EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsOregon Laws flagOregon Laws
Oregon flag

Oregon

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

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of August 22, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed August 26, 202612 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 22, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 22, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

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

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, and the recording is inadmissible in Oregon courts under ORS 41.910.

Oregon recording law at a glance

QuestionAnswer
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 statuteORS 165.540
Criminal penaltyClass A misdemeanor
Max jail364 days
Max fine$6,250
Civil remedyNo statutory damages action for an ORS 165.540 violation; common-law invasion of privacy only (ORS 133.739 reaches only ORS 133.724 and 133.737)
Hidden cameras / voyeurismORS 163.700 (Class A misd.) / ORS 163.701 (Class C felony: nude recording without consent, or second-degree with prior conviction)
Recording policePermitted when open, plainly visible, officer performing official duties, in a lawful location (ORS 165.540(5)(b))
Constitutional statusEn 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:

PenaltyMaximum
Jail364 days (ORS 161.615)
Fine$6,250 (ORS 161.635)
ProbationUp 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 another person, injure another person, or damage another person's property, where the disclosure in fact causes that stalking, injury, or property damage. The maximum for that adjacent offense is 6 months and a $2,500 fine. It does not amend ORS 165.540.

Civil liability:

Oregon does not give the person who was recorded a statutory damages claim. ORS 165.540 is a criminal statute, and no subsection of it creates a private right of action.

The damages provision usually cited in this context, ORS 133.739, does not reach it. That section gives a civil cause of action only to a person whose communication was intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of ORS 133.724 or ORS 133.737, which are the court-ordered law enforcement interception and disclosure provisions. Its minimum damages of $100 per day or $1,000, its punitive damages, and its attorney fee rules attach to those violations, not to a private person who records a conversation without giving notice.

What remains is the common-law route, which ORS 133.739(3) expressly preserves: nothing in ORS 41.910, 133.721 to 133.739 and 133.992 is intended to abrogate any other private civil remedy for invasion of privacy. A person recorded unlawfully in Oregon therefore sues on an invasion of privacy theory rather than under the wiretap statutes.

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) currently covers 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 9-2, holding the statute is content-neutral and survives intermediate scrutiny. Eleven judges sat on the limited en banc court; Judge Christen wrote the opinion, Judge Bennett concurred in the judgment, and Judge Lee dissented joined by Judge Collins. 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 stalk or injure the person, or damage their property, where disclosure in fact causes that harm. A person who illegally records someone and then shares the recording to stalk 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. A former FCC rule, 47 CFR 64.501, once required telephone companies to give notice before recording customer calls through a verbal announcement, an audible beep tone, or prior written consent, but the FCC removed that rule effective November 20, 2017, and it no longer applies. There is currently no FCC-specific interstate call-recording disclosure rule; private and business call recording is governed by state law and the federal wiretap act's one-party consent floor.

  • January 7, 2025: Ninth Circuit en banc (9-2) 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

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Oregon a one-party or two-party consent state?

Oregon uses a hybrid rule. Telephone and electronic communications are one-party consent under ORS 165.540(1)(a): if you participate in the call, your own consent is enough. In-person oral conversations require all-party notice under ORS 165.540(1)(c): every participant must be specifically informed before recording begins. Oregon is not a standard two-party consent state, nor a standard one-party state.

Can I record a phone call in Oregon without telling the other person?

Yes. Oregon is one-party consent for telephone calls under ORS 165.540(1)(a). As long as you are a participant, you can record without notifying the other party. If you are calling someone in a stricter state such as California or Washington, follow that state's all-party rules instead.

Do I need permission to record an in-person conversation in Oregon?

You must give specific notice. Under ORS 165.540(1)(c), every participant must be told that recording is occurring before you start. The statute requires that participants be 'specifically informed,' not that they consent in writing. This applies in public and private settings. Exceptions include recordings at certain public events with an unconcealed device, recordings during a felony that endangers human life, and law enforcement officer recordings under ORS 165.540(5)(b).

What did the Project Veritas v. Schmidt rulings decide?

In July 2023 a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel struck down ORS 165.540(1)(c) as an unconstitutional content-based restriction. On January 7, 2025, the full Ninth Circuit sitting en banc reversed that decision 9-2, holding the statute is content-neutral and passes intermediate scrutiny. On October 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. Oregon's all-party notice requirement for in-person conversations is constitutionally settled.

What is the penalty for illegal recording in Oregon?

Violating ORS 165.540 is a Class A misdemeanor: up to 364 days in jail and a fine of up to $6,250. There is no statutory damages claim for the person who was recorded: the civil action in ORS 133.739 applies only to violations of ORS 133.724 or ORS 133.737, the law enforcement interception provisions, so a private suit proceeds as a common-law invasion of privacy claim. Illegally obtained recordings are also inadmissible in Oregon courts under ORS 41.910.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Oregon?

Silent video cameras on your own property are generally lawful. Once a camera captures audio, ORS 165.540 applies. An outdoor camera recording passers-by without notice may violate the all-party notice rule if it captures in-person conversations. Cameras placed in bathrooms, dressing rooms, or other private spaces that capture intimate areas without consent violate ORS 163.700. Recording a person in a state of nudity without consent is a Class C felony under ORS 163.701, as is committing the second-degree offense with a prior conviction for a related offense.

Can I record my boss or coworkers in Oregon?

You can record a phone call with a coworker or boss without telling them, because Oregon is one-party consent for telephone communications. You cannot secretly record an in-person workplace meeting: all participants must be notified before recording begins. Under NLRB Stericycle (372 NLRB No. 113, 2023), employer blanket no-recording policies that chill NLRA-protected activity such as wage discussions or union organizing are presumptively unlawful.

Can I record the police in Oregon?

Yes. ORS 165.540(5)(b) expressly permits recording a law enforcement officer who is a participant in a conversation when the recording is made openly and in plain view, the conversation is audible by normal hearing, and you are in a lawful location. The First Amendment also independently protects the right to record police performing public duties. You must not physically interfere with police activity while recording.

Updates

Corrected the civil remedy section: Oregon provides no statutory damages claim for a violation of ORS 165.540, because the civil action in ORS 133.739 reaches only the law enforcement interception provisions, and corrected the Ninth Circuit en banc vote in Project Veritas v. Schmidt from 10-2 to 9-2.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Corrected the Federal Overlay section: 47 CFR 64.501's telephone-recording notice rule was removed by the FCC effective November 20, 2017 (confirmed the section no longer exists in the current CFR) and is no longer current law; removed the stale Sources entry citing it as a live FCC rule.

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Restructured for readability: condensed to short paragraphs organized by medium and topic, added at-a-glance table, moved constitutional history and special-contexts material into dedicated subsections. Corrected the video-conferencing exception: ORS 165.540(6)(b) is a narrow purpose-specific carve-out (alleged unlawful activity plus law enforcement/attorney/regulatory coordination or evidentiary intent), not a general platform exemption for all Zoom or Teams calls. Confirmed subsection numbering: (1)(a) one-party phone rule, (1)(c) all-party notice for in-person, (5)(b) law enforcement recording, (6)(a) unconcealed device, (6)(b) video-conferencing/unlawful-activity exception, (9) Class A misdemeanor penalty. Added in-depth subpage index. Refreshed FAQ to 8 questions. All primary-source citations retained.

Refresh (audit-and-evolve): Title rewritten from 'Oregon Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties' to 'Oregon Recording Laws: Hybrid Consent, SCOTUS Final, Penalties'; meta description rewritten to lead with hybrid framing and SCOTUS finality. Hybrid rule framing (phone one-party / in-person all-party) front-loaded in intro, summary table, and FAQ. Project Veritas v. Schmidt three-milestone timeline (July 2023 panel, Jan. 7 2025 en banc 10-2, Oct. 6 2025 SCOTUS cert denied) preserved from existing article and promoted to standalone H2 with Oregon DOJ quote added. Open constitutional question on 2021 video-conferencing extension flagged. SB 1121 / Or Laws 2025 ch. 417 sidebar added as adjacent disclosure crime (not an ORS 165.540 amendment). Federal Law Overlay H2 added: 18 U.S.C. 2511, 47 CFR 64.501 (businesses/carriers scope qualified), FCC DA 24-17 AI-voice rule, FCC One-to-One Consent Rule vacatur (Jan. 24 2025; formally eliminated Sept. 2025). Special Contexts H2 added: workplace (NLRB Stericycle 372 NLRB No. 113), collective bargaining (NLRB GC Memo 25-07), healthcare (HIPAA 45 CFR Parts 160/164), education (FERPA 20 U.S.C. 1232g), debt collection (CFPB Reg F). Topic Index H2 added with links to all 12 OR subtopic spokes. Citations expanded from 11 to 17 (added SB 1121, GC Memo 25-07, Stericycle, 47 CFR 64.501, HIPAA). Subsection numbering warnings preserved per dossier critic flags err-02 and err-03 -- no unverified subsection numbers cited.

Refresh (audit-and-evolve): Title rewritten from 'Oregon Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties' to 'Oregon Recording Laws: Hybrid Consent, SCOTUS Final, Penalties'; meta description rewritten to lead with hybrid framing and SCOTUS finality. Hybrid rule framing (phone one-party / in-person all-party) front-loaded in intro, summary table, and FAQ. Project Veritas v. Schmidt three-milestone timeline (July 2023 panel, Jan. 7 2025 en banc 9-2, Oct. 6 2025 SCOTUS cert denied) preserved from existing article and promoted to standalone H2 with Oregon DOJ quote added. Open constitutional question on 2021 video-conferencing extension flagged. SB 1121 / Or Laws 2025 ch. 417 sidebar added as adjacent disclosure crime (not an ORS 165.540 amendment). Federal Law Overlay H2 added: 18 U.S.C. 2511, 47 CFR 64.501 (businesses/carriers scope qualified), FCC DA 24-17 AI-voice rule, FCC One-to-One Consent Rule vacatur (Jan. 24 2025; formally eliminated Sept. 2025). Special Contexts H2 added: workplace (NLRB Stericycle 372 NLRB No. 113), collective bargaining (NLRB GC Memo 25-07), healthcare (HIPAA 45 CFR Parts 160/164), education (FERPA 20 U.S.C. 1232g), debt collection (CFPB Reg F). Topic Index H2 added with links to all 12 OR subtopic spokes. Citations expanded from 11 to 17 (added SB 1121, GC Memo 25-07, Stericycle, 47 CFR 64.501, HIPAA). Subsection numbering warnings preserved per dossier critic flags err-02 and err-03: no unverified subsection numbers cited.

Added wearable recording devices section and 2 FAQs

Sources and References

  1. ORS 165.540 -- Obtaining contents of communications(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
  2. ORS 165.540 -- Oregon Public Law (statutory aggregator)(oregon.public.law)
  3. ORS 133.739 -- Civil damages for willful interception(oregon.public.law)
  4. ORS 161.615 -- Maximum terms of imprisonment for misdemeanors(oregon.public.law)
  5. ORS 161.635 -- Fines for misdemeanors(oregon.public.law)
  6. ORS 163.700 -- Invasion of personal privacy in the second degree(oregon.public.law)
  7. ORS 163.701 -- Invasion of personal privacy in the first degree(oregon.public.law)
  8. ORS 41.910 -- Certain intercepted communications inadmissible(oregon.public.law)
  9. 18 U.S.C. 2511 -- Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
  10. Project Veritas v. Schmidt, No. 22-35271 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2025) (en banc)(cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov).gov
  11. U.S. Supreme Court turns down Project Veritas case -- Oregon Capital Chronicle (Oct. 6, 2025)(oregoncapitalchronicle.com)
  12. Ninth Circuit Upholds Oregon Conversational Privacy Statute -- Barran Liebman LLP (Jan. 2025)(barran.com)
  13. SB 1121 (83rd Oregon Legislative Assembly, 2025) -- Or Laws 2025, ch. 417(olis.oregonlegislature.gov).gov
  14. NLRB GC Memo 25-07 -- Surreptitious Recording of Collective-Bargaining Sessions (June 25, 2025)(nlrb.gov).gov
  15. Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) -- NLRB New Standard for Workplace Rules(nlrb.gov).gov
  16. HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules -- HHS OCR (45 CFR Parts 160, 164)(hhs.gov).gov
  17. ORS 133.739 -- Civil damages for willful interception (Oregon Legislature, official chapter 133 text)(oregonlegislature.gov)
  18. ORS 41.910 -- Certain intercepted communications inadmissible (Oregon Legislature, official chapter 41 text)(oregonlegislature.gov)
Share: