Recording consent law in Oregon
Oregon is a hybrid — you may record a phone call as a participant, but recording an in-person conversation requires telling everyone it's happening.
General information, not legal advice. Recording law turns on facts — where each person physically is, whether the exchange counts as oral or electronic, and what your profession separately requires. If the answer matters, ask a lawyer licensed in Oregon.
Short answer: Oregon (ORS 165.540) splits by medium. Telephone and wire communications are one-party consent — a participant may record. In-person conversations require that all participants be “specifically informed” recording is occurring before it starts. The in-person rule was upheld against a First Amendment challenge by the Ninth Circuit in 2025.
At a glance
| Statute | ORS 165.540 (recording); ORS 133.739 (civil action) |
|---|---|
| Applies to | One-party for telephone; in-person requires notice to all |
| Criminal penalty | Class A misdemeanor — up to 364 days in jail and a fine up to $6,250. |
| Civil liability | Yes, under ORS 133.739 — actual damages (minimum $100 per day or $1,000, whichever is greater), plus punitive damages and attorney's fees. |
The detail that catches people out
Oregon's in-person rule uses the word “informed,” not “consent.” You don't strictly need everyone to agree — you need everyone to be specifically told, before recording starts, that it's happening. In practice these collapse into the same action: announce it clearly at the top.
The rule survived a serious constitutional test. In Project Veritas v. Schmidt (2025), the en banc Ninth Circuit upheld ORS 165.540(1)(c), holding it content-neutral and narrowly tailored to Oregon's interest in conversational privacy. It is settled, current law.
What this means for AI meeting notes
For an in-person meeting in Oregon, announce the recording before you start and make sure everyone hears it. For phone calls you have more latitude as a participant, but announcing is still the cleaner habit — especially once anyone on the call might be in a stricter state.
Two things worth separating. Whether a recording bot is visible in the attendee list has no bearing on any of the above — the statute governs the recording, not how obvious your tooling is. And where the recording is processed is a different question again: Oregon law decides whether you may record at all, while your duty of confidentiality decides who may then receive it.
A tool that captures audio through your own machine and processes it locally, like Oats, removes the second problem and leaves the first entirely intact. You still need whatever consent Oregon requires.
If people are in different states
A call with someone in a one-party-consent state and someone in Oregon is not a one-party call. Standard conservative practice is to comply with the strictest rule represented on the call — get everyone's agreement, out loud, and note that you got it. See our overview of US recording consent law for the wider picture and the other all-party states.
Sources: ORS 165.540. ORS 133.739 civil action. Project Veritas v. Schmidt (9th Cir. 2025). Verified July 2026. Laws change — check the primary source before relying on this.
Notes that never leave your Mac
Free forever. No account. No server holding your recordings.
Download for Mac