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

AI meeting recorders are lawful in Oregon, but a Zoom or Teams call is not a one-party consent call. ORS 165.535(1) defines a "conversation" to include a communication occurring through a video conferencing program, so the all-party notice rule in ORS 165.540(1)(c) reaches virtual meetings the same way it reaches face-to-face ones. Oregon's one-party consent rule covers telephone and radio communications only.

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, conversations require that all participants be "specifically informed" before recording, and ORS 165.535(1) puts video conferencing communications inside the definition of "conversation." Telephone and radio communications are the part of Oregon law that runs on one-party consent. A Zoom, Microsoft Teams, or Google Meet call in Oregon is therefore governed by the same all-party notice rule as a face-to-face meeting, subject only to the conditional carve-outs in ORS 165.540(6).

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. Note its limit: ORS 165.535(3)(b) and (4)(b) expressly provide that neither "radio communication" nor "telecommunication" includes a communication occurring through a video conferencing program, so subsection (1)(a) does not reach a Zoom or Teams call.

Section 165.540(1)(c) addresses 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." Under ORS 165.535(1), a "conversation" is an oral communication that is not a telecommunication or radio communication, and it "includes a communication occurring through a video conferencing program." Subsection (1)(c) is therefore an all-party notice requirement for face-to-face communications and for video meetings alike.

The critical distinction: Oregon's conversation 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, though it is considerably narrower than it first appears.

The prohibitions in subsection (1)(c) do not apply to persons who intercept "oral communications that are part of any of the following proceedings, if the person uses an unconcealed recording device or if the communications occur through a video conferencing program." The enumerated proceedings are public or semipublic meetings such as hearings, trials, press conferences, public speeches, rallies and sporting events; regularly scheduled classes or similar educational activities; and private meetings or conferences "if all others involved knew or reasonably should have known that the recording was being made."

The enumerated proceedings are the gate. The unconcealed device and the video conferencing program are methods that qualify a person for the exception within those proceedings. Neither method on its own lifts the notice requirement.

For AI meeting tools, that means an ordinary private business meeting held over Zoom, Microsoft Teams, or Google Meet escapes the (1)(c) notice requirement only under subparagraph (C), which carries its own knowledge condition: everyone else on the call must have known, or reasonably should have known, that the recording was being made. That is a notice-equivalent standard, not one-party consent. Subsection (1)(a) cannot fill the gap, because ORS 165.535 removes video conferencing from the two definitions that subsection depends on.

An Oregon employee who switches on an AI meeting recorder during a Zoom call therefore cannot rely on their own participation alone. The practical compliance path is to make the recording knowable to everyone on the call: announce it at the start, leave the platform's recording banner and AI indicator visible, and let the bot's join announcement stand in the chat.

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 or regulatory entity, or they reasonably believe the recording may be used as evidence in a judicial or administrative proceeding. This is a targeted evidence-gathering provision, not a general business-meeting exception.

The Unconcealed Recording Device Exception

Oregon's unconcealed recording device exception under ORS 165.540(6)(a) is the in-person half of that same provision, and it carries the same limits. An open, visible device removes the (1)(c) notice requirement only for the three enumerated categories of proceedings, and at an ordinary private meeting that means subparagraph (C): all others involved must have known or reasonably should have known that the recording was being made.

For AI meeting tools, this matters in in-person meetings where a laptop, phone, or other device running recording software sits visible on the table. Visibility alone is not the test. The question is whether the other participants knew or reasonably should have known that the device was recording, which is hard to establish when software rather than a physical recorder is doing the capturing. The safer practice for in-person meetings is to inform all participants directly.

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 notice requirement is constitutionally sound. For AI meeting tools, this means the notice obligation under ORS 165.540(1)(c) is settled law. Companies cannot argue that the notice requirement violates their First Amendment rights.

The court's analysis addressed in-person conversations, which is where the challenge was aimed. Virtual meetings sit inside the same subsection (1)(c) rule by operation of ORS 165.535(1), and the conditional carve-outs in ORS 165.540(6) were not at issue in the 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 telephone calls, the federal and state standards align: one-party consent is sufficient. For in-person conversations and for video conferencing calls, Oregon's all-party notice requirement is stricter than federal law, so Oregon law is the controlling standard 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; after several continuances the court heard argument on August 3, 2026, and on August 13, 2026 the court granted the motion in part with leave to amend and denied it in all other respects, so the core privacy claims are proceeding. No court has found Otter's recording practices unlawful.

Oregon law narrows rather than widens the compliance margin for tools like Otter.ai. A participant who activates Otter on a Zoom or Teams call is recording a "conversation" as ORS 165.535(1) defines it, so ORS 165.540(1)(c) applies unless the knowledge condition in ORS 165.540(6)(a)(C) is satisfied. Separately, the federal "crime-tort" exception could 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, and it stacks on top of state law rather than being displaced by it. A recording made through Zoom or Teams carries a state-law notice obligation under ORS 165.540(1)(c) and potential federal exposure under the capability test at the same time.

AI Meeting Tools and Oregon Compliance

Video Conferencing Compliance

Oregon's treatment of video conferencing leaves AI meeting tools in a narrower position than platform marketing suggests. 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. Those layers are platform policy choices, but in Oregon they do real legal work: they are the most reliable way to establish that all others on the call knew or reasonably should have known that the recording was being made, which is exactly what ORS 165.540(6)(a)(C) requires. Switching them off does not lower the legal standard. It removes the evidence that the standard was met.

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 only within the enumerated proceedings in ORS 165.540(6)(a), so 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 do not get a free hand from the video conferencing provisions. An employer conducting a Zoom or Teams meeting from Oregon is recording a "conversation" as ORS 165.535(1) defines it, so ORS 165.540(1)(c) requires that all participants be specifically informed, unless the meeting fits ORS 165.540(6)(a), which for an ordinary private business meeting means everyone else knew or reasonably should have known that the recording was being made. Announcing the recording at the start of the call and leaving the platform's recording and AI indicators visible is the straightforward way to satisfy that.

For employers with multi-state workforces, participants from states requiring affirmative consent (California, Pennsylvania, Illinois) add a further layer on top of Oregon's notice rule. 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, and the same is true of video meetings, which Oregon classifies as conversations. Telephone calls fall under the one-party consent rule of ORS 165.540(1)(a), but transparency policies help maintain workplace trust and reduce litigation risk across all three settings.

Cross-State Considerations

Oregon's Framework and Interstate Meetings

Oregon's split consent model creates an unusual dynamic in interstate meetings, though not the one that is usually assumed. For video conferencing calls, Oregon sits with the notice-requiring states rather than the permissive ones, because a video meeting is a conversation under ORS 165.535(1). Where participants join from California, Pennsylvania, or other states that require affirmative consent rather than notice, that stricter standard applies on top of Oregon's.

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 notice requirement.

Practical Compliance Strategy

Companies operating across state lines should treat an Oregon video meeting the way they treat an Oregon in-person meeting: announce the recording, keep the platform's notice indicators switched on, and document that the announcement was made. Layer affirmative consent collection on top whenever participants from consent states are involved. The mistake to avoid is treating Oregon video calls as a one-party consent scenario, which the statute's definitions do not support.

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