Eddie Bauer Dodges Call Recording Class Action Lawsuit

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Last week, a Superior Court judge in California dismissed a potential class action lawsuit that was filed against Eddie Bauer accusing the company of illegally recording phone calls without notifying customers or obtaining consumer consent.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Amy D. Hogue said that the law referenced in the Eddie Bauer class action lawsuit only referred to the prohibition of uninvited third parties from eavesdropping cell phone calls or recording cell phone conversations, not between participants in the phone conversation.

Plaintiff Yevgeniya Granina filed the lawsuit in January
on behalf of herself and other Eddie Bauer customers and accused Eddie Bauer of violating California law when the company recorded incoming calls without giving notice or obtaining consent. Granina hoped to represent a Class of consumers who called the company on their cell phone, spoke to an Eddie Bauer representative and had the call recorded without their knowledge or consent.

Granina alleged that she called the company several times and disclosed sensitive information, including her name, address and credit card information. The original Eddie Bauer class action lawsuit asserted that Granina “did not give, and could not have given, consent for the telephone communications to be recorded because she was entirely unaware that defendants were engaged in that practice during the telephone communications.”

The proposed Eddie Bauer class action lawsuit sought an injunction as well as statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 for the alleged violation of Section 632.7 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). Judge Hogue ruled that the law did not provide relief if a consumer voluntarily provided consent to the call and a member of the conversation chooses to record it.

Judge Hogue explains, “A person may not be punished unless he or she engages in both the unconsented receipt and the intentional unconsented recording of a telephone call. Because speech is a voluntary process, it is difficult to imagine how someone talking to known party via wireless telephone could fail to consent to that party’s receipt of the communication.”

After the conclusion of oral arguments for the case in September, Judge Hogue said she was about to dismiss the class action lawsuit because the law cited in the claims, Section 632.7 of the CIPA, referred to recording by third parties, not participants in the conversation.

While Judge Hogue did not allow the lawsuit to continue as proposed, she did allow Granina leave to amend the Eddie Bauer class action lawsuit and bring it under section 632 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. This section differs in its focus and prohibits eavesdropping or recording telephonic communications without consent. Granina has 30 days to amend her claims under the new section.

A status conference has been set for the end of February to determine the next progression in the Eddie Bauer class action lawsuit.

Granina is represented by the Law Offices of Zev B. Zysman.

The Eddie Bauer Call Recording Class Action Lawsuit is Yevgeniya Granina v. Eddie Bauer LLC, Case No. BC569111, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

UPDATE: On Aug. 9, 2016, a California judge ruled that Eddie Bauer will continue to face a demand for thousands of dollars in statutory damages for each alleged violation of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act.

UPDATE 2: February 2018, the California Eddie Bauer call recording class action settlement is now open. Click here to file a claim.