Oregon Job Seekers Face Ghost Job Listings With No State Disclosure Rule
Ghost jobs may represent one-fifth to one-third of online listings nationally, but Oregon does not require employers to disclose whether an advertised position is actually open.
Lawmakers Working To Reduce Fake US Job Listings
Job adverts for jobs that employers have either already filled or never intended to fill- so-called ‘ghost jobs’- can stay posted for months and usually sound too good to be true. Many job seekers see them as an attempt to get personal data, but recruiters said employers use ghost listings to remain visible, test advertisements, collect resumes, or appear to be growing.
The hiring platform Greenhouse says that roughly one in five listings advertised on online job boards per quarter are ghost jobs, and it’s getting worse. In a 2024 survey, about 81% of recruiters said that their employers had posted ghost job ads.
Source: Greenhouse analysis of job postings
Dailytidings.com
Greenhouse classified 18% to 22% of listings on its platform in any given quarter as ghost jobs. Three in five job seekers said they suspected they had encountered one. But New York lawmakers recently passed a bill requiring covered listings to disclose whether and when an employer expects to hire.
No Legislation in Pipeline to Combat Ghost Jobs in Oregon
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and California are considering proposals similar to the New York bill. But no Oregon bill specifically targeting ghost jobs surfaced in the 2025 or 2026 legislative records.
No Oregon-specific estimate of ghost job listings is publicly available. The closest recent proposal was HB 2746, which addressed disclosures in job advertisements.
| Requirement | Oregon HB 2746 | New York S8877 |
| Disclose current vacancy | No | Yes |
| Expected hiring date | No | Yes |
| Disclose resume collection only | No | Yes |
| Remove filled listing within 2 weeks | No | Yes |
| Main focus | Pay transparency | Ghost job transparency |
Sources: Oregon Legislature HB 2746 / New York Senate S8877
Dailytidings.com
It would have required employers to include wage and benefit information but didn’t require employers to confirm that a position was currently vacant, nor did it require a hiring date or expected hiring timeline.
The bill remained in committee and did not become law.