To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
California Penal Code Section 632.7, part of California s Invasion of Privacy Act, prohibits the recording of a communication between a cellular or cordless telephone and another telephone without the consent of all parties.
Previously, a California Court of Appeal interpreted the statute as only applying to third-party eavesdroppers and not the actual parties to the call. However, in
Smith v. LoanMe, the California Supreme Court reversed that decision and held that Section 632.7 applies to both parties and nonparties. This decision confirms that all businesses that record calls with California customers could be vulnerable to claims under the statute unless they obtain the consent of the called customer.
California Supreme Court Increases Privacy Protections For Covered Cellular Communications - Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
mondaq.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from mondaq.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Key Points
The California Supreme Court overturned the California Court of Appeals to hold that a party to a phone call can violate California Penal Code section 632.7 by recording the conversation without the consent of the other party.
The Court emphasized California’s public policy of protecting privacy in communications, closing the gap between the protections attached to landline communications and those afforded to calls involving a cellular or cordless telephone.
Companies must continue advising their customers that calls are being recorded at the outset of all calls.
On April 1, 2021, the California Supreme Court ruled that California Penal Code section 632.7 prohibits both parties to a communication and nonparties, such as an individual who covertly intercepts and eavesdrops on a phone call, from recording a communication without the consent of all participants. In so holding, the Court increased the privacy protections for covered communications and aligned the protec
(Pixabay image via Courthouse News)
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) California’s prohibition on secretly recording phone calls applies to both parties on the call and not just third-party eavesdroppers, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday
The court’s unanimous decision reverses the Fourth Appellate District’s opposite interpretation from 2019 that the law applies only to nonparties and does not forbid those on the call from recording each other without consent.
California’s penal code Section 632.7 makes it a crime to record or intercept a phone call “without the consent of all parties.”
This was the basis for a 2016 lawsuit by Jeremiah Smith, who claimed the loan provider LoanMe Inc. recorded him without his consent during an 18-second call in violation of Section 632.7.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Calif. High Court Says All Recorded Cell Calls Need Consent
Law360 (April 1, 2021, 10:49 PM EDT) Both parties and nonparties must get consent from everyone on a cellular or wireless phone call before making a recording, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday, reversing an appellate court s finding that only third-party eavesdroppers must get consent.
The unanimous decision, penned by Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, agreed with plaintiff Jeremiah Smith that Section 632.7 of the California Penal Code requires all participants on a phone call to consent to a recording, overturning a 2019 ruling from the Fourth Appellate District. This interpretation reflects the most sensible reading of the statutory text, is consistent with the relevant legislative history, and.
vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.