Is it legal to record phone calls in Oregon?
Yes, generally. Oregon is a one-party consent state: you may record a phone call you take part in without telling the other person, because your own consent satisfies the rule. Recording calls you are not part of is illegal. When the other person may be in an all-party consent state like California or Florida, disclose the recording anyway.
What Oregon law says
Oregon follows one-party consent for phone calls, consistent with the federal Wiretap Act: as long as one participant — and you count — consents, the recording is lawful. The rule covers conversations you participate in; intercepting other people’s calls remains a crime. Bear in mind the rule protects you within Oregon — interstate calls can implicate stricter states’ laws, which is why professionals default to disclosure. Note: Oregon treats phone calls as one-party but in-person conversations as all-party — the rule here covers calls.
Oregon uses a split consent rule that trips up almost everyone: telephone and electronic communications are one-party consent — you may record a phone call if you are a party or have one party's consent. In-person oral conversations are all-party notice: you must specifically inform every participant that the conversation is being obtained before recording audio. The Ninth Circuit upheld the in-person notice requirement in 2025 (Project Veritas v. Schmidt, en banc). Video-only recording in public without audio capture is not covered by the conversational privacy statute.
"A person may not ... [o]btain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained." — Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(1)(c). For telephone communications: "... if not a participant, ... unless consent is given by at least one participant." — Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(1)(a).
Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) permits one-party consent for telephone calls nationwide, which aligns with Oregon's phone-call rule in § 165.540(1)(a). Federal law does not preempt Oregon's stricter in-person notice requirement in subsection (1)(c) — the Ninth Circuit held that provision constitutional in Project Veritas. A phone recording lawful under federal law is generally lawful in Oregon; a secretly recorded in-person meeting can violate Oregon law even when federal one-party principles would allow it.
Oregon's dual framework is statutory, not just conventional wisdom. Subsection (1)(a) governs telephone and electronic communications: non-participants need one party's consent; participants may record their own calls without notifying the other side. Subsection (1)(c) governs in-person "conversations" — defined as oral communications that are not telephone or radio communications, including video conferences — and requires that all participants be specifically informed before audio is obtained. That means a hidden recorder in a private meeting is a misdemeanor even if you are in the room. Notice can be verbal ("this conversation is being recorded") or through posted signage in some workplace contexts, but silence or ambiguity does not suffice. Exceptions in subsection (5) allow recording during a felony endangering human life and recording law enforcement officers performing official duties under defined conditions. The Ninth Circuit's 2025 en banc decision in Project Veritas v. Schmidt rejected a First Amendment challenge to subsection (1)(c), leaving Oregon's all-party-notice rule for in-person audio firmly in place; the Supreme Court denied certiorari in October 2025. Video without audio capture of public activity is outside subsection (1)(c).
| Consent rule for phone calls | One-party consent |
| Recording calls you're part of | Allowed — your own consent is sufficient. |
| Calls with people in other states | The stricter state's rule may apply — when in doubt, disclose. |
What breaking the law costs in Oregon
Violating § 165.540 is a misdemeanor. Disclosing or using a communication obtained in violation of the statute is also prohibited.
Yes — Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.739 (cross-referenced civil remedy) allows recovery of the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or $1,000, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.
Exceptions worth knowing
- Telephone/electronic: one-party consent when the recorder is a party or has one participant's consent (§ 165.540(1)(a))
- In-person: all participants must be specifically informed before audio recording (§ 165.540(1)(c))
- Recording during a felony that endangers human life, even if initiated before the felony began (§ 165.540(5)(a); State v. Copeland)
- Recording a law enforcement officer performing official duties under statutory conditions (§ 165.540(5)(b))
- Public or semi-public proceedings listed in § 165.540(2) — hearings, trials, press conferences, public speeches, and similar events
How Oregon courts have ruled
Statutes set the rule; cases show how it plays out when a recording ends up in front of a judge. These are real, decided cases under Oregon law.
What happened: Project Veritas challenged Oregon's ban on obtaining in-person oral conversations without informing all participants, arguing the statute violated the First Amendment as a content-based restriction on undercover journalism.
The ruling: Sitting en banc, the Ninth Circuit upheld § 165.540(1)(c) as content-neutral and narrowly tailored to Oregon's interest in conversational privacy, reversing an earlier three-judge panel that had struck the law down.
What happened: An officer tape-recorded a DUI stop from the approach through arrest but did not inform the defendant the conversation was being recorded until two minutes into the encounter.
The ruling: The court assumed admitting the first two minutes without notice was error under the in-person notice rule, but held the error harmless because the same information was repeated in the remaining 21 minutes of lawful recording.
What happened: A shooting victim recorded video and audio of an attack on a body camera; the defendant argued the recording violated § 165.540(1)(c).
The ruling: The court applied the felony-during-human-danger exception in § 165.540(5)(a), holding the recording was lawful even though it began before the felony started.
What happened: Police recorded a conversation after warning that it was being "monitored" by camera and audio; the defendant argued the notice was insufficient under § 165.540(1)(c).
The ruling: The court held that a warning that a conversation was being monitored by camera and audio sufficiently informed participants the conversation was being recorded, and no separate consent was required once proper notice was given.
Personal calls vs. business calls in Oregon
Recording personal calls
On phone calls, Oregon is one-party: record your own calls without telling the other person. In person, the rule flips: you must specifically inform everyone before recording audio — "I'm recording this conversation" at the start, or clear posted notice in a workplace. Secretly recording a meeting, dinner, or custody exchange is a misdemeanor under § 165.540(1)(c) even if you are a participant. The felony-danger exception from Copeland is narrow — ordinary disputes do not qualify. Video without audio in public is generally outside the conversational privacy statute.
Recording business calls
Oregon employers must give specific notice before recording in-person meetings, interviews, and workplace conversations — a general employee handbook reference may not be enough if workers are not actually informed before each recorded interaction. Phone-based sales and support lines follow one-party consent, but most businesses still announce recording. After Project Veritas, the all-party in-person rule is not going away — compliance means verbal notice or conspicuous signage before audio capture begins.
Calls that cross state lines
An Oregon resident calling someone in a one-party state can record the phone call under Oregon's one-party telephone rule, but an out-of-state caller recording an Oregon resident on an in-person visit must follow Oregon's all-party notice rule for any face-to-face audio. On interstate phone calls, follow the strictest applicable consent standard.
The safe way to record in Oregon
Whatever the local rule, one habit covers every situation: say the call is being recorded at the start. Consent is then on the recording itself, and cross-border calls stop being a legal puzzle. Callmark can play "This call may be recorded" automatically on your calls, so the disclosure never depends on your memory.
For the full national picture — every all-party state, cross-border rules, and consent mechanics — see our state-by-state consent guide.
Sources and further reading
Statutes, court opinions, and reference guides cited on this page. Laws change — verify current text before relying on it for anything consequential.
- Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540 (official annotated text)
- Project Veritas v. Schmidt, 125 F.4th 929 (9th Cir. 2025, en banc) — opinion PDF
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — Oregon recording guide
- State v. Cooney, 584 P.2d 329 (Or. Ct. App. 1978) — statute annotations
- State v. Copeland, 522 P.3d 909 (Or. Ct. App. 2022) — FindLaw (via Project Veritas)
Common questions
Yes. As a participant in the call, your consent satisfies Oregon’s one-party rule. Disclosure is still wise whenever the other party might be in an all-party consent state.
Courts have applied different states' laws to interstate calls, and you often can't verify where a mobile number is. The practical rule: assume the strictest state applies and disclose the recording.
In most states, continuing a call after a clear "this call may be recorded" announcement is treated as implied consent — the same mechanism customer-service lines rely on.
Both, depending on the medium. Phone calls: one-party under § 165.540(1)(a). In-person audio conversations: all-party notice under § 165.540(1)(c). You must inform every participant before recording face-to-face audio.
Yes. Oregon is one-party consent for telephone and electronic communications. Your own participation is sufficient consent.
No. § 165.540(1)(c) requires that all participants be specifically informed before audio is obtained. Project Veritas v. Schmidt (9th Cir. 2025, en banc) upheld this rule against a First Amendment challenge.
The conversational privacy statute targets audio obtained from in-person conversations. Video-only recording in public places without capturing protected audio is generally outside § 165.540(1)(c).
Generally no. Or. Rev. Stat. § 41.910 excludes evidence obtained in violation of § 165.540, with narrow exceptions.
All participants must be specifically informed — a clear verbal announcement before recording begins, or conspicuous signage in settings where employees are actually aware of it. Late notice does not legalize audio captured before disclosure (State v. Cooney).
Record responsibly in Oregon, automatically.
Built-in disclosure · automatic transcripts and summaries · 200 minutes included
Get Callmark