Companies often monitor or record conversations between their employees and customers for training or quality control purposes. You’ve probably heard messages to this effect yourself. These announcements are meant to satisfy laws that prohibit monitoring or recording unless both parties to the call consent. Despite such precautions, however, companies sometimes run afoul of these laws and find themselves facing class action lawsuits alleging calls were recorded without the required notice.

States with “two-party consent” include California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington and the District of Columbia. A company may be subject to these laws even if it is located in a different state. The California Supreme Court, for example, ruled in 2006 that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that out-of-state caller is subject to California law and must have consent from all callers. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]