Recording Law for Voiceprints & Biometric Data in Oregon

Oregon bars obtaining any part of an in-person conversation by device unless every participant is specifically informed the recording is happening. This is a strict all-party notice rule, not a test of whether people had a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy.’ The law applies regardless of location — whether the conversation takes place in a café, a park, or on a sidewalk — and there is no general public-place exception. The only clear exceptions are narrow, enumerated categories such as public hearings, classes, or meetings where everyone knew or should have known they were being recorded. The operative term ‘conversation’ is defined in Oregon Revised Statutes 165.535(1) as ‘the transmission between two or more persons of an oral communication which is not a telecommunication or a radio communication, and includes a communication occurring through a video conferencing program,’ and the prohibition is set out at ORS 165.540(1)(c).

Oregon treats ordinary phone calls differently from video calls. A participant may record an ordinary phone call without telling the other person — one-party consent applies under ORS 165.540(1)(a). But video calls conducted through a video-conferencing program (Zoom, Teams, FaceTime) are treated like in-person conversations and require all-party notice under ORS 165.540(1)(c). A 2021 amendment moved video-conferencing calls out of the phone-call category and into the all-party-notice bucket by expressly including such communications in the definition of ‘conversation’ at ORS 165.535(1) and by excluding them from the definitions of ‘radio communication’ and ‘telecommunication’ at ORS 165.535(3)(b) and (4)(b). So if you’re recording a video call, you must tell everyone on the call before you start.

Oregon provides a special exception for recordings made inside a subscriber’s or family member’s own home. Under ORS 165.540(3), a subscriber to a telecommunication or radio service or a member of that subscriber’s family may record essentially any conversation or call they can access there — their own talk, a family member’s, or even a call between two other people — without notice or consent, and may also use the resulting recording. This is called the homeowner’s exception and is confirmed by three Oregon Court of Appeals decisions: State v. Evensen (298 Or App 294, 447 P3d 23 (2019)), State v. Rainey (294 Or App 284, 431 P3d 98 (2018)), and Checkley v. Boyd (198 Or App 110, 107 P3d 651 (2005)). The exception reaches all three prohibited-act categories — telecommunications/radio interception under ORS 165.540(1)(a), line-tampering under (1)(b), and in-person conversation recording under (1)(c) — and applies regardless of whether the wearer is a participant in the recorded exchange. But this exception only applies inside the wearer’s own home. If you’re a guest or visiting someone else’s home, the normal all-party notice rule applies.

Secretly recording an in-person conversation in Oregon is a Class A misdemeanor under ORS 165.540(9). The statute also bars using or disclosing a recording obtained in a manner prohibited by ORS 165.540(1)(c) under ORS 165.540(1)(e). There’s no private right to sue for these violations — enforcement is handled by the state under ORS 165.540(9).

You can openly record an on-duty police officer from a lawful vantage point if the recording is in plain view, audible to normal unaided hearing, and made from a place you may lawfully occupy, but secretly recording an officer is still a crime. The law specifically says secret recording of police does not qualify for the open-recording exception codified at ORS 165.540(5)(b) and remains a Class A misdemeanor under ORS 165.540(1)(c) and (9). Courts upheld this rule in 2025 after a legal challenge in Project Veritas v. Schmidt, No. 22-35271 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2025).

Oregon’s biometric privacy law, the Oregon Consumer Privacy Act (OCPA), treats voiceprints as sensitive data. Before capturing or processing a voiceprint, you must get the person’s opt-in consent under ORS 646A.578(2)(b). The law defines consent as an affirmative act that clearly and conspicuously shows the person freely agrees, and bars dark-pattern UI; inaction does not constitute consent under ORS 646A.570(6). You must also let people revoke consent as easily as they gave it and stop processing within 15 days under ORS 646A.578(1)(d). The law applies if you handle personal data of 100,000 or more Oregon consumers in a calendar year (excluding data solely for completing payment transactions) or personal data of 25,000 or more Oregon consumers while deriving 25% or more of gross revenue from selling personal data under ORS 646A.572. Nonprofit organizations had a delayed compliance date of July 1, 2025. Enforcement is handled by the Attorney General under ORS 646A.589, with civil penalties up to $7,500 per violation and a 5-year statute of limitations.

Say you’re wearing smart glasses at a café and want to record a conversation with a client. In Oregon, you must tell everyone at the table the talk is being recorded before you start, because the café is not one of the narrow, enumerated public or semipublic proceedings where recording is permitted without notice under ORS 165.540(6)(a) — such as public hearings, classes, or meetings where everyone knew or should have known they were being recorded, or private meetings or conferences where all others involved knew or reasonably should have known that the recording was being made. If you don’t, you’re breaking the law even though the conversation is loud and others nearby could overhear it. If someone later sues or the Attorney General investigates, the recording could be tossed out and you could face penalties.

Oregon’s wiretap statute includes several additional, non–privacy-conditioned exceptions beyond the homeowner’s exception and the on-duty-police rule. These include: recordings made to capture evidence of unlawful activity in coordination with law enforcement, an attorney, or a regulatory body under ORS 165.540(6)(b); felony-endangering-life recordings under ORS 165.540(5)(a); law-enforcement-facility or custodial interviews under ORS 133.400/133.402 via ORS 165.540(5)(c); uniformed officers’ body-worn and vehicle-mounted cameras under ORS 165.540(5)(d); taser-mounted recording devices under ORS 165.540(5)(e); telecom/radio company employees and jail/corrections officials acting in that capacity under ORS 165.540(2)(a); broadcast reception under ORS 165.540(4); amateur/citizens-band radio and public-safety radio interception under ORS 165.540(7)-(8); and the video-conference evidence exception at ORS 165.540(6)(b). None of these exceptions turn on a reasonable expectation of privacy; they are status-, location-, or purpose-based.