A call recording lawsuit was filed by a man on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated on June 11, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

The call recording lawsuit was filed against Cox Communications, the telecommunications company. The class action lawsuit accuses the company of violating California call recording laws, including violations of the California penal code.

Plaintiff Gordon S. of San Diego County files the call recording lawsuit. He accuses the company of “secretly recording” telephone conversations with consumers.

Gordon claims that he spoke with a representative of the company on June 21, 2017 regarding his email account. He says that at no point during the conversation did he give explicit permission for call recording to occur. He says that, in fact, significant time had passed during the telephone conversation before the representative informed him that the call was being recorded.

Allegations being filed in the call recording lawsuit include Cox Communications unlawfully recording or monitoring the telephone conversation without obtaining consent of all parties involved. Due to these alleged violations, Gordon requests a jury trial. He also requests statutory damages of $5,000 per violation, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, special damages, prejudgment interest, and other relief as the court deems necessary.

Overview: Call Recording Lawsuit

Several companies are under investigation for potential violations of consumer privacy rights through unlawful call recording acts. Some of these companies, in addition to the allegations being brought against Cox Communications, include:

• American Airlines: Lost Baggage, Cancelled Flight, Emergency Information Numbers
• British Airways
• Cannondale Bicycle Corporation
• Czech Airlines
• Dermalogica
• Fisher & Paykel
• Harman Audio
• Hunter Boots
• JBL Audio
• Malaysia Airlines
• Romano’s Macaroni Grill
• Tupperware

The California wiretapping law, Cal. Penal Code 632, is a “two-party consent law” explicitly requiring consent for all parties involved in a call.  Any violations of the California Invasion Privacy Act may lead to damages of $5,000 per violation or three times the amount worth of damages sustained, whichever is greater. The failure to receive an individual’s or party’s consent to telephone call recording can be construed as a violation of the California Invasion Privacy Act.

According to California’s Constitution, consumer privacy is an alienable right. Phone call recording laws in California offer protection and makes it illegal for businesses and companies to record consumer telephone calls without a consumer’s consent and agreement.

This consent is why it is often the case that prior to a telephone conversation occurs when a consumer calls a business or company a warning announcement is made advising of a possible call recording. Often, a company will want to record a call to offer quality assurance purposes and to train new employees and/or improve customer service. Additionally, consent is required for the employee who works for the company and is included in the call recording.

If you are a resident for the state of California and failed to receive a warning announcement advising of a call recording your rights may have been violated, entitling you to damages and compensation.

The Call Recording Lawsuit is Case No. 3:18-cv-01227-L-BLM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.