Oregon recording consent law for interviews: phone screens vs video calls

Oregon splits its recording rule by the type of communication. Under ORS 165.540, a person on a phone call may record it, but an in-person conversation or a video call may be recorded only if "all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained." Since 2021, Oregon's definition of conversation expressly includes "a communication occurring through a video conferencing program." For interviewers, that means a phone screen with an Oregon candidate is one-party, while a Zoom, Teams or Meet interview with the same candidate is not.

Check a specific call with the consent checker, which asks how the interview is held.

This page covers the two rules and where each one applies, the "specifically informed" standard, a private-meeting exception that matters for video calls, the penalties, cross-state calls, and a notice to read aloud.

Two rules in one statute

ORS 165.540(1) lists what a person may not do. Two paragraphs matter for interviews:

• Telecommunications, (1)(a). A person may not obtain "a telecommunication or a radio communication to which the person is not a participant," by any device, "unless consent is given by at least one participant." A participant needs no one else's consent. This is the one-party rule.
• Conversations, (1)(c). A person may not obtain "the whole or any part of a conversation" by any device "if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained." This applies to participants and outsiders alike.

Which rule applies depends on the definitions in ORS 165.535:

The video conferencing language came in with House Bill 2459, chapter 357 of Oregon Laws 2021, an act "relating to video conferencing" that amended both sections. Older guides that describe Oregon simply as "one-party for phone, all-party in person" miss it.

What "specifically informed" requires

The conversation rule is a notice rule. It does not say "consent"; it says every participant must be "specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained." Three practical consequences:

1. Specific means specific. A general line in a privacy policy, or "calls may be recorded," is a weak fit for a word that asks for specific information. Say that this conversation is being recorded or transcribed.
2. All participants means all. On a panel, every interviewer as well as the candidate must be informed.
3. Before, not after. The paragraph prohibits obtaining the conversation while not everyone is informed, so the notice comes first.

Two exceptions not to lean on

ORS 165.540(6)(a) says the conversation rule does not apply to people who record certain proceedings "if the person uses an unconcealed recording device or if the communications occur through a video conferencing program." One listed proceeding is "private meetings or conferences if all others involved knew or reasonably should have known that the recording was being made."

Read quickly, that could suggest a video interview is exempt whenever the platform shows a recording indicator. Do not build on that. The exception turns on what the candidate knew or should have known, which is a factual argument you would make after a complaint. Local capture on your own computer produces no platform indicator at all, so the candidate has nothing to have known from. Saying it out loud makes the exception unnecessary.

A second exception, ORS 165.540(3), says the prohibitions do not apply to "subscribers or members of their family who perform the acts prohibited in subsection (1) of this section in their homes." It reads as written for household phone lines. We found no authority applying it to a recruiter running business interviews from a home office, and it would do nothing about the law of the candidate's state, so do not treat working from home as an exemption.

How the rules apply to interview formats

Penalties and consequences

• Criminal. Under ORS 165.540(9), a violation of subsection (1) is a Class A misdemeanor. Under ORS 161.615 and 161.635, that carries up to 364 days in jail and a fine of up to $6,250.
• Use and disclosure. Paragraphs (1)(d) and (1)(e) separately prohibit obtaining a conversation from someone while knowing or having good reason to believe it was obtained unlawfully, and using or divulging an unlawfully obtained conversation.
• Evidence. Under ORS 41.910, the contents of a communication intercepted in violation of ORS 165.540 "shall not be admissible in any court of this state," except as evidence of the unlawful interception.

We did not find a civil damages provision in ORS 165.540 itself. That does not rule out a civil claim for invasion of privacy or other theories, which are outside this page.

What it means for recording or transcribing an interview

1. The format, not the candidate, sets the rule. The same Oregon candidate is one-party on the phone and all-informed on video. A policy written around "Oregon is one-party" fails on the first video interview.
2. Transcription counts. The statute prohibits obtaining "the whole or any part of a conversation" by any device, "whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise." Text is part of the conversation.
3. Bot-free capture needs words. Recording on your own machine removes the visible bot and the platform indicator, which is exactly why the spoken notice matters more. See recording a Zoom interview without a bot for the mechanics.
4. Candidates are covered too. A candidate in Oregon recording a video interview without telling the panel is in the same position under (1)(c).

Calls that cross the Oregon line

Oregon's neighbor to the north, Washington, requires all parties' consent for phone calls and private conversations, and California to the south requires all parties' consent for confidential communications and mobile calls. A recruiter in Portland calling a candidate in Vancouver, Washington is a phone-screen participant who may record under Oregon law, but the candidate is protected by Washington's stricter rule. Courts have applied an all-party state's law to calls recorded elsewhere, as California's Supreme Court did in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006). The general analysis is in recording calls across state lines, and the contrast with states that are one-party for every format is in one-party consent states.

A notice to read in Oregon

"Before we start, I want to let you know specifically that I'm
[recording / transcribing] this interview, so I have accurate notes
for the [role] position. Everyone on our side knows as well. It's
seen by [who] and deleted after [period]. If you'd rather I didn't,
say so and I'll switch it off and take notes by hand, with no effect
on your application. Are you OK with that?"

[Say it before capture starts, on video and in person.]

The line informs and asks, so it satisfies Oregon's notice rule and the consent states a call might also touch. More versions are in the interview recording consent script.

Checklist for Oregon interviews

1. Treat every video and in-person interview with an Oregon participant as all-informed.
2. Give the same notice on phone screens, so the habit does not depend on the format.
3. Inform every panel member, not just the candidate.
4. Do not rely on a platform indicator or the private-meeting exception.
5. Treat transcripts and AI notes the same as audio.
6. Date the policy and recheck it after each Oregon legislative session.

Oregon is one of three split states in the two-party consent states table, alongside Connecticut and Nevada.