An Ohio debt collection company has been accused of illegal call recording in violation of California call recording laws.

Plaintiff Jason Sandford recently filed a class action lawsuit against McCarthy, Burgess, & Wolff Inc., accusing the debt collection company of illegal call recording.

In September 2018, Sandford says he called the debt collection company to establish a payment plan for a debt owed by his sister. He believes that his call was recorded without his consent and argues that the company regularly engages in illegal call recording.

Sandford accuses the debt collection company of “willfully employing and/or causing to be employed certain eavesdropping, recording and listening equipment in order to record, monitor or listen to the telephone conversations of Plaintiff without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff, in violation of California Penal Code”. He argues that the company likely implements a universal call recording policy and has therefore filed a class action lawsuit on the behalf of himself and others.

Privacy is highly valued and protected in the state of California, and the state’s constitution considers privacy to be an inalienable right. California’s Invasion of Privacy Act is one of the largest privacy laws protecting the state’s citizens and illegal call recording can be tried under the Act.

California’s Invasion of Privacy Act prohibits call recording without the consent of all involved parties. The law imposes liability on persons who “without the consent of all parties to a communication, intercepts or receives and intentionally records, or assists in the interception or reception and intentional recordation of, a communication”.

Some companies try to dodge illegal call recording allegations by claiming that the recording was done for training or customer service purposes. However, recording calls without consent is illegal in California regardless of whether or not the intent is malicious.

Sandford seeks to represent a Class of California consumers whose calls were monitored, recorded, or eavesdropped by McCarthy, Burgess, & Wolff Inc. within the past year. Sanford believes that the Class may include tens of thousands of Class Members due to the debt collection traffic that the defendant receives.

“Defendant did not inform Plaintiff or the other members of The Class at the outset of conversations that Defendant was recording the calls. Plaintiff and the other members of The Class had not consented to such recording,” the illegal call recording class action claims.

The illegal call recording class action lawsuit seeks statutory damages of $5,000 per violation, general damages, special damages, punitive damages, court cost, and attorneys’ fees.

Because of the steep penalties enforced by the California Invasion of Privacy Act, many companies may consider settling the lawsuit against them rather than risk paying a hefty verdict. Should McCarthy, Burgess, & Wolff choose to settle the illegal call recording class action against them, the payout would benefit both Sandford and the Class Members allegedly affected by the illegal call recording policies.

The Illegal Call Recording Class Action Lawsuit is Case No. 2:18-cv-08862 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.