Oregon’s conversational privacy statute – ORS § 165.540 – contains several provisions. Section (1)(c) applies to in-person conversations. This provision requires all participants be informed that their conversation is being recorded. 

There is a separate provision in the statute that applies to telephone and radio communications to which the person is not a participant. For these communications, the statute requires at least one participant to consent to the recording. ORS § 165.540(1)(a). (If one party to a telephone conversation is recording it, that is deemed sufficient regardless of whether the other parties to the conversation are aware that it is being recorded.)

It is important to note that Oregon’s statute contains several exclusions. Many of these relate to law enforcement but not all. 

A lawsuit was brought by Project Veritas, a nonprofit media organization that engages in undercover journalism. Oregon’s statute prevented Project Veritas from conducting undercover investigations in Oregon (that involved recording in-person conversations without the interviewee’s knowledge). 

In mid-January, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Oregon’s conversational privacy statute en banc after it was previously thrown out by a divided three-judge panel. 

As a result of this ruling, Oregon’s conversational privacy statute remains in effect for the time being, meaning that notice must be given before verbal conversations can be recorded in-person. However, this rule may change once again if the United States Supreme Court decides to hear the appeal.