HSBC Accused of Violating California Invasion of Privacy Act by Taping Calls

A woman claims HSBC Card Services Inc. and its affiliate HSBC Technology & Services violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act by recording her phone calls.

Even though Judge Earl H. Maas III of the Superior Court of San Diego County ruled for summary judgment in HSBC’s favor, the California Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Judge Joan K. Irion, Associate Judge Richard D. Huffman and Judge William Dato agreed to allow the complaint made by Dalia Rojas to go forward against HSBC.

Allegations of Violations of California Invasion of Privacy Act

Plaintiff Dalia Rojas says HSBC violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act in two ways: by recording her phone calls without her consent, and by recording a call while she was using a cell phone or cordless phone.

HSBC allegedly used an automated phone call recording program from March 23, 2009 through May 1, 2012 that effectively recorded all telephone calls made on HSBC lines. At least 317 phone calls with Dalia on the line were recorded, she claims. The calls were purportedly made by Dalia’s daughter, who works for HSBC, and by a friend who also worked there.

HSBC argues none of the calls made to Dalia Rojas had anything to do with HSBC business, and therefore, the calls were never purposefully recorded. HSBC says it allowed personal calls to be made on company telephones and warned employees that the calls could be recorded.

Even though HSBC said the calls to Dalia were never intentionally recorded, the company allegedly established a policy of recording all phone calls using the automated recording program. Dalia claims the company had to know it was recording the calls with Dalia because all outgoing calls made on company equipment were recorded.

In some states, the permission of only one person on the line is necessary for a call to be legally recorded. California is known as a “two-party consent state,” which means all parties on the line must know a call is being recorded and must give permission for that recording to occur. Any type of secret phone call recording is a violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

In Dalia’s case, all calls that originated from the HSBC area where her daughter worked were automatically recorded, according to this California call recording lawsuit.

HSBC initially sought the motion for summary judgment because the company claimed it did not intentionally record any of Dalia’s phone calls.  Dalia insists that HSBC did intentionally record her calls because all calls during that time period were recorded. Calls were not randomly recorded. Without discretion, all calls were recorded and the person on the other end of the line was unaware she was being recorded, allegedly in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The California Invasion of Privacy Act Lawsuit is Rojas v. HSBC Card Services, Inc., Case No. D071442 in the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One.

Join a FREE California Call Recording Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you live in California and you did not receive a warning when calling a toll-free number, your call may have been recorded in violation of California law, and you may be entitled to compensation. See if you qualify to file a California call recording class action lawsuit.

Join Now