Eddie Bauer Continues to Face Claims in Call Recording Class Action

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.

Following a California judge’s ruling, 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.

Plaintiff Yevgeniya Granina has been seeking statutory damages of $5,000 for each phone call that she claims was illegally recorded by Eddie Bauer.

Among other prohibitions, the CIPA forbids recording a phone call without all parties’ consent when at least one party is using a cellular or cordless phone.

Attorneys for the defendant tried arguing that statutory damages under the CIPA are limited to a single $5,000 total for the entire claim.

A recent holding from a California appeals court said that statutory damages can apply on a per-violation basis only if the statute’s language specifically provides for that type of application. Eddie Bauer argued that the language in the CIPA does not provide for per-violation application.

Granina’s attorney countered that the CIPA clearly provides for per-violation damage awards. He also argued against Eddie Bauer’s request to send the question to an appeals court for resolution, saying there is no difference among existing appeals court decisions on the issue.

Superior Court Judge Lisa Hart Cole denied Eddie Bauer’s motion to strike the request for damages, though not without reservations.

Judge Cole expressed dissatisfaction with the way the law is written, and she commented that the few existing appeals court opinions that address this issue were unhelpful.

The judge ultimately determined that the law as written did not allow her to strike the damage request, however. In denying Eddie Bauer’s motion, she expressed hope that the appeals court would take the issue up for resolution on appeal.

Originally filed in January 2015, Granina’s Eddie Bauer class action lawsuit alleged that the retailer had a companywide policy of recording incoming calls from prospective customers without giving the callers notice that their conversation was being recorded.

In her own calls to the retailer, Granina alleged she never had an opportunity to consent to the recording or to opt out because she didn’t realize the calls were being recorded.

The plaintiff says she exposed sensitive personal information like her address and her credit card number during these phone calls.

Granina had to refile her Eddie Bauer class action lawsuit after her first attempt was dismissed in December 2015.

Superior Court Judge Amy D. Hogue found that Granina had invoked a provision of the CIPA that forbade eavesdropping on calls by third parties.

Judge Hogue said that particular provision did not apply to one party’s recording of the conversation without another party’s consent, as Granina alleges Eddie Bauer had done.

Judge Hogue allowed Granina to revise her pleadings to invoke a different section of the CIPA, one that prohibits unconsented recording of and eavesdropping on phone conversations.

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