540

Oregon's conversational privacy statute applies equally to employer-employee communications. An employer cannot secretly record in-person conversations with employees. For telephone and video conferencing communications, one-party consent is sufficient, but transparency policies help maintain workplace trust and reduce litigation risk.

Cross-State Considerations

Oregon's Framework and Interstate Meetings

Oregon's split consent model creates an unusual dynamic in interstate meetings. For video conferencing calls, Oregon law provides one-party consent, which is less restrictive than most all-party consent states. However, when participants from California, Pennsylvania, or other all-party consent states are present, the more restrictive standard applies.

For in-person meetings in Oregon with out-of-state participants, Oregon's notice requirement governs the recording. The recording party must inform all participants. If participants are from one-party consent states, they do not gain any additional recording privileges while in Oregon; they must comply with Oregon's in-person notice requirement.

Practical Compliance Strategy

Companies operating across state lines should treat Oregon video conferencing recordings as a compliance-friendly scenario but apply all-party consent procedures whenever participants from stricter jurisdictions are involved. A tiered approach (one-party consent for Oregon-only video calls, all-party consent for mixed-jurisdiction calls) balances operational efficiency with legal compliance.

Oregon's AI Regulatory Landscape

Recent and Pending AI Legislation

Oregon has been active in AI regulation. SB 1546, passed by the legislature in March 2026 and signed by Governor Tina Kotek on April 1, 2026, regulates "AI companions," systems that simulate a sustained human-like relationship and retain context to personalize engagement. It requires regular AI-disclosure reminders, self-harm detection and crisis-referral protocols, added protections when a user is a minor, and a private right of action with $1,000 in statutory damages per violation; it takes effect January 1, 2027. While SB 1546 targets chatbot companionship rather than meeting recording, it reflects Oregon's broader regulatory posture toward AI transparency and consumer protection.

HB 2748 (effective January 1, 2026) prohibits AI systems from impersonating licensed nurses. HB 3936 restricts the use of AI developed by foreign entities on state information technology assets. HB 2299 expanded the definition of "image" to include AI-generated deepfakes for purposes of intimate image laws.

None of these bills directly address AI meeting recording, but they signal Oregon's willingness to regulate AI across multiple domains. Future legislation could extend transparency requirements to AI meeting tools, particularly if the tools fail to adequately disclose their recording and data practices.

This article provides general legal information about Oregon recording laws as they apply to AI meeting tools. Oregon's split consent framework creates different obligations for different types of communications, and multi-state meetings may trigger stricter requirements from other jurisdictions. Consult an attorney for advice specific to your situation.

More Oregon Laws

• Oregon Recording Laws
• Oregon Employee Monitoring Laws
• Oregon Data Privacy Laws
• Oregon Expungement Laws