Oregon: Call and Conversation Recording Consent Requirements

Requirements one by one

Governing law and covered recording

Oregon's recording rules are in Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 165.535 and 165.540. Section 165.540(1) makes it unlawful to obtain the whole or part of a telecommunication, a radio communication, or an in-person "conversation" by any device outside the statute's consent and notice rules. A companion crime, § 165.543, separately punishes a nonparticipant who intercepts a wire or oral communication without any party's consent. The unusual feature is that Oregon does not use one rule for everything — it treats phone calls and in-person conversations differently.

Whose consent a participant needs

The rule depends on the medium. For a telecommunication or radio communication — an ordinary phone call — § 165.540(1)(a) requires the consent of only "at least one participant," so recording a call you are on is lawful. For an in-person "conversation," § 165.540(1)(c) is stricter: you may record only "if... all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained." That notice duty binds even a participant, which effectively makes in-person recording an all-party matter.

Privacy, confidentiality, or secrecy trigger

Oregon does not condition its rules on whether the conversation was private or confidential. A "conversation" is simply an oral communication that is not a telecommunication or radio communication (§ 165.535(1)). Unlike the federal "oral communication" test, the in-person notice duty applies even to conversations in settings where no privacy would be expected, except where one of the statutory exceptions removes it.

Telephone, in-person, and electronic coverage

The definitions in § 165.535 pick the rule. A "telecommunication" is a wire or cable transmission (§ 165.535(4)) and a "radio communication" is wireless; both take the one-party rule. A "conversation" is in-person oral communication and now expressly includes a communication through a video-conferencing program (§ 165.535(1), (5)), so a video meeting is treated like an in-person conversation for the notice rule rather than like a phone call.

How consent or notice is given

For a phone or radio call, one participant's consent is enough and no announcement is required. For an in-person conversation, consent is not the test — notice is: every participant must be "specifically informed" that the conversation is being recorded. The statute prescribes no script or magic words, and Oregon courts treat a participant who keeps speaking after being told about the recording as adequately informed.

Major participant-facing exceptions

The in-person notice rule in § 165.540(1)(c) yields in several situations under § 165.540(5) and (6). Section 165.540(5)(a) allows recording a conversation "during a felony that endangers human life." Section 165.540(5)(b) allows openly recording an on-duty law-enforcement officer if the recording is in plain view, the conversation is audible to normal hearing, and you are somewhere you may lawfully be. Section 165.540(6)(a) exempts public and semipublic meetings and similar proceedings recorded with an unconcealed device, and § 165.540(3) exempts a phone or radio subscriber or family member acting in their own home.

Criminal classification and penalty

A violation of § 165.540(1) is a Class A misdemeanor under § 165.540(9). That carries up to 364 days in jail (§ 161.615(1)) and a fine of up to $6,250 (§ 161.635(1)(a)). The separate nonparticipant-interception offense in § 165.543(1) is likewise a Class A misdemeanor.

Civil remedy and evidence effect

On evidence, § 41.910(1) makes a communication intercepted in violation of § 165.540 inadmissible in any Oregon court, except to prove the unlawful interception (or a narrow police body-camera situation). On civil damages, Oregon's statutory action in § 133.739(1) — actual damages or liquidated damages of $100 a day or $1,000, plus punitive damages and attorney fees — is tied to the court-ordered-wiretap statutes, not to a private violation of § 165.540. A person recorded in violation of § 165.540 instead relies on the common-law invasion-of-privacy remedy that § 133.739(3) expressly preserves.

Interstate and federal boundary

Federal law lets a private participant record with one party's consent unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). Oregon matches that for phone and radio calls, but its in-person conversation rule is stricter because it requires informing everyone present. Neither law resolves which state controls a call that touches another state, so when an in-person conversation or an interstate call may reach a stricter rule, inform every participant and get consent.

What trips people up

Phone and in-person are not the same in Oregon. Most one-party/all-party maps put a single label on each state, but Oregon genuinely uses one-party consent for phone calls (§ 165.540(1)(a)) and an all-party notice rule for in-person conversations (§ 165.540(1)(c)). A recording that would be fine as a phone call can be a crime as an unannounced in-person recording.

The in-person rule survived a major constitutional challenge. A media organization argued that § 165.540(1)(c) violated the First Amendment, and a 2023 Ninth Circuit panel agreed. But the Ninth Circuit reheard the case en banc and, on January 7, 2025, upheld the statute as a content-neutral limit that survives intermediate scrutiny (Project Veritas v. Schmidt). The notice requirement is fully enforceable today; do not rely on older reports that it was struck down.

"Informed" is a notice duty, not consent. For an in-person conversation you do not need everyone to agree — you need everyone to be specifically informed. But silence you never disclosed is not notice, and a hidden recorder no one knows about is the classic violation.

Common questions

Can I record my own phone call in Oregon without telling the other person? Yes. A phone call is a telecommunication, and § 165.540(1)(a) requires only one participant's consent, which you supply as a party to the call.

Do I have to announce a recording of a face-to-face conversation? Effectively yes. Section 165.540(1)(c) lets you record only if all participants are specifically informed that the conversation is being recorded, so an unannounced in-person recording is unlawful unless an exception applies.

Is a Zoom or video call treated like a phone call or an in-person conversation? Like an in-person conversation. Section 165.535(1) folds a communication through a video-conferencing program into the definition of "conversation," so the all-party notice rule applies rather than the phone one-party rule.

Statutes and sources

• Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540 — the split rule: one-party for telecommunications (1)(a), all-party notice for conversations (1)(c), home and other exceptions (3), (5), (6), and Class A misdemeanor classification (9). https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors165.html (accessed 2026-07-20)
• Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.535 — definitions of "conversation," "telecommunication," and "radio communication," including video-conferencing coverage. https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors165.html (accessed 2026-07-20)
• Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.543 — separate nonparticipant wire/oral interception offense, a Class A misdemeanor. https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors165.html (accessed 2026-07-20)
• Or. Rev. Stat. § 41.910 — inadmissibility of communications obtained in violation of § 165.540. https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors041.html (accessed 2026-07-20)
• Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.739 — statutory civil-damages action (tied to the wiretap-order statutes) and preservation of invasion-of-privacy remedies. https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors133.html (accessed 2026-07-20)
• Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 161.615, 161.635 — Class A misdemeanor jail term and fine. https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors161.html (accessed 2026-07-20)
• 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) — federal one-party private-participant consent rule. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section2511&num=0&edition=prelim (accessed 2026-07-20)